Loading...
2003-04-15 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 15, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH LARRY RINGER RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 18, 2003: NONE February 25, 2003: NONE MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could I hear a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18 AND FEBRUARY 25, 2003, THTH Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 15 day of April, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 MODIFICATION PROSPECT SCHOOL AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 133 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. APPLICANT PROPOSES LANDSCAPING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-00, AV 54-00, SP 4-93, AV 34-02 TAX MAP NO. 82-3-1, 82-3-2 LOT SIZE: 4.17 ACRES LARRY GOUGE, DICK JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing required. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, George. MR. HILTON-Okay. As mentioned, this is a modification to a previously approved site plan, in order to allow landscaping that has actually been put on the berm on site, to remain. The landscaping that’s been planted is different than what was represented on the previous plan. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) It’s probably not feasible to have them take out what’s been planted, but, you know, any additional landscaping and screening that may be required, after, you know, hearing anything from the public or if the Board so chooses should be included, and just to mention, Planning Staff has heard no concerns from any of the surrounding property owners about the existing landscaping, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, the architect for the project, and Larry Gouge, the Executive Director of Prospect School, and Rob Holbrook, B & H Construction. Basically, back in June of 2000, we had appeared before the Planning Board for a site plan review, at which point we had received an approval. Some of the stipulations that were added as a part of that approval were the implementation of a berm at the rear of the property, the addition of a 150 trees in lieu of the 75 white pine that we had originally indicated on the site plan, and several other stipulations in reference to that berm at the back side. Part of the concern that had been voiced by the public that night was in reference to the wash of headlights from the drive that came around the total back side of the property, adjacent to the fence in the berm area, the capture of any infiltration for stormwater which might be sheeting across the property towards the rear section of that portion of the property as well. After the approval in June of 2000, we did the project and actually started construction. In September of 2000, I believe it was, we actually had the berm constructed on the back side of the property. The fence was installed at that point. What we were looking to try and do is provide barricades on the back side of the property, because we were excavating and constructing our new building on the front side. We were actually using that as part of the construction barricade on the back side. As a part of that plan to do the fence and the berm, the planting for that berm was planted at that point. The night of the Planning Board meeting, the stipulation had indicated plantings of either hemlock or arborvitae of three to four inch diameter. The stipulation was put on the site plan. The project was bid. The contractor and his subcontractor, in looking at it, provided planting that was three to four feet tall. Hemlock are commonly provided in heights, not caliper sizes. The information that we have submitted for the Planning Board review indicates the extent of the planting. We did plant the 150 trees. They were planted in the three to four foot height, and basically they’re roughly an inch and a half to two inch caliper tree. They currently are either at the fence height or just above the fence height, and the problem that we would have run into is if we had actually provided the trees in a three or four inch diameter caliper, the trees would have been, and you have a picture in there of, in fact, Mr. Holbrook standing by a three inch diameter caliper hemlock that’s roughly 12 feet tall, and it’s probably got a spread of eight to nine feet on it. There’s no way that we could have even provided the 150 hemlock on the top of the berm. They basically would have not had enough room to root. They would have been subject to wind damage and blow over. Based upon what is there, the condition of what is there, and it has been remarked by members of the public and other people that it does look nice. The trees have grown approximately one foot since they’ve been installed, and we would anticipate that each growing season we’re probably going to gain between eight to twelve inches of height in those hemlocks. They basically are spaced so that they can spread and also grow taller. What we’re looking for is basically a revision to the site plan that would allow us to leave the 150 hemlock that we currently have planted on the top of the berm. In regards to trying to add more planting, I don’t know if you had an opportunity to look at it, but the top of the berm is probably in the neighborhood of about three feet wide, and we currently have two rows of staggered hemlock going down through there. So there is no additional room on the top of the berm. We have other low planting planted on the front face of the berm toward the parking area, toward the building side of the berm. I’m not sure what else we could add to the berm to enhance the planting that’s on there and make it any taller. Our concern would be that if we try to provide something that’s taller, it will tend to blow over because it’s not stable on the berm. I know that during the site plan review, one of the concerns that the neighbors had was putting the planting on the back side of the fence. They preferred to see the fence. So that’s why all of the planting is on what would be the north or the west side of that fence. That’s basically where we are. I don’t know what else I can add, but I’d be certainly happy to answer any questions to anyone. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody have any questions? It seems like a no-brainer, really. MR. RINGER-It seems straightforward. The explanation is good. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-I did have a question. Part of your argument is that the site can’t accommodate taller trees because of the berm. Won’t these trees eventually become that tall anyway, and be subject to the same blow over conditions that you’re concerned about? MR. JONES-Well, they’ll become taller, but we can also maintain them, and it would be our intent to let them get it several feet above the back of the fence and then be able to keep them trimmed so that they spread horizontally, and they will. MR. MAC EWAN-Has snow storage been an issue with plantings this winter? MR. JONES-Well, there was some damage to the low plantings along the base of the berm because of some of the plowed snow, but with every snowfall it basically had to be removed from site. MR. STROUGH-No, but I think as far as the washout onto the neighbors, I think the berm took care of that, and the fence took care of that. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And I agree with your assessment on current conditions. MR. RINGER-It looked like they survived the winter pretty good, considering the winter that we had. MR. JONES-In talking to the subcontractor, he said it was an extremely difficult winter for hemlocks, and I think that the reason that these were protected were because they were on the north or west side of the fence, and they did have a lot of snow cover. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 PROSPECT SCHOOL, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 10-2000 Applicant / Property Owner: Prospect School Previous SEQR Agent: Richard E. Jones Associates Zone: SFR-1A MODIFICATION Location: 133 Aviation Road Applicant proposes modification to previously approved site plan. Applicant proposes landscaping different from what was previously approved. Cross Reference: AV 22-00, AV 54-00, SP 4-93, AV 34-02 Tax Map No. 82-3-1, 82-3-2 Lot size: 4.17 acres Public Hearing: Not required for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/17/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/11/03, and 4/15 Staff Notes 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) 4/2 Meeting Notice 3/31 Planning Office from R. E. Jones Associates: Photos of berm planting WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification, 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, 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for MODIFICATION is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. JONES-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2003 TYPE II NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: CEDAR HOLDING ASSOCIATES AGENT: GARRY ROBINSON, PE ZONE: 713 GLEN STREET, 302.6-1-10, 0.44 ACRES APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A 2,244 SQ. FT. DUNKIN DONUTS BUILDING AND SITE. RESTAURANT IN AN HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 98-2002 (12/18/02) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-4- 030 JON LAPPER, GARRY ROBINSON, & JERRY BURKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on February 25 was left open, and so we’ll be th hearing from people tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. HILTON-Okay. Based on when we last met, we have, where the Planning Board drafted a tabling resolution with a list of required items and the applicant has submitted additional information, including a lighting plan, which shows light levels that appear consistent with zoning requirements. However, we may need some clarification on the actual fixtures they’re using and whether or not they’re going to be horizontal and directing light to the ground. At the time of the writing of these notes, a stormwater management plan had not been received. Between then and now, we have received one, and I believe C.T. Male has some preliminary, or some comments on that. The applicant has also included a vehicle access plan, showing that access of the southern portion of this site should not be a problem. However, there still may be some concerns about the north end, if there’s vehicle stacking, getting a truck or vehicle around that. Again, consideration should be given to providing some kind of easement or language for future connection to the driveway to the south. Staff has contacted New York State DEC concerning work in and around the stream, and they don’t have any problem. There’s no need for an Article 15 permit. It’s not a DEC classified stream, and any outstanding or additional comments from C.T. Male should be addressed. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. To begin with, we submitted a new elevation drawing that was not the standard Dunkin Donuts. You had asked for something different. This shows cornice on top. The stonework at the bottom, the split block instead of the windows that were there, just a little bit softer look. This is closer to what they did in Saratoga, which is a pretty unique looking Dunkin Donuts. I mean, it’s still a Dunkin Donuts, but it’s considerably nicer than what was submitted. We had attempted to get a letter from C.T. Male for tonight addressing all the issues, but some of the stuff just went in late and so that wasn’t accomplished. They had seen the traffic numbers, in terms of the stacking, but what we didn’t have was the counts from other Dunkin Donuts that they own to verify that, which was just prepared and faxed to C.T. Male today. I don’t even know if you got a copy of that, but what that showed is that the number of spaces that exist before the first parking lot was sufficient, even based upon the Saratoga store, which does two and a half times the business of what the Glen Street store does. In terms of the stormwater, right now everything sheet flows onto Glen Street, and now it’s going to be put into a catch basin and brought underground into the DOT system on Glen Street. So there’s not much that’s done besides that. C.T. Male had a comment about the infiltration in the parking lot, and that’s just there to try and infiltrate something, but primarily it’s all going to go right into the system, the storm system on Glen Street, because the site is just primarily impervious because of the pre-existing condition. In the back we added that grassed area, after meeting with the Planning Board the first time, but that also is just to drain a little bit of the site and to infiltrate before it goes into the stream. We’ve submitted turning radius diagrams that showed that the truck can get around in the back, and C.T. Male confirmed that there’s room for the delivery truck to park on the south side and still have traffic bypass it, to get back out to Glen Street, and the applicant is agreeable to showing an easement along the side there, on the on the south side for a future connection if the site to the south is ever redeveloped and comes before this Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s start off with the biggest bang, and that’s the architectural review. I mean, you know, I wasn’t happy with the project because of the number of curb cuts. I’d like to see one. They requested two. Okay, and I could see some reason there. I’m not real happy with the stormwater situation here. I mean, it is going directly into Halfway Brook, but it’s not all Dunkin Donuts’ problem. I can deal with that. The size of the building, we asked them to reduce it. They said, no, we can’t. We have to have it this size, 52% increase over what’s currently there. Parking space limitations, stacking problems. The dumpster location. I mean, there’s a lot of things wrong with this, and I can bend, but when you come back with an 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) architectural plan, you know, that is pretty much the same as originally proposed, I’m not happy, especially when it was very clear that we asked you to submit an alternate architectural plan. MR. LAPPER-We really feel that that is an alternate plan. It may not go far enough for you, John. MR. STROUGH-Well, it didn’t for me, and we can see how the rest of the Board speaks to that. I was, and I showed you pictures of what’s been done with Dunkin Donuts and they’re radically different and radically nicer in my opinion, and I just re-read the Wolfe Road, you know, the colonial with the colonnades an everything else, a beautiful Dunkin Donuts down there. I mean, if Wolfe Road can get a beautiful Dunkin Donuts, why can’t we. So, you know, as far as the architectural style, what you’ve submitted, re-submitted, is unacceptable to me, talking as one Planning Board member. MR. LAPPER-If I can just respond to some of your general comments, this is certainly not the optimal site plan that you could have for a Dunkin Donuts, but we’ve got a less than a half acre size parcel that’s been there for probably 30 years, and what’s there now is just terrible. The applicants took over the site when the bought the franchise for the area, along with 14 others, and they want to improve it because they’re not happy with the way it is now, but if they, if, for example, they can’t get the drive through which they think, as we discussed last time, and the Board seemed to agree, that the drive through would reduce traffic because many people would just come in and out of the site quicker without having to park, it would probably reduce congestion, but if they can’t get that, for example, then it’s not worth them spending the money, and they can just wait until the lease ends and go find another site, you know, and this could be somebody’s sandwich shop or whatever that is just going to look this way. So we’re trying, with an admittedly difficult site, to make a lot of improvements. DOT was not happy with the current situation, that the water sheet flowing into Glen Street, but if we don’t come in and do something, it obviously can stay that way until the end of time. So, Garry, who for the record is now here, has tried to do what he can with an admittedly difficult site, and that doesn’t mean that what we’ve submitted to you is as far as we can go, or that we can’t make more changes, but it was certainly an attempt with the architecture as well to answer your concerns. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and, you know, what I said was, you know, if I saw some give and take, I would be easier to work with. MR. LAPPER-That really was an attempt, with the architecture, at give and take. Obviously not what you were looking for, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. No, it’s not, and so I can’t approve the project if that’s the way it stays, but there are some other things we need to address. C.T. Male made a note, in their April 9, 2003 letter to Mr. Round, that they were still concerned about the truck circulation. The drawing clearly shows that a delivery truck would have difficulty moving around a row of cars awaiting the drive through lane. Now, how do you care to address that? MR. ROBINSON-As Jon was saying, the site is a tough site. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. ROBINSON-Garry Robinson, consulting engineer. We’ve actually moved the building up five or six feet from where it’s located right now, and we’ve got a little more turning radius in the back of the building, and in order for the trucks to get through, not the daily delivery truck, which is like a 14 foot truck that comes through and provides things there every day, which is not a problem, but the one that comes through weekly and delivers like dry goods to them, paper plates and whatever. MR. STROUGH-Is that the one that comes on Wednesdays? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. ROBINSON-That’s right. Wednesdays around noon. That’s right. That one would, there’s no doubt, it would have to use the by-pass lane and the drive through lane to make that turn, and I think that’s, there’s really nothing else we can do to get that not to have to do that. There’s only so much room on the site, and it would need to take both those lanes. Now, what can be done is we can change the deliveries to times that are low periods for the drive through, and I think that noon on Wednesdays is fairly, you know, a low period as far as the drive through is concerned, and that is once a week, and our plan is, in fact I talked to Jim today, this afternoon, is that the truck would wait. It would come on the site. It would wait, if the drive through had somebody there, until it cleared, and then it would make its turn around the building, and it would sit on the side where we had it shown on our plan. I mean I think, when I talked to Jim today, certainly he had some concern about it, and I explained it to him, what we would do, and it is the best we can do, and I think he agrees with us there. It’s the best that we can do. MR. STROUGH-Did you talk to Auto Zone at all about getting additional properties or getting an easement to use part of their property to park trucks or something there, because your parking lots are basically attached. MR. LAPPER-No. We don’t think that the adjacent owner is going to, I mean, all those sites are pretty tight, that he’s going to want to. MR. STROUGH-Did you call him? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STROUGH-Did you ask? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STROUGH-So you don’t know. MR. LAPPER-No. Because we’re trying to handle it on this site, I mean, because if you ask someone to let you use their site, they’re going to charge you a lot for it. MR. STROUGH-Well, if you said that to me after you called them, they’re going to charge a lot of money, then I’d be understanding, but we don’t know that. Anyhow. MR. ROBINSON-One of the things, just on that. What happens now on this site, we’ve made that turning radius a little better. The trucks that come in now do the same thing that they would do in the future. They come around the back of that site and they take all of the lanes that are going through there. Which is about two lanes. It’s only slightly wider, but that’s an existing condition, too. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, and a lot of these things, and I agree with you, this is a tough site to work with, especially with a 52% increase in the size of the building. That’s what’s making everything really hard to work with, but you insist that you have to have a building that size, and I’m trying to say that, you know, if you came to us with a very dynamic architecture that Queensbury and your neighbors would be proud of, we could overlook some of these sins, at least I’m speaking for me, but we didn’t get that. MR. BURKE-Excuse me. My name is Jerry Burke, and I’m the owner of the Dunkin Donuts site. We did give you an architectural plan that is totally different than what we had proposed in the beginning, and we did go back to the corporation, okay, and if you look, historically, down that street, okay, there’s nothing colonial here, at all, and I believe you’re looking for something colonial? MR. STROUGH-I didn’t say colonial. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. BURKE-You mentioned Wolfe Road. MR. STROUGH-I said something, I said Wolfe Road, and I brought my pictures. Do we need to go through that again? And none of those were colonial. Just something attractive, something unique, and maybe. MR. BURKE-That building is extremely attractive. It’s extremely unique, and it’s an expensive building to build there. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I guess that’s a difference of opinion, and I’m finished for now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just go through my notes, Mr. Chairman, starting off with maybe a little bit random, but first of all I want to echo Mr. Strough’s concerns. I won’t get into that, since I think he covered it adequately. MR. MAC EWAN-Echoing his concerns relative to what? Just so we have it on the record. MR. VOLLARO-To the architecture. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s a need to identify the location. I’m going to talk about lighting for a minute, on the plan, S-1 and S-2 on the lighting plan, S-1 and S-2 on the lighting plan are the lights themselves. S-1 is 20,500 lumens and S-2 is 5900. It’s about a third of S-1. I’d like to know just where they are. It doesn’t tell you on the plan. Don’t even bother going to it. The plan doesn’t identify what lights are where. S-3 is obviously a wall pack. That’s understandable, but those other two should be at least noted on the plan as to, because you’ve given us lighting information, but you don’t tell us where on the plan those lights are, and it’s important to me to get some idea as to how the site is lit that way, even though I know that there’s lumens on the ground and there’s a siting plan. Now, taking a look at, I won’t go to the drawing since I’ve got the notes. If you want to we can open up the drawings. I feel it’s quite possible, if you get to the front passageway where people are going to be coming directly into the store, if you look at that, there’s definitely a possibility for auto overhang in there to impede the passage, I feel. Now widening the walk to eight feet, let’s say, I did just looking at it, with lengthening the parking space by one and a half feet, it would not block the entering or exiting of vehicles either. I mean, just widening up that front to about eight foot wouldn’t impede traffic either in the input or the output portion of it, exit or, and that’s something I would be looking for, a little wider walk. MR. LAPPER-Bob, the sidewalk in front of the store is what you’re talking about? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The one that goes directly into it. It’s pretty narrow right now. MR. LAPPER-That doesn’t sound like that’s a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is just a question. I see the same retaining wall shown on the previous drawing dated 10/14. Is there another retaining wall, or am I missing it? The only one that I see is the one down near employee parking. That is the retaining wall? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ROBINSON-That’s the only one. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only one. All right. Now, as far as the dumpster is concerned, I think the dumpster could move back, now since there’s a guardrail there now, you’ve got a 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) guardrail, and to move that dumpster back so this guy doesn’t have to practice backing in. I got the back in routine. I heard about that. We don’t need to have him going through parking maneuvers, I don’t think. Now, if you take a look at the vehicle access plan, the vehicle access plan clearly shows parking spaces one and four, one through four, actually, are inoperative in a twelve car queue. People can’t get out of them in a twelve car queue. MR. LAPPER-And we submitted counts that, we’re saying that there aren’t going to be 12 cars. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen that. Do we have that? MR. ROBINSON-I do have a copy of something that we sent to the Town and C.T. Male this afternoon. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Problem is I’d like to be able to have like five minutes to understand it, rather than just get it tonight so you can just give it to Mr. Hilton, and he’ll take care of getting it to us. MR. LAPPER-What they did, Bob, was take actual counts during seven to nine a.m. with the peak hours of three stores, South Glens Falls, which is similar, almost identical business to this, dollar amount, Saratoga, which is 2.4 times as much and Greenwich, which is also more. MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t ever expect a 12 car queue? You think that that’s probably way at the end of the spectrum at this point? MR. ROBINSON-Way at the end of the spectrum. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the questions I had, how do vehicles enter the rental building? I mean, how do they exit it? Getting in is one way. How do they get out? MR. LAPPER-The same way that Dunkin Donuts, I mean, what’s been happening is that they just go around the back of the building. MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to get into that same queue line? MR. LAPPER-Remember, there’s a passing lane. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So they’re going to be outside of that, that’s the same lane that truck may be parked in? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-At some period of time. That’s how they plan to get out of there? MR. ROBINSON-It’s not the same lane that the truck would be parked in. It’s a lane, if you look at the plan that we submitted with the vehicle widths on it. It shows that there’s enough space for three vehicles running through there. So with that truck parked there, there would be a center lane that somebody would be able to drive through. MR. LAPPER-The U-Rent All site certainly isn’t an optimum for their access, either, but that’s how the buildings layout, and their stuck with that, and they just recently rented it again, so they obviously are familiar with how it works and all they have is an easement. MR. VOLLARO-I see the queues going around, assume you don’t have a 12 car queue. Let’s get to vehicle access, the first one on the print. Assume you only have a nine car queue on this. This is, so that you know the drawing I’m looking at is this. If we only had a nine car queue, and they were all queued up, and this is a guardrail here. Right here. How does he get out. There’s no way for him to exit the building. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. ROBINSON-Are you saying that this is a guardrail? MR. VOLLARO-Right here. MR. ROBINSON-No, that’s just a stripe painted on the asphalt. MR. VOLLARO-Some place along here. MR. LAPPER-The only guardrail is along this little stream. MR. ROBINSON-Right. The guardrail is along the riprap bank, and that’s the only guardrail, but that’s a stripe that just indicates a difference between the drive through lane and the bypass lane. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. That’s the only guardrail is the one near the riprap? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, help me locate the inverts for the discharge to the proposed catch basin on Route 9. This is your reference drawing four of eight. MR. ROBINSON-If you look up. MR. VOLLARO-Am I on the right drawing, number four? MR. ROBINSON-Four of eight, yes. The actual street location, up by the street where that is. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the proposed ID on the catch basin? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. If you look just above it, it says rim 9788, invert, 9368. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have that on my drawing. MR. ROBINSON-Invert 90.18? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have that on this drawing. What’s the date of your drawing update? I’ve got 10/14. It came with the new plan. MR. ROBINSON-The last update is 4/12. This was a plan sheet that was submitted with the stormwater management plan. That would be the sheet that’s included with that report. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t see this. This is an update to four, is that what this is? MR. ROBINSON-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t look at that other drawing, then. I thought this was sufficient to describe the situation, but that’s okay. MR. ROBINSON-It does have the revised, some added elevations there, and it has the elevations of the inverts and piping and the like. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now we’re talking about the campers that are in tow, vehicles that have towed vehicles behind them, would not be able to park in these parking spaces. They would be eliminated from that, but I had a question on, like who polices that? Certainly not the staff in Dunkin Donuts isn’t going to run outside and say, hey, you can’t go in that space. The little I’ve been in Dunkin Donuts, that’s not how that staff operates. He would know that answer to that better than anybody else. Who’s going to make sure that nobody parks in a space like that? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. BURKE-First of all, what are we looking at? Are we looking at the site plan? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and any one of the parking spaces on your site plan. MR. BURKE-Okay. I thought he was looking at stormwater management. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. BURKE-Okay. Now you’re looking at the site plan. Our Saratoga Springs lot is much smaller than this lot. We do at least two and a half times the business. Okay. We have absolutely no problems with parking and we have no problems with stacking. People realize they can’t bring a trailer in. They don’t come in. We lose that business. We’re willing to do that. Unfortunately that’s part of it. If we can’t accommodate, you know, horse trailers to park in there and so on and so forth, and we just lose that customer. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s an answer. I mean, it’s an answer. I don’t know whether I’m happy with it, but it’s certainly an answer. MR. BURKE-Sir, if you go to Saratoga Springs, we have a saw tooth parking lot up the side. You can see it first hand for yourself. That’s exactly what happens. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m looking at the one on Glen Street right now. MR. BURKE-Well, if you look at the one on Glen Street, you’ll have to accept my answer because that’s the truth. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do we have all the records of applicable permits? Apparently there aren’t any. I guess the DEC permit is not required. I guess we’re not operating under any permit situation on this site. MR. ROBINSON-That’s right. Actually, I do have a letter from DEC that says that there’s no stream disturbance permit. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that letter, and I assumed that kind of wiped out everything to do with that. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, I want to take a look at just one thing here. How are we handling this permeability number here of 8.4%? Is that a variance? Is that covered in some variance do you know? MR. LAPPER-It was probably pre-existing zoning. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I have a note on here about pre-existing conditions. I just wanted to determine how we were covering that permeability number. MR. HILTON-I believe because there’s actually an increase in green space, they’re not, even though they may be above the permeability requirement, because there’s no increase in the nonconformity, there’s no variance required. MR. VOLLARO-It’s less nonconforming. MR. MAC EWAN-Say that again, George? MR. HILTON-They’re not increasing the nonconformity. They’re not adding more impervious surface, a greater amount of impervious surface. Therefore no variance is required. I mean, understandably, and obviously it’s above the requirements for the HC-Intensive zone. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-It’s well above. MR. HILTON-But there is no increase. They’re maintaining, and I think in this case actually decreasing the amount of impervious surface so a variance isn’t required. MR. LAPPER-Again, if this was a brand new site, it couldn’t be designed this way. You’d need a bigger site, but here we’re stuck with this site and just trying to make it better. MR. MAC EWAN-Define to me what a brand new site is, then what an old site is. To me this is a brand new site. Tearing down a building, you’re putting up a new building 50% larger. You’re revamping the whole parking lot and turning traffic flow through it, doing stormwater on it. To me this is a whole new site. MR. BURKE-This is a site that we inherited bought the stores in this area. Dunkin Donuts would not allow us to relocate this store, with a master franchise. That’s why we’re re-doing it. If it was our choice, we wouldn’t bother with it. We’d like to put it in a box and let it be. MR. RINGER-Craig, could we hear Mark’s comments on, I don’t understand, either. To me, we’ve always said if a building is torn down, it becomes a new. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m checking it out. Why don’t you go ahead and I’ll come back to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-That becomes confusing to me. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The other thing is we need a calculation on the four to one uniformity ratio, on lighting. I’m jumping around a little because that’s how my notes went down as I worked, okay. I’m just looking for that four to one uniformity ratio on lighting. You’ll have to get your average light level to do that. You’d have to calculate your average light level, to get your four to one ratio. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. What we did is we sent the information back to our lighting specialist. He prepared the new iso contour drawings. Put in some cut off plates on the fixtures so that they met the overflow light off this site, and he’s provided us data on all the lights and I believe all the information to meet it, and I know that you have a package of the lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I chime in here, relative to the lighting? Who did your plan for you, your lighting layout? MR. ROBINSON-Bob Van Wormer from, I don’t know, what do they call them, Lumen Power Sources, and I believe they do pretty much all of the Dunkin Donuts lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-The reason why I asked to chime in here, I’m curious, because your lighting plan looks to me more like a contour map. It’s not a typical grid pattern per lighting plan showing the highs and lows of the foot candles as they illuminate out, you know, from a particular light. MR. ROBINSON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-And what I’m also seeing on here, it looks like all the sconce lights that are on the building have been omitted off this lighting plan. Because I don’t see them shown up on here, unless they’re only half a foot candle, generated in one spot? MR. BURKE-Yes. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. ROBINSON-The sconce lights are small, and the lights just generating up and down. They’re like more of a decoration. MR. MAC EWAN-But if you look at your lighting plan, you’ve got half a foot candle right at the main door. Okay, but if you look at your elevation of your building, I think there was like, the front elevation you’ve got six sconces across the front of that building. They’ve got to put out more than half a foot candle. MR. ROBINSON-I don’t believe they’re putting out, they’re putting out light up and down, and they’re kind of washing their building. It’s an architectural thing. It’s not for lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but it should still show up on the lighting plan. Any light that’s on the site should show up on the lighting plan and show how many foot candles it puts out and where the flow’s going with it. As I said, this lighting plan is unusual. It’s not one like I’ve seen before. It’s usually a grid pattern straight across the site. Where this isn’t. This is a contour type thing. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. It’s an Iso foot candle drawing. That’s what it is. It’s like a topography plan, only with foot candles. All right. I don’t know if that helps. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my point. I don’t think it’s accurate. I think it’s missing some information. MR. ROBINSON-I agree. I don’t know that he has those wall lights on there, and I think that the reason he doesn’t is because those lights are aiming up and down. I know that I questioned on a couple of the iso foot candle drawings, and what he’s saying is that when you have shadows, the buildings in the way, and you have a couple of lights that are acting in concert with each other, you do get odd looking iso foot candle lines, just because of the way the lights interact with each other, and it’s computer generated. He just puts the light on the plan, and then the computer generates this, based on the information that they have for each light. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the basis is that there’s only one wall pack on that drawing, as I see it. Is that what you’re saying, Craig, is you only see one wall pack? MR. ROBINSON-There’s a wall pack on the back that actually shines away from the building to light up that walkway in the back. There are small lights that are located on the fronts and the sides of the building that are, all they do is they highlight the architecture of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s only three lights that I see. S-1 is a 20,500 lumens. S-2 is 5900, and S-3 is a wall pack. MR. ROBINSON-Right. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And those are the only three lights submitted with the lighting plan. MR. ROBINSON-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-And that corresponds to that drawing. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, it does. MR. VOLLARO-And what the Chairman is saying is that the elevation, the front elevation, is showing lights on the front of the building which don’t appear on the lighting plan. Is that a correct statement? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a correct statement. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. ROBINSON-Yes. That is true, and what I’m saying is I believe the reason he did not put those in is because the amount of light is so small and it’s directed at the architecture of the building, and it doesn’t have a large impact on the lighting levels on the site. Certainly no light goes off the site from those fixtures. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know that unless we see it on the lighting plan. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m jumping around, I know, but you know the vehicle access plan, you have the large truck parked there? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And right to the right side of that truck, to the passenger side, is a light. MR. ROBINSON-That’s right, there’s two lights. MR. VOLLARO-Can he get by that light with the size of his truck? It’s pretty high. How does he clear that? If you look at the drawing, it looks to me like if he goes forward he takes the light. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. The light is like a shoebox fixture. So it’s at the top of the pole level. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but how high is his truck? His truck is higher than the light. MR. ROBINSON-I don’t believe so. MR. VOLLARO-This light’s around 20 feet. Is that what you got? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. Those lights are 20 feet, plus a small pedestal. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when you take a look at the drawing, he looks like he could take that light without any trouble. I mean, that’s the way the drawing depicts him in the parked position. MR. MAC EWAN-Are those lights going to be mounted up on a concrete footing so to speak, like two feet above the ground, twenty inches above the ground, so that would make the light about 21, 22 feet? MR. ROBINSON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-A tractor trailer is typically 14 feet from top to bottom. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. The box of the trailer is not going to hit the light. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Craig, what you’re saying, you want to put it up above the 20 foot limit? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not saying that. I’m just asking them how they plan on installing it, and it’s going to be built up on a concrete base. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, that takes the pole up above, that takes the light up above the 20 foot level, however. You want to have the light 20 foot off the concrete, I think. That’s what the Code talks to. MR. MAC EWAN-Our Ordinance is 20 feet high, from the top of the light box? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILTON-The poles, the entire fixture is 20 feet. I mean, it’s 20 feet from the ground to the top of the pole. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have an answer for us? MR. SCHACHNER-I have a pretty poor answer, and that is because in my review of Article, this is governed by Article 13 of our new Zoning Ordinance, which is called Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots. I think we all agree we have, currently existing, a nonconforming structure. It’s nonconforming in a number of ways. It appears that the applicant did seek and gain variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a couple of necessary reliefs, but not the lot coverage issue. It’s easy to second guess or Monday morning quarterback our Zoning Administrator who’s not here. My understanding is that the plans have been essentially what the plans are now. There’s nothing new on this issue, the lot coverage issue, but our review, George’s and my review, of Article 13 right now, I am concerned that our Zoning Administrator may have failed to identify the need for this applicant to seek and gain a lot coverage Area Variance, in addition to the shoreline setback and travel corridor setback variances that have been sought and obtained from the ZBA. Craig Brown’s not here, our Zoning Administrator is not here to defend his position. I understand that he was aware of the plans. I understand that he was aware of the lot coverage issue, but, and I’m sorry to drag on as long as this, but Article 13 governs nonconforming uses, structures, and lots, and indicates a number of ways in which nonconforming structures, which is what this is, can be extended, enlarged, or replaced, but on its face, none of them seem to apply to this situation. So I guess what I’m saying is the Board’s raised a genuine issue in my mind, as Counsel, as to whether the applicant needs to seek a variance for lot coverage, as well as the other variances that have already been obtained. To close that loop, you’d want to have the opinion of the Zoning Administrator on that issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. My last comment is on the stormwater plan, the comments that C.T. Male made on that, and we got this a little bit late, and I haven’t had a chance to really look it over, as well I should have. The groundwater elevation, which should be determined and presented, was the thing that jumped out at me the most, because I’m usually pretty concerned about groundwater level when we do any of these stormwater management things, but I’ve seen a lot of, you know, holding depressions and all of that kind of stuff, with elevations at the bottom elevation which don’t match where the average stormwater level is. Sometimes I’ve seen stormwater above the level of the bottom of the depression. MR. ROBINSON-I did talk to Jim today about that. I don’t think he really understood exactly why we put the system in that we did. We had talked to Department of Transportation, met them in the field. They requested that we put in drywells on the site. We were proposing to put catch basins in and just run the stormwater out into their, they have a pretty large line, a 42 inch line out there, and they requested that we put in drywells so that any water that could perc into the soil would perc into the soil. One thing I can tell you is that 42 inch line is deeper than our drywell is, and I’m sure that that 42 inch line is dewatering the site down to that elevation. If the groundwater does get into the bottom of the, it doesn’t really matter to us. We’re designing our piping so that it’s going to take the flow that we have from our site out to that 42 inch line. MR. VOLLARO-So the use of a drywell is basically DOT’s request, is that what you’re saying? MR. ROBINSON-Yes, and Jim understood that, once I talked to him. He did understand that. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-I guess, you know, with all of the C.T. Male comments and all, I would be looking for them to eventually sign off on both their April 9 letter and their April 11 letter, so that we’ve got a signoff on that. I haven’t seen anything like that yet from them. MR. ROBINSON-And we do understand that. If you just, if we could continue on that letter there, the last comment was about the grass depression that was behind our employee parking, and I did, he just didn’t quite understand it. He did agree that the information is on the plan, and he didn’t have a problem with that. He understood where we were coming from with that. MR. VOLLARO-He was able to pick up spot elevations? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see spot elevations either. MR. ROBINSON-It was on that same stormwater plan that was in the back of your stormwater report. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s on there. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Mr. Chairman, I’m finished with my review. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, just keep up the communication with C.T. Male and Jim Houston, and then I’ll feel better, and if C.T. Male signs off on everything, I’ll feel good about it. I was, when I started reading the letter, before I looked at the drawings and stuff, I was making little comments going, good, awesome, this is great, and when I read number three, as far as the design goes, I wrote with a little smiley face, teacher coming out in me, but then when I looked at the drawings, I was disappointed. I understand that this is a very difficult site to build on, and maybe putting a typical box structure is the best thing to do. I do believe, you know, that what you’re saying is true, that it’s a very, it’s an expensive design, nothing cheap. Maybe the thing that, I hate to be too critical, and I certainly don’t know very much about architecture. The worst thing that happened to me was to tour Boston this past weekend with my son, who is an architect, and going through a lot of the projects, the buildings that they’ve been working on in the City of Boston, and how they’ve been able to put these unbelievable structures up in the worst places possible. So it can be done. Of course it’s expensive, and I understand that. I guess another thing that I can, I like the design. I’m not going to sit here and criticize the design. I guess the thing that bothers me the most are the colors. That one, two, one, two, what is it, red and green? MR. ROBINSON-No, that’s orange and maroon. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Orange and maroon, yes. Well, what can you do about that? That’s, you know, your colors, and that’s the logo, and that’s the way it is has to go. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t have to go that way. Just for the record. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, but if that, all right, but, you know, it’s like Queensbury High School has blue and gold, and, you know, they’re going to keep their colors. One of the things that I just wanted to make for the record is, whatever John said regarding the word “colonial” or whatever on Glen Street, granted, there’s not, there’s some buildings on Glen Street that I wouldn’t say are the most pleasing to the eye, but what we’re trying to do here is that when we do get new builds, that we have to start some place, and that’s why John brought it up, Bob echoed him, and I’m going to concur, too, with that sentiment, but that’s where I’m going to leave it right now. Thank you. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I guess I’m going to stand alone on the design. I think it fits our Code and fits in with the surrounding area and your new design is an improvement and I like it better. So I don’t have any difficulty with that. I do feel that we’re trying to put 10 pounds of something into a 5 pound bag, and I do have some problems with that. I realize you may have inherited it, but that doesn’t help us, and you know, I’m really struggling with approving it because I think it might be just too big for what we’ve got here, and the only other thing I would need to make sure that we do get a signoff from Male and then I’d have to consider my feelings on it, if it was just too big for the area. The design I don’t have any difficulty at all with. MR. LAPPER-I guess, just in terms of the size, we expect that we will have a signoff from Male shortly. Unfortunately, some of the engineering information just got in recently because Garry was on vacation, but, be that as it may, the site plan is proposing more parking than what’s there now, more green space than what’s there now, and the building is really outmoded, and it’s a terrible looking building. It’s terrible to operate. It’s just not anywhere you’d want to go. MR. RINGER-Jon, I agree with everything that you’re saying, but two wrongs don’t make a right. By approving something that’s there is not really good, but by putting something there that’s perhaps better than what’s there now still doesn’t necessarily make it good, and that’s what I’m struggling with. I’m not saying I’m going to deny it, but I’m really struggling with this thing. MR. LAPPER-Well, we understand this is not a simple one, but we also are limited by the amount of land that’s available, and the applicant believes that having a drive through is really going to make the site work more efficiently. MR. RINGER-I don’t disagree with any of that. It’s just that we’ve got a small site, and if it even should be there, that’s what I’m struggling with. I don’t have anything other than that, but I wanted to let you know what I was dealing with there, Jon. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I want to sort of echo some of Larry’s comments. I think we all appreciate how difficult the site is. If you were to start from scratch, you would obviously pick a larger site, and I appreciate your comments about there being more parking and more green space than there currently is. I guess some of the issues, you know, I wasn’t here at the last meeting, and I apologize for that. So I wasn’t part of some of the discussion about building design and such, but, to me, I think some of the issues are really more of a pragmatic nature. I mean, we talk about queuing in the drive in lane. Well, if the line’s too long at the drive in, people are just going to drive by. They’re not going to get in line and put their car out on Route 9 to go to Dunkin Donuts. They’re just going to go somewhere else. MR. LAPPER-That would be a real issue, but Route 9’s not even a question, because stacking is really more than adequate for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, it’s not an engineering comment. It’s just my personal feeling. You’re not going to sit and wait in line for 10 minutes. You’re just going to drive by, if you see it crowded or too busy, but I’m struggling a little bit with, the building design certainly is a huge improvement over what is currently there. I guess I might tend to side with Larry more than some of the other members and reluctantly go along with it. I wish they could do something with orange and maroon awnings. MR. LAPPER-This is a much improved design from what was approved by this Board for the Exit 18 store. Garry did a plan. I don’t think we showed you, but just in terms of where, they’re using the split block, the cornice on top. There are a lot of upgrades from what was approved. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you know, and I think some of those small changes, like the cornice along the top, will be fairly dramatic on the finished product. I think they’ll be certainly noticeable and have an impact, and, you know, to go along with what John started earlier, you know, every time we get a new application we try to make it much better than what’s there now, and so the question is, does it go quite far enough, and I think that’s kind of where we’re all struggling with, but I didn’t have anything else to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes, no, I have nothing really to add, other than I guess I should weigh in on my position, which is pretty much I agree with Mr. Strough’s assessment. I would summarize it this way, though. I think we’re trying to work with you to try to deal with a less than optimal site, but we would also like to see the applicant work with us in terms of design, and to improve it, and I agree with Cathy, in that you have to start somewhere, and just because that Route 9 isn’t the most pleasing, doesn’t mean that we have to perpetuate that as we have new construction, and I do appreciate some of the enrichments, but basically, until you pointed them out, I had a hard time seeing them. So it looked pretty much like the same thing, although I do see where you put a couple of appointments in there that weren’t in there before. So I would encourage a little more work in terms of coming up with a more pleasing design, but I’m very willing to work with you on the limitations of the site, and I think, recalling the first meeting, there were a number of constraints that you put into the equation. You wanted to have all the products that you have at the other stores. You didn’t want to compromise the size of the building, and I can appreciate that, on the one hand. On the other hand, it’s less than a half an acre lot, and I think that I’d like to see you work with us on the design. Going back to your other comment that you made, Jonathan, and I don’t know if it was a logical type of an argument that you were making about, well, this will be an improvement, and if it’s not approved, then perhaps the old building will ultimately become a sandwich shop, and then that won’t be an improvement, but, you know, maybe, given the constraints of the size of the lot, that might be a more appropriate use, given the traffic and other types of studies, and so I think that, if you’re willing to work with us, I think you’ll find that the Board is willing to work with you, but we have some distance to go. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I very much appreciate those comments. I mean, we’re here. We made a bunch of changes since the last time we were here, so certainly we’re trying to work with you. I think the applicant was hopeful that the architecture would be more appreciated, and I guess, before we go off with a list of issues to contemplate, I guess I’d just like, for the record, for Garry to just go over the changes, so that everyone understands it, he did this Board, that shows what the standard one that was presented last time, and the one with the block now, and I think it would just be good for Garry to quickly go through this. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we could get you, Garry, to put that right up there on the easel so the public could see it as well, and you could speak from over there. MR. ROBINSON-What we have on this plan is the building that we showed you last time that we were here, that was in South Glens Falls. It’s in the color photos, the same photos that we had last time when we were at the meeting. This is the new design that we had, Jerry has an architect that put together some changes for this site, and some of them that, I mean, to us they look like they’re major differences. I guess it’s all a matter of opinion, but, to start, the first item that was there is, we’ve added windows to the south side of the building, in the South Glens Falls store, just had two windows in the front, and just trying to make most of it just insulated wall, and we added two windows there. The second item that we talked about is in the standard design there’s metal panels that are located beneath the windows and also in the front entry way. They would be located under each of these windows, and then on the side lights for the main door, and then underneath two new windows, and also on the sides. There’s windows on the sides of these buildings, and what we’ve done is instead of those metal panels, we’ve put in some split faced block that actually runs around the entire building, even across the back, and, to us, it’s a big difference. It’s a big change. It looks a lot nicer. If you’ve seen that metal façade on the front, not too pleasing to me, but I think this split faced block looks 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) very nice. In the front, instead of having the windows grouped together, or like a mullion, what we did is we put a pier or a column that runs from the split faced block right up to the ceiling, to the decorative trim on the roof, and that runs on both sides of the building, kind of evens it off. On that column, where the column was, the columns that they’ve had before were just drivet that were just straight up. What we’ve done is we’ve put some relief on there, or some surfaces that cut across there that make it look a little more decorative. MR. BURKE-What we’ve done here is this is scribe block that comes out now, so it looks like an individual block, where before it was a straight surface. Okay. We’ve also enlarged our windows, so it gives it a greater appeal from the street and from inside. We’ve put a larger window in and took out a course of, well, over here it’s drivet, but over here it’s a block. We scribed it up to the top. We put a cornice on the top. We’ve done the split block. We’ve taken the panels out of the front. We’ve opened it up with the glass, and maybe to the Board it doesn’t seem like a lot, okay, but every time I go to an architect, I pay to have this done, and then I have to have the company sign off on it. Then I bring it here. You guys send it back. I go back to them. I mean, I can only really do so much, because the company has said, we’re not going to deviate, and also there was a new law passed recently that they have quoted to us that boards and municipalities are not allowed to change logo colors. Am I correct, Jon, there’s something that’s been brought up? And I’m trying to work with you. I mean, you know, you want an eight foot sidewalk, I’ll give you an. MR. MAC EWAN-And my only comment is when I hear some corporate company off in some other state who will never set foot in this Town say that we’re not going to deviate from that, that just kind of gets my ire up. MR. BURKE-Well, you know, it gets mine up, too, because I’ve gone back and forth with them, and I’m the one who’s paying on this site, and I’m trying to get it to where you want it to be, okay. I’m willing to do anything I can possibly do to do it. I mean, my hands, you know, I’m a franchisee. I’m not the franchisor. I wish I were, but I’m not. So I’m willing to work with you, but we’ve made a lot of changes to this building. Okay, and we’ve increased the green space, you know. If you want an eight foot sidewalk, we’ll give you an eight foot sidewalk. I mean, we put a 42 inch main down by the street. We’re doing everything that we can possibly do to get this approved. MR. MAC EWAN-What was your comment relative to the colors, and you said the company didn’t want to do what with the colors? MR. BURKE-The company sent around a letter, recently, stating that the logo colors, some case was passed in Supreme Court where you’re allowed to keep a logo color. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think anybody’s got a real issue with the sign or the Dunkin Donuts sign, or whether it be a Hess sign or Lowe’s or what have you, but I’m looking at a photograph of your Saratoga store, right there. It’s leaps and bounds ahead of that thing right there. My opinion, and I’ll chime in because everyone else has, I could probably live with that architectural design, if you got rid of all the façade on there that was the multi-colors. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. BURKE-Talk to me about multi-colors and tell me what you’re looking for. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you’ve got your, over the windows on this new design you’ve got your one, two; one, two; one, two which is your purple and orange. MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You get rid of those, you might have me sold on that. MR. BURKE-You’ve got it. What color do you want? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Why do we even need an awning? MR. BURKE-We’ve got to have it. Because of the overhang with the windows, we wouldn’t be able to keep our windows clean. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I’m not the one making the decision here. I mean, this is seven of us up here. MR. BURKE-No, I’m just saying, do you want a maroon awning? I’ll give you, I mean, there’s certain things that I can do. Certain things that I can’t do. I mean, I have gone back to the company time and time again and said, listen, I call it Exit 19. I said Exit 19 will stay Exit 19, I said, if this Board says no, the Board says no. There’s nothing I can do about it. MR. STROUGH-Well, now the one on Wolfe Road which just opened, I believe, last month. MR. BURKE-No. MR. STROUGH-March? MR. BURKE-No. MR. STROUGH-Was it March of last year? MR. BURKE-It’s been open 22 years, and they just re-did it. MR. STROUGH-But, I mean, it just re-opened under a new format, right? And that was March? MR. BURKE-The same format, exactly, inside. They just changed the exterior of the building. MR. STROUGH-And it was colonial. MR. BURKE-I call it a colonial image, yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and there was a lot of hoopla about that, and there was some newspaper articles about how nice it looked and everything else. MR. BURKE-They have the funny color awnings all around the building. MR. STROUGH-I wish I had a picture of it, and I wish I had a chance to get down to Wolfe Road. MR. BURKE-You had a picture of it last time we were here. MR. STROUGH-Not the Wolfe Road one. MR. BURKE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And I would like to see that, but what did the corporate headquarters say about that one? MR. BURKE-I couldn’t tell you. I don’t sit on the corporate board. I sit on my own board. MR. STROUGH-Obviously they approved it. MR. BURKE-Obviously they did, but I have gone back to them, okay, and they didn’t approve it here, and I’ve built other stores. I’m building a store right now as we speak, in Colonie, okay, a 6,000 square foot building, and it’s this, right here, in the Town of Colonie, and I was nine 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) months in the approval process, and I just went back with the same plan, and said they won’t approve it, and they didn’t approve it. I don’t want to wait nine months. I don’t want to wait ten months. I don’t want to come back and forth and, you know, you get angina and I get angina because we’re looking at this thing. I’m willing to work with you. You tell me you want eight foot sidewalks, I’ll give them to you. You want maroon awnings, I’ll give them to you. With what I can do, I’m willing to do. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the color scheme of the block that you’re going to use on this? What are the colors that you’re using? MR. BURKE-It would be a gray, split faced block. This would be gray, and this would be tan. I’m not going to put any, you know, magenta or anything like that. That’s why we took this off the building. You didn’t like it. So I said we’ll put a gray, split faced block on the bottom. I mean, that block, you know, it doesn’t look a lot, but it looks beautiful when you see it. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know the gray block, and it’s the same gray block that is on Main Street. MR. BURKE-No. I’m going to use a smaller split faced block. I’m not going to use, you want, I’ll let you pick the color of the block. As long as it’s a gray color. I have no problem. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now we’re getting some place. MR. BURKE-But I’m being honest with you. I don’t have a problem. Gray block is gray block to me, you know. You want it with a sparkle. You want it with a little shine. I don’t care. I just want to build it. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to get too deep in this here tonight on that. I just want to give him some guidance what we’re looking for. MR. BURKE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other issues? MR. VOLLARO-I just want to get this permeability thing, this 8.4 cleared up in my own mind. I think it goes along with Mark’s statement on whether this is new or not new or whatever. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’re going to need to get a determination from the Zoning Administrator. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly what I recommend. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. MR. LAPPER-I guess from our perspective, I wasn’t involved with the first meeting, the pre- application meeting with Staff, but according to Garry, that was discussed with Craig, and Craig made the determination that it wasn’t necessary. I mean, he gave us the list of variances that were necessary, and they were all obtained from the Zoning Board, and he said that because the permeability was going to be better rather than worse, that a variance wasn’t needed. Obviously, Mark’s reading the Code and disagreeing. So I guess we’re going to have to go back and talk to Craig. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’m questioning. In fairness, I’m not disagreeing. I’m questioning. The Board, you know, and none of the Board members nor I were obviously at the meeting either, nor were you. Article 13 talks about pre-existing, nonconforming uses. One of the Board’s concerns here, as I understand it, and I think your concern is an appropriate concern, is that this is not necessarily a continuation of a pre-existing, nonconforming use. Once you’re removing the pre-existing, nonconforming use, I heard at least one or two Board members 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) question whether that means that we have to look at this as a new site, and I think that it’s important the Zoning Administrator weigh in on that issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Just for clarification, it’s not the pre-existing use, it’s the building that you’re talking about. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Yes. There’s no dispute about the right to continue this use. It’s this area we’re talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? I left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN DOTY MR. DOTY-I’m John Doty. I own the U-Rent All property, and also the property where the computer store is next door. I’m not arguing with the need for replacing the store, and I don’t have any real difficulty with their architecture. I think it would definitely be an improvement. However, I have not seen any traffic study of the Glen Street location. All I’ve heard about is South Glens Falls and Saratoga. Count at U-Rent All in a busy summer day is about 80 transactions a day. A lot of these are trucks towing trailers. They’re talking about a semi-trailer making a delivery for Dunkin Donuts. Once or twice a week we used to see semi-trailers at U- Rent All. No schedule time freight delivery. They don’t tell you when they’re coming. UPS truck, Federal Express truck, big trucks. Not things that are going to make it through that, are going to wait for people to move out of that queuing lane. I see that as a problem. I heard people talk about give and take. I did call the Dunkin Donuts people. I suggested two options, one that we could probably work something out for employee parking back on the U-Rent All lot, but we needed something for that, and I wasn’t looking for money. I was looking for some change to the plan so we had access, and parking for other people. I heard the word, somebody say more parking than there is now. I think you saw my letter from the last meeting where I delineated the parking that is used in addition to the present parking spaces. That’s all eliminated. Cars with trailers, all the time to U-Rent All. Tourists don’t know you can’t park at Dunkin Donuts. They pull in there all the time. In the summer not unusual to see a motor home pull in a car or a trailer try to pull in there and then try to get out of there. They end up having to pull way back in my lot and turn around and go out the entrance because they can’t make it out the exit. So we’re talking about difficulties now, without a queue of cars waiting in the line. What’s going to happen with a queue of cars? Time of day, I have a note here, well, okay I hope they’re trying to increase their business including lunch time, not just first thing in the morning, seven to nine in the morning. So, an increase in business would increase traffic. Groundwater depth. There haven’t been any test borings done? I know from my experience, when I put an addition up, a couple of septic systems in that it was usually under three feet. We had to put a six foot mound in the back. You can probably check the records for the septic system for Dunkin Donuts and ourselves here a number of years back, because groundwater was too high. So, you know, there’s a few things here that just came up during the meeting this evening. Is there anything I can answer for anybody? I’ve been there a lot of years. So I do have some idea what goes on there. MR. STROUGH-Well, could you go over for me again, what was your offer to Dunkin Donuts, as far as mutually sharing some of your space for their parking? And vice versa? MR. DOTY-Yes. As you probably realize, there’s lots of parking back behind U-Rent All, and in fact with the previous franchisee, we had an agreement where his people could park, would park back in our lot, just so there would be more parking out front. MR. STROUGH-And what was their response to that? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. DOTY-I heard that he was going to call me back about two weeks ago. I did not hear a thing from him. MR. STROUGH-And you also mentioned in your letter that employee parking, in your opinion, sometimes generated as much as six or seven spaces, in your letter? MR. DOTY-Usually they’re individuals, and many times they’re individual cars. I’ve seen, I would say, at some times five employee cars there. MR. STROUGH-Five. MR. DOTY-You know, there’s seven or eight employees, but some of them do get dropped off by their parents, but we’ve had quite a line back in the U-Rent All property. Back in the days when they used to park back there. MR. STROUGH-Well, how do you feel about the architectural upgrade? MR. DOTY-From what I’ve seen, I don’t have a great deal of problem with the architecture of the building. I think it would be a great improvement. I’m not really happy with the architecture of my buildings. I would love to have the money to improve them. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. HILTON-I’d just like to clarify something before in your discussions, Bob, you were asking about some traffic projections, and we did hand this out. I just want to clarify. You’ve got it? You should. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got it here tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t had a chance to look through it, though. MR. HILTON-Okay. I just want to make sure you have it, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments? MR. LAPPER-I guess what we see as a list of issues is we’ve got to go back and talk to Craig about his determination that we feel he made, and in the worst case we’d have to go back to the Zoning Board, which would take two months, which would be unfortunate, but we’ll talk to Craig and we’ll address that. We understand that we have to finalize the engineering issues with C.T. Male, including the lighting plan. Moving the dumpster back is fine, and adding to the sidewalk is fine. We’ll take into account your comments on architecture and, you know, at a minimum change the awnings to a solid color maroon. MR. STROUGH-Could we get a, Mr. Chairman, if it’s okay, could we get a colored rendition of what it might look like? MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. STROUGH-And not the gray. Maybe a cream or something colored? The burgundy canopy sounds good. MR. BURKE-How about you give me an approval tonight, and I’ll have a color rendition for you tomorrow morning? I’ll stay up all night and do it. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-That would be putting the cart in front of the horse. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other issues from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just wanted to refer to Jon on the lighting. I want to make sure that you’ve got your four to one uniformity ratio included in your lighting plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Your lighting consultant, can he do a grid style? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Which we’re accustomed to seeing? MR. BURKE-Not a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and have them show all the lights on it? MR. BURKE-Not a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing I want to do is take five minutes and ask Bob and Cathy to pen a resolution to table. All right. We’ll take a five minute recess. Are you ready, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2003 NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: So they can address the following issues: 1. The front sidewalk be eight feet side. 2. The elevation of the pole be at 20 feet. 3. The Lighting Plan show S-1 and S-2 on the plan. 4. The dumpster will be moved back. 5. To communicate with Mr. Doty and the owners of Auto Zone on parking. 6. We would like a colored rendition drawing of the building. 7. The Lighting Plan be revised to a grid pattern and that should include all the lights. 8. The awnings be changed to all burgundy, and that no gray be on the building, but it would be cream colored, like the building in Saratoga. 9. That we get the opinion of the Zoning Administrator on impermeable and permeable space, is a variance needed. 10. Address John Doty’s comments on the problem or if there is a problem with trucks that go in there from other businesses. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Comment? MR. LAPPER-Just one comment. The trucks getting to U-Rent All, I mean, unfortunately they’re located behind Dunkin Donuts and they have to get by, but, I mean, he indicated the 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) trucks get through. That’s just something, they’re subject to the traffic that’s in front on Dunkin Donuts, and they have an access and they could go through on the other side of the blue building, because there is a curb cut that’s owned by the same owner. It’s just a more direct shot to go through Dunkin Donuts, and they have a deeded easement. So they have the right to do that, but there’s nothing we can say about that, other than that they are behind this building. MR. STROUGH-But what Mr. Doty seemed to say to me was that what he’s offering you, at no expense, certainly solves some of your problems. MR. LAPPER-If he wants to make a formal offer of parking in the back, that would be nice, but, I’m not sure, the discussion that my client had was that Mr. Doty wanted to sell one of his buildings for a lot of money, and that. MR. STROUGH-Well, you just heard him. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Okay. If he wants to make a written offer, that would be great. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll leave in Mr. Doty’s hands to do that. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Okay. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: HAYES & HAYES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.47 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 12 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2 LOT ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79 LOT SIZE: 8.47 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS JON LAPPER, MATT STEVES, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-2003, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Hayes & Hayes, Meeting Date: April 15, 2003 “Project Description: The applicant proposes the subdivision of an 8.47 +/- acre property into 12 single-family residential lots. The project also includes the construction of a cul-de-sac, which will provide vehicular access for the proposed lots. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The 12 proposed lots are shown fronting on an unnamed cul-de-sac off of Dixon Rd. Topography: Based on the grading shown on the applicant’s grading plan, the property appears to be relatively level . Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed homes will be connected to municipal water service and will have private septic systems for sanitary sewage removal. Drainage : The proposed plat shows drainage being directed to a series of drywells underneath the proposed road. CT Male will provide comments on drainage and stormwater management. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) Lot sizes: The proposed plat contains lots ranging in size from .46 acres to 1.63 acres, all of which meet the area requirements of the SFR-20 zone. Future development: The proposed plat shows one single-family home to be constructed per lot. State Environmental Quality Review Act : This project is an Unlisted action for SEQRA review purposes. A SEQRA long form EAF has been submitted. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A search of the parcel history indicates there was an administrative 2 lot residential subdivision approval, AD 5-2002, approved 11/27/02 for D. & E. Miller, Tax Map No.302.14-1-79 [9.16 acres into two lots of 8.47 +/- acres and 0.66 acres]. . Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide an 8.47 +/- property into 12 single-family lots. The property (zoned SFR-20) is located on the south side of Dixon Rd. just east of I-87. The lots are shown as fronting on an unnamed cul-de-sac off of Dixon Rd. The proposed cul-de-sac appears to meet the 1000-foot limit as listed in the Subdivision Regulations. Given the location of the property, just east of Interstate 87, the removal of vegetation that will take place as a result of the construction of the proposed homes may have an impact on noise levels for the proposed homes, as well as surrounding properties to the east. As part of the review of this subdivision Staff has reviewed NYSDOT’s Region One Interstate Noise Barrier Planning Study for any recommendations concerning noise impacts or suggested mitigation in this area of Queensbury. Although the NYSDOT study does seem to indicate that noise from I- 87 has some impact on the surrounding area, the study does not indicate a constructed noise barrier to be built in this area. In order to provide some noise mitigation for the proposed homes, as well as the neighboring properties, clearly defined clearing limits and maximum retention of existing vegetation on this property should be identified on the subdivision plat. Clearing limits are reflected on the applicant’s grading and drainage plan, however these limits may not be actual limits given the indicated locations of proposed homes, as well as driveways to be constructed, which have not been indicated on the plan. Staff recommends that a revised clearing plan be submitted showing detailed clearing limits for all proposed lots. Areas of vegetation that will not be cleared should also be deed restricted in order to ensure their protection and use as a form of noise mitigation from Interstate 87. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please. MR. HILTON-The applicant’s proposing a 12 lot single family subdivision on Dixon Road just east of the Northway. Just for, just to acknowledge that the cul de sac that’s proposed appears to meet the 1,000 foot limit as described in the Subdivision Regulations. Given the location of this property, just east of the Northway, and the existing vegetation on this site, the major issue appears to be impacts, noise impacts, that the clearing and development of this may have on not only the lots to be developed but the adjacent properties. In response to our Staff notes which called for revised plan showing clearing limits, and areas of vegetation to remain, the applicant has submitted a new plan showing a 25 foot no cut zone on the west side of the property. However, I think we’re looking for something I guess a little more realistic. Maybe on the east 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) side as well. Maybe on portions of the more southern two lots, in areas of side setbacks and rear setbacks of lots that can’t be developed, or you wouldn’t envision any development, some kind of retention of vegetation that would be deed restricted and that would be, you know, a no cut zone. I guess the noise impacts on not only the homes to be built but the adjacent properties hasn’t really been quantified. We’d entertain some kind of discussion to see if the applicant has some information on what actual impact this development would have on the surrounding properties, but noise appears to be the main issue with this, and that’s all we have at this moment. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Mickie Hayes, Tom Nace, and Matt Steves. We, as George said, we submitted a new map showing a 25 foot no cut strip along the Northway. It’s not actually along the Northway because we’ve seen that there’s a 100 foot buffer strip that the State took years ago, about 20 years ago. So there’s already a 100 foot setback on the Northway side. Planning Staff has asked for an additional 25 feet along the east side, which would buffer the neighboring homeowners, who I understand are here tonight, and that would be acceptable as well. So there would be two 25 foot no cut buffer strips which would be deeded, deed restricted. Mr. Strough asked us last time to look into not only the buffer issue but also noise and dust issues, and we have a response, and a proposed mitigation on that. MR. HAYES-Good evening. I’m Mickie Hayes. Some of the issues that Mr. Strough brought up about sound, dust, noise, for the neighbors and as well as the homes to be constructed, for us as a developer, we’re probably the most, the important thing is to show the people who want to buy these homes that it won’t be noisy. It won’t be dusty. It’ll be a nice place to live. Like Hidden Hills has been over the last 10 or 15 years. So, what we did is we decided to incorporate into our home package an air filtration system that’s a standard for the package, to help alleviate some of the dust problems, whatever gases that could, depending on the capabilities of the filter, and we also came up with a package which I have for you hear to provide some sound deafening materials to reduce the noise within the home itself. This is an example of a sound board which is meant to absorb sound, that’s used in between townhouses and the interior of the home to absorb sound. It has an STC rating of 22, and it has a noise reduction of about 36% of all sound it reduces. At an STC rating of 22, it’ll increase the sound protection within the home by about 48%. So that we’re going to use as a feature to sell the homes, as for comfort and to sell the homes, to let people know that, yes, there could be some noise issues being near the Northway which are, we don’t think are that bad because Hidden Hills doesn’t seem to affect, the people seem to like that subdivision. There’s very little turnover. The re-sales are great. So we’re kind of watching what’s happening in Hidden Hills. So we’re very confident this will be a successful subdivision. We also did some research on the windows. Windows vary on the amount of sound dampening properties they have. So we researched and found some windows that have about a 12% increase in sound reduction capabilities. So we intend to include those in our package as well, to try to include this, this is our standard package with people to let them know. So we have answers for questions that people have. Of course people are going to ask when they come to buy a house, being where it is, you can see the Northway. There’s no mystery to it. So we want to address that because we want to sell the homes. MR. LAPPER-Tom’s going to go through the C.T. Male comments. MR. NACE-We have comments from C.T. Male. I have not responded to them in writing yet. I think most of them are ones that we would typically respond to with changes in the final submission for final subdivision approval. I’ll go through them with you real quick. The first one is simply asking that we put lot numbers on Sheet Four of the drawings, which we will. The second, as far as sediment control, being a sandy site, and with a low spot, natural low spot in the road, for the site, our notes on the drawings for sediment and erosion control, stormwater pollution prevention, call for the contractor to put sediment basin at that low point. We didn’t show it on the plans that way, we spelled it out in the notes. They’ve asked that we put it on the plan, and we will. They’ve also asked that we put notes on for the sizing of a culvert across 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) the driveway into one of the lots, Lot Number Six, we will do that. I talked, today, to Jim Houston regarding his comment number four, where he’s asking for a catch basin in front of the drywells on the road. Typically with our 50 foot road right of ways that becomes almost an impossibility, because of the location of the utility easements on one side of the street, and the water main on the other side of the street, if we were to put catch basins in the gutter of the wing swale, then move the drywells back out of the pavement line, between those two utility problems, there’s nowhere to put the drywells. As it is, on the side that we have water, we’re just squeaking by on the subdivision, the water main is just squeaking by the outside of the drywell. If we were to move the drywell out any further, we would have trouble with the water main. I talked to him about that, and he doesn’t have a problem with that, but he just wanted to bring this issue up to the Board as something they might want to discuss, and his last two comments, the noise buffer issue we’re talking about another means, and the wastewater system on Lot Number Six, we will provide a grading plan on the final plans for that lot, which will show that the septic system can be fed by gravity, and we’ll establish house elevations. So that’s possible. MR. MAC EWAN-What was your response to Number Five? MR. NACE-That’s what we’re discussing with the buffer and the noise. I’m sure that, you know, that discussion will go around the table here a while. So, I might add that one of the issues, I think, with the noise, and I’m certainly not a noise expert, but I have done some work with the noise, as you’re aware, with a couple of other projects. Noise, the way it travels, because our site is below the level of the Northway, the effectiveness of any existing buffer there, or the removal of that buffer, is lessened because of the fact that we’re lower than the source of the noise. MR. MAC EWAN-Say that again? MR. NACE-Our site, for most of the land in question, the Northway is higher, by many feet, than our site, where the existing trees are, okay. So the effectiveness of those trees to be a buffer is lessened because of that height. The noise travels over. MR. RINGER-The noise is above the trees is what you’re saying. MR. NACE-Yes. Well, it radiates, but the, it’s reflecting, okay, you’ve got a flat ground surface where the noise is generated, okay, and it travels out away from that ground surface. It can’t travel through the edge of the road to go down below the line of sight from the road, okay. I don’t know if I can explain that any more clearly, but generally it doesn’t, if you’ve got a flat surface, where the noise is being generated, and a drop off, okay, that the edge of that flat surface will keep the noise reflected up and won’t, it won’t radiate as effectively down that slope. MR. RINGER-So if you were down shouting low, then it would, you’d hear the noise above, but if you’re up here shouting, you wouldn’t necessarily hear it down below. Is that what you’re saying? I mean, I’m trying to make sense of it, but I’m kind of thick. MR. VOLLARO-You’re just attenuating the noise some because of the fact that the noise source is above the level of the house. I think that’s what you’re actually saying. MR. NACE-Correct. Yes. Okay. MR. RINGER-That’s the way I understood it. By the same token, even though the buffer, the existing buffer is not as effective because of that, the noise is also lessened, and I think Mickie has taken some sound readings that seem to indicate that, too. MR. LAPPER-But either way, he’s proposing, in response, leaving the buffer and providing that noise insulation. That’s not something that’s obviously standard in homes in Town. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I think I look at it from a different point of view, in that you take the trees down, build the houses. You’re going to sound proof the new houses you build. What does that do for sound to the existing houses that are along Dixon Road or Dixon Court? MR. LAPPER-Well, the new houses also serve as a buffer, to a certain extent, for the houses that are there now behind them, because the new houses are built in between the noise source and the houses, and we’re still proposing the 25 feet now on both sides. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m not really sure that I buy that. I need to digest that a little bit. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Drawing S-1, which is the large drawing that shows the overall site, it shows that this site is surrounded by residential communities. I have to agree with that. On both sides of the Northway, and know that future buyers will be exposed to some noise source, and some exhaust from the adjacent Northway. They just have to know this. They will be advised of it. It’s kind of like a buyer beware kind of thing, and you’ve got to decide that you’re going to sell that product in that environment, and you’re trying to mitigate the source of that with changes to the house design. So I really don’t see anything wrong with it on that, from that point of view. Any other zone that we’d be talking about, I’ve thought a lot about spot zoning this into a commercial application, for example, and that doesn’t fit, in my mind. Before you spot zone you’ve really got to think pretty hard about it. I think the Code allows it to be done there, and they’re in the right zone, and I don’t have a problem with it. Now, what I do want to look at is you have a revised drawing that’s S-2. It shows it as S-1. You’ve got to change that to S-2. MR. STEVES-Correct. There was just a mistake in numbers. MR. VOLLARO-It’s all right. It can happen to anybody. I just want to make sure that your drawing sequence is correct so you guys understand it as well as we do. However, when you do a light table exercise on Drawing S-2, and you take a look at it with S-1, with S-3, and now S- 2 now has no cut zones in the back. Those no cut zones go right over where the septics are on seven, eight, nine and eleven. Okay. Has that been changed? MR. NACE-That has been changed. I just did this today to assure that we could get buffers on both sides. When the issue came up of having a buffer on the opposite side as well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-I did a revision to Drawing S-3, which is the utility plan, to assure myself that we did have room to move the septic systems, and still maintain those 25 foot buffers. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That was a concern. MR. NACE-That is here. You’re welcome to look at it. MR. VOLLARO-Another question is on the EAS, you set the water tables at one to five foot depths. Now, what percentage of lots are in the one foot area, or are there any? MR. NACE-Well, it’s not lots. It’s an area along that existing ditch line that you’ll see located back in the front of Lot Six, and in fact that’s why the house and septic on Lot Six have been moved back. Okay. There’s a low area through there that we found the groundwater was high. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just a strata that runs through it, essentially. It’s not spread in any way. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. NACE-If you look at the mottling, the levels of mottling in the test pits, it’ll show you where that area, a little higher groundwater is. MR. VOLLARO-The other thing, I’m just looking for the sign off on C.T. Male’s April 7 letter, th which you just went over. I think as far as the Northway buffering is concerned, why don’t you just explain to me just a little bit more on the buffering, other than doing the housing work itself. Okay. Yes, sure, see, the septic systems were right up in the no cut zone before, and they’ve moved them down. That’s fine. That’s great. Why don’t you just go through a little bit of the buffering scheme, in other words, when I went up there the other day and parked out in the back, and took a look at those trees that are pretty close to the Northway, are some of those going to stay? Are you planning to keep some, or? MR. NACE-I think if you take a look at the map, okay, it shows the existing tree line. Okay. The existing tree line comes across through here. The front end of this lot is an open field, as I’m sure you’ve observed. There are a few patches of trees in the open field. This shaded area shows where that 25 foot buffer area would have existing vegetation in it. Okay. One thing we can also do to assist the buffering a little bit is put some buffer strips partway forward on the lot lines. We could bring a, maybe a 10 foot wide buffer strip up each side of the lot line for 25 or 50 feet. MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to be the natural vegetation that’s there now. MR. NACE-And that would be the existing natural vegetation. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I was looking for. MR. NACE-Okay. The other thing we can do, there is one opening here, existing opening in the tree line that’s open into the back end of that field. That could be filled in with some white pine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-That opening is where that trail is? That’s where that opening? You’ve got a thing marked “trail”. That’s where that is? MR. NACE-Yes. That’s correct. MR. RINGER-I wasn’t here for Sketch Plan, but I read the minutes of the meeting from last month to bring me up to date, and I just had a couple of questions. Matt, in the minutes they were talking about Hidden Hills, and some of the houses in Hidden Hills are actually closer to the Northway than what’s being presented here you said in the minutes. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. If you look at the northerly end of Hidden Hills Drive, there what you see on the west side of the Northway, those house at the very end, just before the curve out to Dixon Road, and we have the copy of the subdivision map of Hidden Hills, those lots are about 137 feet to 110 feet deep, and they buffer the 100 foot strip along the Northway which you can see on the east side that 100 foot enhancement zone that the State had picked up is the area west of that red line that Tom’s pointing to now. So, yes, they will be considerably closer, they are considerably closer on the west side than they will be on the east side. MR. RINGER-I read that in the minutes, and I wanted to be sure. The other thing I had, you show this as a 12 lot subdivision. Wouldn’t be a 13 lot subdivision? I mean, you’ve got Lot A and then One through Twelve. Why wouldn’t it be a 13 lot subdivision instead of? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. STEVES-The first two lots was the owners, I can’t remember their names, was it Miller was the owner? Miller had, there was a two lot administrative subdivision to break Miller’s house off of the rest of the property. MR. RINGER-So Lot A was a separate subdivision? Okay. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-They retained that, the original owner, and when we had the closing, that’s where their house is. MR. STEVES-So then the remainder came in as a 12 lot. That’s correct. MR. RINGER-Thanks. I didn’t have anything else right now, Craig. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I just made a comment to Richard, I actually had looked at a house on Hidden Hills Drive. It was probably one of the ones that we were talking about, and I didn’t buy it because I thought it was too noisy in the back yard. I just would reiterate some of the earlier comments. I give you credit for the sound deadening options that you would build into the houses, but I think, you know, of greater concern is the existing neighborhood, rather than, you know, the new owners. I think that, you know, someone buying a house there is going to obviously know it’s right next to the Northway. They’re going to know that it’s kind of loud, but, you know, I think really it’s part of our job is to protect the existing neighborhood that’s there by doing whatever we can to help mitigate some of the sound issues and it sounds like some of the things that you’re offering would help a lot, but I guess I would just want to listen to the rest of the discussion, because I’m not necessarily convinced that what’s proposed wouldn’t have a negative impact on an existing neighborhood that’s there, in terms of sound. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I believe it’s my own personal opinion it’s unfortunate that it’s zoned this way. I don’t feel positive about this development being so close to the Northway, for the obvious reasons. Earlier I believe the applicant referenced Hidden Hills, and represented that the people were pleased with the quality of the sound, and that remains to be seen, at least as far as I’m concerned. I’m not so sure that there aren’t problems, in terms of the proximity to the Northway and the amount of noise pollution that they’re subjected to. So I certainly would like to say that I’m not convinced, I’m from Missouri, on that one. We’re going to have to, unless this is withdrawn, go through an environmental review on this, and there’s just no way, without a very comprehensive impact study, would I feel I could go with a negative impact on this project, and I think it’s not just noise, but air quality as well, as well as dust and I certainly would like to see all of those things studied before we move forward on this. That’s really all I have at this particular point in time. MR. LAPPER-I guess I’d just like to point out a couple of things in response to those rather strong comments. In the last rezoning, the Town Board just rezoned this from Land Conservation to the Residential zone, and so the applicant purchased the property in reliance upon that. What you’re talking about, in the worst case, would be instituting some sort of a new buffer requirement for the existing residence, so that this property would be used as a buffer, which I think the Town has the right to do that if they want to purchase the property, but if you were going to go as far as to say that this couldn’t be developed because you think that it’s better for the residents to have the trees there now, I think that would be going beyond 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) what the Planning Board is legally allowed to do. There certainly has not been a policy in Town or along the Northway that you can’t have houses along the Northway. The members of the Board may not want to purchase them there, and that’s your prerogative, but I’m just pointing to Hidden Hills, which is right across the street, which I think what Mickie was referring to was that it’s been a very successful subdivision that it’s sold out and houses have resold without a problem. If you look down in Saratoga County at the MacGregor links subdivision, which are quite expensive homes that you can see driving along the Northway on the west side, you know, the same thing right through the woods. So there’s nothing unusual about this proposal to have houses that are adjacent to the Northway, and again here there’s that 100 foot buffer that the State provided for 20 years ago, that, you know, before you get to the 25 foot zone, you know, obviously, any time there’s change in a neighborhood residential homeowners are concerned about that, and obviously they’re here tonight, and they’re going to talk about it, but we think that we’re being sensitive to them by proposing the 25 foot zone on one side, and now that the Planning Staff has asked for on the other side, the applicant is happy to do that as well. I don’t think that there’s much more that the applicant can be asked to do, you know, unless the Town wants to purchase the property as a buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to respond to that. I think your points are well taken, and I certainly didn’t mean to imply that because I, personally, wouldn’t want to live there, that that would be a reason not to approve this proposed plan. I’m not sure which project you’re talking about in Saratoga County, but there’s a very large subdivision going up just north of Exit 10, I think it is, and it’s just wide open. I mean. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Eleven. It’s Exit 11, right there at Round Lake. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s Exit 11, and I’m just constantly amazed when I travel up and down the Northway or the thruway to see how close housing projects do go to our thoroughfares. I don’t particularly have a problem with it, as much as I do in protecting. MR. LAPPER-I was really responding to Dick’s comments, which were stronger than yours. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me take those responses one step farther. What happens in other communities is not relevant to what happens in front of this Board because we don’t know their zoning ordinances and we don’t know how they plan down there. Secondly, I’m not so happy that that parcel was rezoned to begin with, but that’s something we have to deal with now because it’s in front of this Board for review. I don’t think Mr. Sanford’s comments were relative to the fact that, you know, he’d rather not see any development there and leave it wide open spaces, but maybe the problem here is that the development that’s proposed is too intense for the parcel of land, and that’s what we need to work through, and when he was making his comments relative to SEQRA review, I mean there are issues that are going to pop up. How far are we going to be able to get with them and be able to mitigate them, time will tell. I mean, if it means we have to ask you to provide us with some more information so that this Board feels comfortable that noise impacts to the adjoining neighborhood and pollution impacts to the adjoining neighborhood because of this development is not going to be an impact to them, you need to prove that to us, and with that said, let’s move along. MR. LAPPER-I guess, just in terms of what you said about the intensity of the development, the reason why they went as far as to close on the purchase without having it contingent on Town approvals, as developers often would do is because what is proposed is an absolutely conforming subdivision in every respect, in terms of the Town Subdivision ordinance and zoning code. So, in terms of the intensity, lot size, lot dimensions, the layout of the subdivision, completely conforming. MR. MAC EWAN-My response to that is not all property in the Town of Queensbury can be developed to its maximum intensity. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. LAPPER-We respectfully don’t believe. MR. MAC EWAN-We see that, we’ve been seeing that coming for many years now, and what we’re starting to see, as this Board has often referred to, is sub par proposals are coming in front of this Board for developing land that’s, we feel, less than suited to develop to its maximum potential. I mean, these are issues we need to work through. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t, but we just need to take it, you know, one step at a time and make sure that we’re going to address all the issues that are surrounding it and we can get through it. MR. LAPPER-And certainly our intent tonight was to come back with those responses from the last meeting. So we’re trying to work with you as well. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. John? MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, to follow up, I made a phone call to somebody that lives in Hidden Hills, and I wasn’t sure where they lived, and I asked them about the noise over there, and I asked her where she lived, and she said well I don’t live on the side where the Northway is. I live on the other side of the road away from the Northway, but I’ll tell you this, the sound is constant. It’s horrible. It’s just constant. You can’t be outside. I think people should be able to carry on a conversation outside of their homes. They should be able to carry on a conversation in their back yards. You’re going to have to show to me that the decibel levels are suitable. Another thing, what if we allow you to fill these homes, and then the homeowners complain because we gave you approval to do this, and then they demand that the Town put up sound barriers? I mean, that’s going to be a Town expense. I mean, we are somewhat liable. When we put a stamp of approval, as a Planning Board, that means we approve it. Okay, and I don’t necessarily feel that way at this time. You’re going to have to convince me otherwise. My charge, as a Planning Board member, is to look out for the safety, health, welfare of the community, and if I was to approve a neighborhood where sound is a health detriment, as well as a social detriment, as well as the value of the house, as one study after another that I mentioned in the last meeting that you weren’t at showed the decline in value of houses that are next to a major highway like this, but certainly this highway, and to speak to the elevation, Tom, when we did the Great Escape, we all became kind of sound experts in a way, and we were made aware that trees do not do much to attenuate sound. However, low lying brush, dense brush, can have a fairly relative significant effect on attenuating sound. However, as you pointed out, this highway’s elevated, which means we don’t have the benefit of the low brush and the low vegetation to attenuate our sound. As a matter of fact the highway, not only is it elevated, it’s inclined, and so people and trucks especially are tempted to step on the gas, and we’re going to have spikes of sound there. Furthermore, you mentioned that it’s elevated. I think it’s right about where a second story bedroom window would be, and anybody living there, I don’t think, even with a 25 foot barrier, and 25 foot barriers look great on paper, but I don’t think it does much in real life, as far as attenuating the sound, but you will have the opportunity to prove me differently. You haven’t at this point. Another thing I think that we have to consider is, what will be the impact of de-vegetating this property on adjacent property owners? One study done said that de-vegetating 200 feet adjacent to a highway raises the decibel level 10 decibels. Now, that’s a logarithmic scale. Ten decibels is a significant amount. So you’ve actually, as far as the human perception goes, you’ve actually doubled the impact of sound on the human being. Is this the case? Well, anyway, going back to the Great Escape study, and your Hidden Hills, I went back to the Great Escape study. I keep everything down in my basement, and so I got the decibel levels for Hidden Hills, and I want the other Planning Board members to see this. This is from the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement of The Great Escape. This is the decibel reading, from Hidden Hills, just to let you know, we got about an average rating of about 70, and according to the Federal studies that I’ve read, 55 is okay. A 55 decibel level means that people can carry on their life without any major concerns or complaints. We’re reading average decibel levels of 70 here in Hidden Hills, spikes of 74 and higher. So I’m going to pass this down. Okay. Also, you didn’t speak well, I mean, you did say you’ll put an internal cleansing system, an internal filter system, but it doesn’t help the kids outside in the yards, it doesn’t help people that want to be outside their houses. They’re still going to get exposed to the exhaust, the particulates, the other pollutants, the odors, and the 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) dust, because, you know, in the winter they put sand and salt on the Northway and that raises all kinds of dust. Vibration. Vibration’s another thing that you didn’t speak to, that I think has a potential impact, and according to SEQRA, I think when we do the SEQRA review, we’re supposed to take a look at the possible environmental effects. This noise is certainly nothing manufactured by us. I think it’s real. It exists, and we have to deal with it, and we have to deal with it in an empirical way. The scope of the SEQRA review is to identify these possible environmental effects, and I think I’ve identified them. Have you proposed mitigation, enough to make this area safe and healthy in all respects, psychologically as well as physically, for somebody that wants to locate here? I haven’t been convinced of that. The rule of reason applies to SEQRA, and we have to abide by that. I think that, you know, as far as I see, what’s going to be identified here is a significant impact, but we’ll see how the Board feels about that. That’s the way I feel about it, and the last one, and I could repeat myself, but it is all in the minutes. I went through the various studies and did my homework, of the potential impacts of locating next to a highway, okay, and again, one of my primary sources was the Federal Highway Administration’s studies. Okay, and they basically said this. The way to avoid having negative impacts on residential areas next to major highways is to not locate residential areas near main highways. I’m sorry that you bought the property, but I wouldn’t have bought the property, but you did, and I guess we’ll have to try and deal with that, but again, in summary, those are some of my concerns. MR. STEVES-Comments back? MR. STROUGH-Sure. MR. STEVES-Question for Mr. Strough, Exit 18 corridor, John, weren’t you one of the proponents of that? Having zero building setbacks on Corinth Road with the residents over the top of stores? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a different zone. MR. STEVES-I’m not asking about the zoning. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s stick with the property we’ve got here. MR. STEVES-I’m asking about the noise impacts from traffic when you’re putting, you were a proponent of apartments and dwellings right on the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s stick with the parcel we’ve got. MR. STEVES-I’m just asking a question. MR. STROUGH-I don’t remember that. No, but I do remember this. MR. STEVES-And as an also, the fact of SEQRA is to, if your project is creating the noise, not if the noise already exists from another source. SEQRA is supposed to be for what this project creates, not what is already there. MR. MAC EWAN-And we don’t know that this project won’t create more noise by taking out all the trees. MR. STEVES-I’m just asking him because he had stated that the noise was already there, and if it’s something that we don’t control because the level was already there, then if you are asking if it’ll increase that’s a different story, but as far as saying what already exists, that doesn’t apply to SEQRA. MR. LAPPER-Just simply. If you take this out to the nth degree, what you’re proposing is a standard that’s never been imposed before in the Town, which is that there’s a no build corridor that’s not 100 feet out, that is there now, but 400 feet from the Northway, approximately, and if 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) that’s where this goes, that is essentially a taking. It renders the project undevelopable, and my feeling is that the Town’s going to wind up having to buy it, which, if the Town wants to do that, then the Town can condemn any property if you want to create a buffer, but this is going way beyond what zoning calls for, and way beyond what has historically been allowed in the Town, in terms of proximity to the Northway. MR. MAC EWAN-How long ago, you mentioned that that leg that the State bought, how long ago did the State buy that, do you know, offhand? MR. LAPPER-You said the early 80’s? MR. NACE-It’s been 20 years. MR. STEVES-Twenty years, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty years. Their intention for purchasing that was not so much to create but maybe potentially down the road a future plan to provide an access or an exit for Dixon Road? MR. NACE-That was scenic buffer. It was declared, the Northway was declared a scenic highway back then by the Federal Highway Administration, and there were funds available to purchase that buffer, the 100 feet, to keep it “more scenic”. MR. STEVES-He’s right. It’s a restricted scenic enhancement zone is what it’s called by the State DOT. MR. LAPPER-So that’s to protect the drivers and the cars from the view of the houses. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? MR. VOLLARO-I just have a comment. I understand what Jon is saying, and I agree with most of what he’s says, if not all of what he says. However, the Town, in its infinite wisdom, zoned this for residential use, and maybe the level of use, how high we’re trying to develop it, may be in question, but I think that, if the people want to buy that, and they’re going to want to live with 70 dbm of noise factors and I think it’s a zoning issue that the Town should have dealt with before they zoned this in this way. It’s a zoning issue, and they’re perfectly within their rights, in my mind, to develop this property because it’s properly zoned. I just don’t see where we can limit, you may be able to talk about the intensity of development. I agree with you there, Mr. Chairman, but I certainly don’t agree that we ought to even entertain the thought that no development at all could take place in this zone. MR. MAC EWAN-I wasn’t talking about that. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s just my take on this thing. MR. STROUGH-I think my point was, Bob, that we need an empirical analysis that we can’t make a judgment based on what we have before us. MR. VOLLARO-Well, my empirical analysis I think sits in the fact that how long Hidden Hills has been there undergoing the same environment that this particular subdivision is looking to get into, and, you know, when you talk to one. MR. MAC EWAN-But, Bob, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Hidden Hills is on the other side of the road, on the other side of the Northway, and it was a virgin land that was developed. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) Now you’ve got a proposed development that’s going to take down a vast amount of acreage next to an existing neighborhood, and we want to know what the impacts are going to be, associated with the neighbors. Because the SEQRA tells us we have to look at that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s going to take a fairly intensive study to figure that one out. That’s not going to be, you know. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know. I mean, if we send them and ask them to give us some responses to issues that we think need responding to, and we have to take it based on what they give us and whether, we have to make up in our minds at that time whether the responses they gave us are adequate enough for us to feel comfortable coming up with a negative declaration for SEQRA. MR. SANFORD-Yes, Bob, plus standards change. I mean, years ago, the science or the technology may have been different and looked upon differently than it is now. Just because something pre-exists doesn’t mean that the same level of study was done 20 years ago. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure of that, but I’m just trying to determine in my mind whether or not the cost, and maybe it shouldn’t come into this at all because we’re looking at the SEQRA, but to impose a fairly heavy cost study on this property when we’ve already got houses that are being subject to the same degree of intensity of noise. I don’t see any difference between the houses on Hidden Hills and what’s being proposed here, as far as noise is concerned. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me respond to that comment in a very general way, and I can go back to the application that was here just a little while ago, where a previous applicant was talking about, you know, he wanted to get this thing through the approval process. There’s no guarantee, for anybody who walks through that door, that your approval process is going to take one month or one year. It’s going to cost you $1,000 or $100,000. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s nowhere written in our Ordinances that says there’s any guarantees. That’s a chance an applicant takes when they slap down their $100 or whatever it costs to get themselves on the agenda. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. MAC EWAN-Our task and our responsibility, as far as I’m concerned, are much greater than that of any applicant who walks through the door. To echo what John has said earlier, our major goal here is to look out for the safety, health and welfare of this community, and make sure that any application that comes in front of this Board that we may consider giving approval to meets the zoning criteria, meets the Subdivision Regulations, and meets the SEQRA regulations, and that’s what we’re empowered to do, and that’s what we need to do with every application that comes in. MR. VOLLARO-Craig, I couldn’t agree with, I agree with what you said. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think right now we’ve got two out of three. MR. MAC EWAN-Two out of three what? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What you just said. It meets the zoning and it meets the subdivision. It may not meet the SEQRA. MR. RINGER-Well, we haven’t done the SEQRA. So we don’t know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I’m saying. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. RINGER-We’re getting the cart before the horse here. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. It doesn’t necessarily, when you say the phrase “meets the zoning”. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it complies. It’s not, it’s been zoned for that, and I think Bob’s got a valid point there. MR. LAPPER-It was only rezoned a year ago. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And another thing is that if you walk down Hughes Court, you can still hear the Northway. If you’re on Griffing Place you can still hear the Northway. I think that a study is going to, would be very expensive, and I don’t think it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we seem to be jumping to conclusions here about what we’re planning on maybe asking the applicant to do. We haven’t gotten to that point yet. We’re not to the point where we’re asking the applicant to do anything for us. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well then, all right. We’ve all given our opinions. Maybe we should hear what the public has to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark wanted to make a comment. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m sorry, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s all right. MR. RINGER-You gave up? MR. SCHACHNER-No. I can wait. MR. NACE-Can I make one last observation? MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you’d like to add? MR. NACE-Yes. I’d like to add one last observation. If you look at your aerial photograph, the north end of this site, presently, does not provide any buffering to the houses along the north end of Hughes Court or any of the houses on Pershing Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. MR. NACE-Are people abandoning those? MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I’ve spent a great deal of time on Dixon Road and on Pershing Road, and the Northway is very evident. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but distance is an attenuator. MR. VOLLARO-It’s also a logarithmic attenuator. MR. NACE-No, my point was that most, a good third of the site has no buffer presently, or provides no buffer presently. MR. STROUGH-Well, the counter to that would be they’re a lot further away than some of these proposed houses. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone want to comment on this application? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED LA POINTE MR. LA POINTE-My name is Ed LaPointe. I live at 15 Hughes Court, and the biggest concern I have is not only do I sit out back, I cook out back. In the winter you can hear the same trucks that you hear in the middle of summer, and to take away a big chunk of that property and clean it, and I don’t care how they want to put their houses, here or there, it’s still going to be noisy, not only for me, for everybody on my side of the street or the other side, no matter when you go out there, you hear the Northway. Yes, I bought the house way after the Northway, which is my choosing, but it wasn’t as predominantly bad that I could live with it, but when you take that whole buffer zone and 25 feet of brush is nothing. Twenty-five feet is nothing. You take, right down the right side of the right line, there’s a power line goes in back of my house. I couldn’t see, on your blueprints, where the easement for that power line is. Another words, when the (lost words) going to come in and go through my property to fix something over in the middle of the place? There are septic tanks going to be run over in the 25 foot. The boundary lines for our property are just about five feet inside the power lines, and where are these trucks going to go, up and down, through our yards? Through the people’s yards that are going to be here, you know, the new houses, are they going to drive through their nice landscaped yard? These trucks are big, and 25 feet is nothing. Twenty-five feet is nothing. I’ve walked the property, and it’s just as noisy at the left side of the red line as it is to the right side. Even with the brush that’s out there, and those few trees up in the top, in the front part, which is off field, the noise is through there, but I didn’t buy my house up there. I bought it down here, and for the people on Griffing Place, I can’t speak for them, and I don’t care about Saratoga County. I don’t live down there. I live in Queensbury. Another thing, I don’t know how they did their engineering out there, but that ground is spongy wet. Dead of summer, or early spring, late fall, it’s spongy wet. Where’s that water going to go? Are they going to put lines running to the Northway where the big buffer is? Right there on the left side of that line? Are they going to run big pipes out to take the drainage out that’s on the map, it says they’re going to put four foot wells. One big rain storm they can fill that up in a heartbeat. So, I don’t know where their septic tanks are going on the back side, if they’ve got 25 feet. Because there’s got to be some provision in the deeds where that power line is. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask the question. MR. LA POINTE-Well, it’s kind of interesting, because if their septic lines are going to fan out after they put their septic tanks in, and I know it’s going to be an outflow somewhere. It’s going to percolate, but that’s big spongy ground. I planted a little bush out there, and I had to dig down almost two feet before I got down to the sandy soil. That’s over an accumulation of years of topsoil or weeds and leaves and stuff like that, but that’s certainly spongy, and it’s holding the water. You take all those trees out, all the little bitty bushes, and you put in two or three nice little ones in the front yard and the side yard, it isn’t going to soak the water up. Not going to soak the water up. Let’s see, one more, I think, and I can’t understand some of these lots, the way they’re diagramed on the map, you know, and picture this. We’ll all be gone when somebody buys that house for the third time in that area, say Lot Seven or Lot Ten, and want to know what the heck went on with our brains. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, and I think the Subdivision Regulations require us to map all easements. MR. VOLLARO-They probably do. I haven’t seen any on here. MR. SALVADOR-So they should be mapped and then it’ll be clear where they fall. The point I’d like to make tonight is times are changing, and the intensity of use of that Northway by 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) truck traffic from Canada is incredible. It’s all due to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Practically every truck on that Northway has a Quebec plate on it, and when they’re running north, they’re running empty and they’re noisy. The other point, another concern I have is I suspect this would be another subdivision where we’re going to put municipal water in the front door and the wastewater out the back door. And if you think it’s high groundwater today, you just wait. You just wait. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MARGUERITE DEMBOSKI MRS. DEMBOSKI-I’m Marguerite Demboski. I live on 17 Hughes Court, next to Ed LaPointe. My main concern is something that Ed brought up and it had not been brought up before is the water. There is, on your map, there is, in the biggest lot back, there is a place that is called a ditch. That ditch is water that drains from the Northway, when they re-did that whole area, years ago, that water drains into our back yard, and there is a pipe under the ground which goes under our house to the road out front. We were told, when we bought the house, I think 24 years ago, that people who lived on either side, those houses were built first. They never had a water problem. They built our house, on speculation, they had a water problem on either side. We do not, but we have, in the basement, a big hole with a, it looks like a manhole, and there can be water that goes through there. We know it goes through under our house. If, and as Ed said, it’s wet out there, and there is water. Right now, if I go in my back yard, I can see the water running towards our house, and it goes down the pipe and it goes out to the road to drainage. In our deed there is something that refers to Drainage District No. One in Queensbury. I don’t know what that means because that’s all the deed says, but I know there’s a lot of water out there. MR. MAC EWAN-Mrs. Demboski, what did you say, your deed says Drainage District One? MRS. DEMBOSKI-I think so. I brought it with me. I can go look, but that’s my concern. It is noisy. You don’t notice it as much in the winter because the windows are closed, but this afternoon it was beautiful outside. You sit on the patio. You can hear it. You get used to it after a while, but I can’t imagine wanting to live any closer to the Northway than where we are, but above and beyond all that, I’m concerned about the water. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. ED BAERTSCHI MR. BAERTSCHI-My name is Ed Baertschi. I’m not a resident of that area, but my daughter does live in Hidden Hills, and as a matter of fact, it’s Oak Tree Circle. You can see where the entrance coming in on the west side of the Northway, and you go down the road, you have to go, get down to this corner, you make a circle, then you come over into Oak Tree Circle. Now that’s quite a distance from there to where the Northway is, and my comment to my wife was, the other day, I don’t want to live down here because all I hear is trucks, trucks, trucks, trucks. It’s constant. I mean, you could just sit right there. That’s all you’re hearing is that traffic on the Northway. Again, I’m not a resident there, but I just wanted to bring this up where this gentlemen had said about the noise levels there, and it is very loud. That’s all I have to say in regard to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MARY MONTHIE MRS. MONTHIE-I’m Mary Monthie, and I’ve lived on Hughes Court for over 52 years. We were there before the Northway, and I own three houses there, and believe me, there’s no buffer by my house, two houses that they’re putting in, and 25 feet is piddly. I mean, that would do nothing. Now we heard the noise, but we have a downstairs bedroom, and it goes over us, but 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) when the kids were upstairs, they used to always complain on Sunday nights when the trucks went up, because they shift just before they cross Dixon Road, and it’s noisy. I couldn’t imagine anyone living closer than that. Because it was a very quiet place back in 1950 and 1951, but it isn’t any more, and I can’t imagine houses going out there, where people are going to have to listen to more than we do, and once they cut that stuff down, we’ll be worse off than we are now. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? DOROTHY KINGSLEY MRS. KINGSLEY-I would like to know, I live at 9 Hughes Court. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I have your name, please. MRS. KINGSLEY-Dorothy Kingsley. We’ve lived there for almost 30 years. We were well aware of the Northway, but we have a lot, we have a lot of trees, and since we’ve been there, the trees have grown up all in back on this property which, so our noise has been cut down a little bit, but if those trees are all taken away, the noise level’s going to be very high. I’d like to know, also, what price range these homes will be. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that answered for you. Thank you. CAROL LA POINTE MR. LA POINTE-Hi. I’m Carol LaPointe. My husband spoke earlier. There’s something that I don’t think he covered that I’d like to. When Mrs. Demboski said that they put their house there, after ours was built, and after the house on the other side of them was built, and the water started coming into the house we live in, and the house on the other side of them, but if they have leach fields out there in back, we have a pipe coming in to our cellar that’s about this big, and right now it’s about half full of water, coming right out from the back of the lot into a sump pump. If they have leach fields anywhere where it can get into that water, what’s that going to do to us? Is it going to come into our cellar? And I don’t think, I sympathize with them for buying the property, but I don’t want them to hurt me, either. I don’t want that to happen, and I’m afraid it’s a sanitation problem, and I just had something said to me that if you’re going the environmental way or check with them, I heard that that was a protected area for protected species, the Karner blue butterfly. MR. MAC EWAN-Not that particular area, no. MRS. LA POINTE-Not that particular one? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA POINTE-Okay. Well, I just wanted to question it because I had heard it, but I’m mainly worried about the septic systems draining into that wet land out there that is wet and coming through that pipe in our cellar, and we just keep pumping it out totally, all the time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA POINTE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JIM ROUND MR. ROUND-My name’s Jim Round. I do live on Pershing Road, 34 Pershing Road, it’s one in from Hughes Court, and I do believe the property that is looking at being cleared does currently 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) buffer the noise level on Hughes Court, or on Pershing Road. I think both the applicant and the Board have said it both, that an expert needs to look at these noise levels. Clearing 200 feet of high vegetation increases the decibel level, and 10%, that would double the noise level, and every one who’s living in that vicinity’s area. A doubling of the noise levels, you guys try to figure it out. What was the circumstance of allowing the Great Escape to keep increasing their number of decibels to five percent there, okay, and then we’re going to come along and allow someone to clear property that’s going to increase it ten percent in another neighborhood? We really have to look at that. The other point is that Great Escape’s noise level is a very short time period of the year. Our noise level is constant. Okay. I purchased that home two years ago. I looked at homes in Hidden Hills, and I went and sat in Hidden Hills in my car, and said, this is too loud. I sat on Pershing Road, okay, before purchasing my house and signing the closing on my house, two years ago. The noise level is not nearly what it is on Hidden Hills, and as they had stated before, right now, my basement runs with water. I have a French well in my yard that runs into my basement and is pumped out the back yard. Another big concern. How is this going to affect the water level in the properties? MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. SALVADOR-I would just like to add that this drainage district, whatever it is, should also be mapped, and identified, and who’s responsible and what are the obligations. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Anyone else? All right. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Do you guys want to come back up. Let’s do the last one first. MR. HILTON-Can I just interrupt here real quick? I was speaking with Mark, and before we go any further, I just wanted to, for a piece of public comment, we do have a written, it’s an actual Record of Phone Conversation, I just want to include it, between John Galucci and Pam Whiting. He would like to go on record as opposed to the whole project. It says they are overdoing it, too many homes, crowded, and feels it needs to be done over in a more limited and simplified fashion. The homes should be closer to Dixon Road rather than the way they are laid out now. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. What do you know of the, probably directed more toward you, Tom. What do you know about this Drainage District No. One? MR. NACE-I have no idea about the drainage district. It’s never shown up any place. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to need to research that. If there’s easements or whatever that’s got to be shown or. MR. LAPPER-I’ve reviewed the title, Craig, and there were no easements on this property at all. That was purchased. There are easements on the adjacent properties, on (lost word). Five feet from the property line there is a power corridor. That’s all. There’s nothing whatsoever on this property. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else that you guys wanted to respond to, after the public comment? MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ll have to discuss it with the Board. I mean, certainly, you know, our position is always to come back with the suitable information so the Board can make a proper decision. I think the idea of even considering a pos dec on the residential subdivision because it’s 100 feet from the Northway is pretty incredible, but I guess what I would propose would be, John was looking for empirical data, and I can’t argue with that. So I would propose that we go get a noise study and come back, but I think it’s going to show what we all know that, much like all the other homes that are a couple of hundred feet from the Northway where the houses are, the decibel levels would be somewhere, you know, probably mid-sixties, seventy at worst, and that’s what plenty of other people have in that area, but if that would be helpful, we would volunteer to do that and come back and talk about it. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to just make a comment on that, Mr. Chairman, if I might. In our Staff notes of April 15, under Staff comments, there’s a notation in there that although the th Department of, DOT study does not seem to indicate that, does seem to indicate that noise from I-87 has some impacts on the surrounding area, apparently there’s a DOT study that maybe instead of getting, you know, going far a field on a brand new study, we ought to take a look at what does DOT say about that section of the Northway. MR. HILTON-That study, I guess I should clarify, deals more with barriers, noise barriers, construction, proposed locations, and it gives some suggested areas along not only 87, but, you know, 90 down in Albany, and a lot of the interstates in this region. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but I noticed at the end of your statement it said the study does not indicate a construction noise barrier to be built in this area. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Which the study has indicated something to DOT that says, we don’t need it here. We ought to take a look at what that study says. MR. HILTON-I guess I just want to caution that it’s more a study about where barriers could be, and would be best suited to be constructed. MR. VOLLARO-I know that, but in order to arrive at that, George, we would have to have some indication of the db level in those areas. MR. HILTON-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILTON-I don’t think you’re going to get the volume of information that would maybe erase the need for further analysis. I’m just cautioning you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, let’s take a look at what kind of depth they went into there, though. At least. MR. RINGER-Tom, there was a question on the leach fields going into the cellar there of one of the homes and stuff. MR. NACE-Yes. In what’s noted on our plans as a ditch line, there is a shallow depth to groundwater in that location, and I suspect this time of year, right at the spring melt, there’s actually water on the ground in that ditch. We did extensive test pits with Charlie Maine, and with Glen Bruso from the Health Department, and we did quite a few more than we would normally do in order to define where that area of high groundwater is, and keep our septic systems back out of it. MR. RINGER-And Male has reviewed all of these? C.T. Male has reviewed? MR. NACE-Yes, they have. MR. RINGER-When did you do your test pits, what time of year? MR. NACE-We’re looking for mottling, okay. I’m sure that’s why we have Charlie Maine on board as a soil scientist. We did, I think it was in December or January. MR. RINGER-There was another question on price range. What are you looking at? MR. HAYES-The price range would be about $165,000 to $205,000. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-All right. Just as an aside, Tom, I want to just address something, and I know this is the purview of the Building Department and not the purview of this Board, and when we get into septics it’s a fine line, and I try to walk it all the time, but 136, our Code for septic here, talks about when you should be doing your search for groundwater, and it talks about, that’s why you use mottling techniques as opposed to an actual. MR. NACE-That’s correct. That’s why the Health Department doesn’t take just my word for it. They have to have a soil scientist. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-If we were going out right now to do it, Glen Bruso and I could do it and make that determination, but at other times of the year, we are required to have a soil scientist. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve been on sites when soil scientist have said that, and I guess I need new glasses. I have a tough time with mottling. I really do. They say can’t you see it, and I say, no, I don’t. MR. NACE-That’s why, on a site like this, I don’t trust myself. I look to Charlie. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Power line easements, you put those on the plats? MR. LAPPER-They’re not on our site. MR. STEVES-There’s no power line easement on our property. The easements that they’re being referred to in the power lines in the westerly side of the property are on, the easement is included in their deeds, not on the subject parcel here. MR. MAC EWAN-You mean the easterly side. MR. STEVES-It’s their westerly side of the lots that abut us. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The adjoining property owners you’re talking about. MR. STEVES-Yes, there’s no easement for that on our property. MR. VOLLARO-Do those easements come close to your property, where trucks would be running close to your properties at all? MR. STEVES-And as far as power coming in to our subdivision, it wouldn’t be coming off of that. It would be coming off of Dixon Road under ground inside the road right of way. That would be all utilities. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Where do we go from here? MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, doing a decibel level study still doesn’t address the air quality questions, and doesn’t address the vibration questions. In the Federal study, it did say, in reference to noise, and I’m quoting here, and this is the Highway Traffic Noise in the United States Problem Response US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Noise can affect the quality of life, be annoying, interfere with sleep, work, recreation, and can cause physical and psychological damage. I think as a Planning Board, we have to address it, but again, vibration and air quality issues haven’t been addressed here, and they have been addressed by the Federal studies as issues of residences along highways. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-What would you be looking for, as a submittal? MR. STROUGH-I’d like some kind of a more empirical analysis of the issues that, you know, that I see, and I see some of the Board members at least agree on the noise, and the applicant said that they would be willing to go in that direction. I don’t know. Possibly a larger buffer area. MR. RINGER-I don’t see what an extra 10, 20 feet is going to do. I think 100 feet is, you know, I don’t see where a larger buffer area is going to help. MR. STROUGH-Or redesign it so that it’s less dense and the houses are away from the noise and there’s less vegetation taken down or something, but I think the way it’s designed is going to have a negative impact not only on the houses that locate there, but on the adjacent homes. MR. RINGER-I guess I don’t quite see it the same way, John. I think we should get a noise analysis or study. MR. STROUGH-Well, I look at it this way. I can’t comfortably put a stamp of approval, a Planning Board approval, approving this project, the way it is, with the impacts that I think we’ve all agreed are there. MR. MAC EWAN-I just want some direction from you guys as to what you’re looking for them to provide. Are you looking for them to go out and hire a scientific team to do noise analysis, vibration analysis, and pollution analysis? Are you looking for them to provide some sort of documentation? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’m looking for an impact study. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we’re there. I don’t think we’re there yet. MR. VOLLARO-I think we ought to take a first step and let somebody take a look at what DOT has to say about that. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. I agree with you. That’s a good first step, but that DOT is only addressing the noise issues, not addressing pollution issues. MR. VOLLARO-True, but I’m looking through our, you know, the Long Form. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think the Town should carry some of the burden because it was just rezoned within the past couple of years. See, Craig, the way I feel is that land was rezoned in the past couple of years. So it wasn’t as if it was zoned residential 25 years ago. It was rezoned with the Board that did all the rezoning with the Committee knowing full well the impact of I-87. Also, the fact that Hidden Hills was across the way probably led the Committee to make the decision that they made. So now, you’ve got, you know, some people that are up here thinking a little bit differently. Maybe, the Town should have a little bit of accountability as far as the rezoning of this parcel. Because the applicant bought this parcel in good faith. I mean, it had been rezoned within modern times, and there is a development right across the way. So why not go with this? MR. MAC EWAN-The short answer is buyer beware. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, not in this case. You mean buyer beware for the people that are? MR. MAC EWAN-Buyer beware of anybody who buys a piece of property in this Town, whether it be RR-1A or. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-But when you consider all the ramifications that existed when the applicant bought this property, it’s not as if that was zoned residential 30 years ago. It was just done with the new zoning, with the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. RINGER-I think, Cathy, the reason they rezoned this because everything around there is SFR-10 or SFR-20, and that’s the only piece of property t hat’s was LC-42. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then what they could have done is just said we’re going to leave this vacant, and for just. MR. STROUGH-I think that was an oversight. A mistake. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then maybe the Town should be accountable for the oversight. MR. MAC EWAN-We can’t speak for what the Town Board does when they do a rezoning, or any zoning issues. So it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to question whether it was a mistake or intended. MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, can I ask Counsel a question about SEQRA? MR. MAC EWAN-Not only SEQRA, you can ask him questions about pretty much anything. MR. STROUGH-Does SEQRA address a situation that we have here where we’re looking at locating a residential subdivision next to a highway. We’ve identified there are potential negative impacts from the Northway onto the residences that might locate too close to this, such as air quality and noise issues. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Strough, I’m surprised to hear you ask that question. I think you and the other Planning Board members know that the purpose of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act is to provide you with a legal mechanism to evaluate potential environmental impacts of various projects. Here we have a proposed project. Your job as the SEQRA lead agency reviewing it is to, one of your jobs, is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts. You’ve identified a number of potential environmental impacts informally, not in the context of doing your SEQRA review yet, but you’ve identified a number of potential environmental impacts that may require further scrutiny, and for what it’s worth, the applicant doesn’t appear to be fighting, I mean, you can debate this from now until midnight or later if you want, but the applicant doesn’t appear to be fighting you, at least on the issue of conducting some sort of noise analysis, because I think I heard the applicant indicate it’s agreeable to doing that. So at this point, my suggestion for the Board, the answer to your question, in a word, is yes, and at this point my suggestion would be maybe just to move this thing along, I think I’m going to echo the Chairman’s point, which is, indicate to the applicant what additional level of information you need. Cathy, as far as you’re concern goes, I don’t think there’s any legal basis for trying to make the Town pay for part of the SEQRA review, and I think the Board as a whole must keep in mind, as at least one of the members has accurately described an hour or so ago, a zoning does not create an entitlement to maximum development. Zoning creates an entitlement to seek approval for any number of, or any amount of development up to the maximum, or even beyond the maximum if one wants to seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. For the benefit of the applicant, for what it’s worth as Counsel to the Planning Board, I don’t read or hear any of the Planning Board members individually and formally as suggesting as suggesting that there should be zero development of this parcel and there should be zero homes on this parcel. If they’re saying that, I’m not hearing that. So I think that the philosophical debate about the taking of property is also not maybe a productive use of Town, although the applicant’s free to urge whatever it wants to urge, but my suggestion, I think echoing Craig’s, would be try to give the applicant better guidance as to what additional information you need, at what level of information you need it. I don’t think you need to debate the noise study issue anymore because the applicant said they’ll provide a noise study. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. STROUGH-Could we, Mr. Chairman, thank you, I like hearing that again, and could we ask to see an alternative design that might have less impact. Can we ask for that? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-You have the ability and the power to ask for whatever you want, within reason. MR. STROUGH-That might have less density, greater buffer zones, something along that line. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. RINGER-I think we have the authority to ask that, but I don’t know if, I don’t see the difference of, you know if you have ten lots or twelve lots, I don’t see what difference it makes here. I just don’t, for myself, I mean. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m saying a greater buffer area between the Northway and some of the other residences, and I’m not talking 10 or 20 feet. Maybe something more significant. Maybe they could move this towards Dixon Road and leave more of the land in back that tends to be wet or vacant. I mean, there are alternatives available here, and it might be a win/win situation, but the plan that they have, I’m not real comfortable with. MR. RINGER-For what reason? Strictly because of buffer, John? MR. STROUGH-Well, because I think the houses that they have, until I’m proven different, are too close to the Northway. There’s not enough buffer zone. There’s going to be too much de- vegetating. I think the impacts on the adjacent existing neighborhood are going to be too great. I think that maybe a plan could be worked out where there’s more buffer could exist between the Northway and the adjacent neighborhood. They could get some houses, maybe not 12, maybe not anywhere near 12, but they’d get some value out of the land. I’m just saying I would like to see some alternatives. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you’re right, John. You’re right. That’s good. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t want to belabor this point, John, but when you asked the question of Counsel, on the SEQRA Long Form, one of the questions is noise and odor impacts. Examples that would apply to Column Two, for potential large impact, is that the proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There you go. MR. HUNSINGER-I certainly think that that was. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we couldn’t get off that. We would be right there. Stuck. MR. SCHACHNER-What lawyers say is, bingo. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why don’t we table this and ask the applicant for some of the things that we’re looking for. MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m still looking for is direction from the Board of exactly what kind of material do you want the applicant to respond with. We already had the DOT study that Mr. Vollaro would like the Town to get a hold of. MR. STROUGH-I told you what I wanted. What do you want to hear it again? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-We want to see an alternate, less dense plan with more buffering between the development and the Northway. MR. STROUGH-I want to see an, I’m telling you what I want to see, an empirical analysis of the noise impacts and the air quality impacts, and vibrations. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you looking for a noise study, noise readings? What are you looking for? We need to be specific. MR. STROUGH-Yes, what I’m looking for is this. I’m looking for what is the current decibel level, and what would be the decibel level after the removal of the vegetation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think the DOT study could tell you what the existing decibel level is and probably give you an inclination as to what it would be after. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to approach this on an iterative basis. Instead of putting these people through a very expensive loop, let them look at the DOT study first and see what it says. If that helps, fine. If not, we’ll take it to the next level. MR. SANFORD-I think we have a lot of impacts that we need to look at here. It’s not just the noise. It’s also the air quality, the dust, those types of issues. I think we need to have an impact study that goes beyond just the noise. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, you can’t get to an impact study until you have the information to determine whether it’s going to put you into a pos dec to have them do an impact study. You have to do this review in certain steps. In order to get to, even to us doing a SEQRA EAF form, we have to have the information in front of us to make a decision as to whether the impacts are going to be too great or not to be mitigated by the proposed development. MR. STROUGH-Well, can we ask for an analysis of an air quality study, dust levels, things like that? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know exactly what you’re asking for. What are you asking them to provide? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying that in the literature, and these are Federal studies, they’ve identified issues, impacts on residences that locate next to highways. They are, air quality issues, and they include pollutants, particulate matter, dust, especially during the winter because when they sand and salt the road, and then when that dries, the trucks, billows of dust go up. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that by taking a reading or something, though? Is that how it’s done? MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, if I was an engineer, I probably wouldn’t be sitting here. Maybe I would be. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it doesn’t matter how it’s done. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it does. We want to make sure it’s done right the first time so when they come back, we don’t send them back and say, no, that’s not what we’re looking for. That’s not what we meant. I want to make it very clear on what we’re asking them to do. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We can ask them what to do, but we can’t tell them how to do it, because we’re not engineers. We don’t know what kind of ways that they garner the data. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to be sure that what we put in our motion is specific about what we’re asking them to respond and supply us with. That’s all. How they get there, that’s up to them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-But I want to be specific about what we’re asking them to give us. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What do you want in this DOT study, Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I just want to know what it says. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The one that’s available at the present MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the one that’s available now, rather than put them through, I’d like that to be the first iteration. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Let them look at the DOT study, what does it say. MR. MAC EWAN-I want a copy of that for us as well. George? MR. HILTON-I can give you a copy, but just to echo your concerns, I don’t want to rely too much on the DOT study. The applicant and the Board go through the study and find that there’s not enough information, that you require more, then turn around and tell them we need a, we’d like an independent noise study. I’m just cautioning you. MR. HUNSINGER-What I was going to suggest was, you know, you talk about what would be the ideal information, you know, in my mind the ideal information would be, well, we know if we remove an acre of trees from this site, that it will result in a five decibel increase in sound on, you know, pick the location. I don’t know if you can do that, though. I don’t know if you can get empirical data that specific. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure we can. MR. LAPPER-We can easily do that because there’s no trees on the north side of the site. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What is the current decibel level now? MR. HUNSINGER-So take a reading at the north side of the site and then at the south side of the site and compare the two. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what will the decibel level be with the vegetation? MR. NACE-I think we understand your intent, and I don’t think any of us at either of these tables are expert enough in noise to be able to tell how to get there. Okay. I think once we contact an expert, give him the criteria that we’re looking for, then let him determine what he has to do to get there. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-No, I was going to say there are acoustical consultants in the world, and they’re not, you know, they’re not hard to find, and this is not as dramatically difficult and esoteric an exercise as the Board is getting wrapped up in, I don’t believe, and I think all I’m saying is really what Tom Nace just said. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I wasn’t thinking so much of the noise. I’m thinking of the pollution. MR. NACE-I have no idea how you do that. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think it’s certainly appropriate to give the applicant as much guidance as you can as to what level of information you need on the other non-noise issues, I agree, if any. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you can measure the level of CO in the air, from exhausts. I mean, 2 they do in. MR. NACE-Yes. You can measure all the different things, but I’m not sure what you’re comparing to what, and what standards. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’d ask a dumb question along those lines. What has been the physical impact of the people living in Hidden Hills? Do we have any data to say, yes, they’ve all go this or they’ve all got asthma, or they’ve all got lung infections or whatever. You know, they’ve been living there a long time. I just don’t see how you get from A to B on this one. I really don’t. MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, I don’t think you use Hidden Hills as your sample. I think you look at studies that have been done for a much larger population throughout the country that has lived in close proximity to highways. I mean, and you don’t look at Hidden Hills or. MR. VOLLARO-All right. What you’re saying is we take a much larger database, take a look at that and see what the impacts on people are that live close to major highways. MR. SANFORD-In a way I think John has shown, by his Federal studies that he has been quoting and what have you, that there’s reasonable conclusion that there is impact, I mean, to some degree. I mean, he’s been quoting that the conclusions have arrived, that there are problems here, here, here, and here. I’m not so sure we’re taking this first step when we already know the answer, that there’s reasonable doubt in order to go into environmental review. Maybe we would short circuit this whole process if we went into something much more comprehensive. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think, Mr. Chairman, there’s anything really unique about this property, but we’re certainly willing to try and appease the Board, to come back with empirical data. We understand what you’re looking for. It may take us more than a month, maybe not, but we’ll look into it and we’ll come back. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What was the other thing we were looking for? There was one other. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Water. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the district. I think I’d rather have Staff do that for us, provide us the information on that, the drainage district number one. MR. HILTON-I can right now tell you that I’m almost certain that it’s not a, there is no recognized or mapped drainage district on this property. Certainly we’ll look into it, but, offhand, that’s. MR. RINGER-I think what you’re going to find, George, is that’s a line that was put in by the City of Glens Falls for the Broad Acres area years ago, that feeds down through Broad Acres and into the canal, and it was hooked on to when you did that ballpark at Sherman Avenue, into that same line that’s coming down out of Broad Acres and it was put in by the City and the water district, I believe, was established of some kind, or a sewer district, and it was a huge, huge line. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. LAPPER-When we did the Phil Morse project, we did connect to that, but there was nothing in the title here that indicates that this property is subject to that. MR. RINGER-It does go through that Broad Acres, where they’re talking. I think you might find that’s what it is. MR. SCHACHNER-Are you talking about a City utility versus a Town? MR. LAPPER-It was City. We hooked up to it with the Town project when we did the Morse athletic fields. MR. NACE-The Town has hooked up to it more than once. MR. SCHACHNER-But it’s a City utility that you hooked up to? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It goes into the Hudson. MR. RINGER-But this goes back years ago. It was in there, God, I can recall 40 years ago that I think it was in there. MR. LAPPER-It wasn’t in this title, though. MR. HILTON-Anyway, having said that, I mean, we can certainly look into it. I believe someone in the back had a question. MRS. DEMBOSKI-I have my deed. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it possible that maybe you could make a photocopy of it for us, and get it to the Planning Department, because we’re curious about that. Thank you very much. All right. We’ll take a couple of minutes here so you can pen this thing up. I’ll call the meeting back to order. Do we have a resolution? MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2003 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: So the applicant can get this information: 1. To find out what the present DOT studies say for that stretch of I-87 2. To provide us with an alternate, less dense plan for that property, with more buffering. 3. To find our what the current decibel level is now along that property, and what it would be with the vegetation removed, and to get some quantitative measurements, in other words, do an air quality study that would involve pollutants, particulate matter, or whatever else is involved in air quality studies, that could have negative impacts to people’s health, and make sure that they’re compared to the standards set by Federally, maybe with the EPA, or State wide with the DEC, and make sure they don’t exceed those standards. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2003, by the following vote: 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Unfortunately, you haven’t got rid of us just yet. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: A. BROWN AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.37 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.08 ACRES AND 1.29 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 12-90, SB 10-91 APA TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-69 2.37 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-2003, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Hayes & Hayes, Meeting Date: April 15, 2003 “Project Description: The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 2.37 +/- acre property into two lots. The property, zoned SR-1A, is located on the east side of Ridge Road, north of Rte. 149 and south of Clements Rd. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The proposed subdivision plat indicates two lots that are shown fronting on Ridge Rd. Topography: The site is generally level in the middle of the property while the western area of the site slopes up to Ridge Rd. The rear area of the property slopes to the southeast toward a seasonal stream, and contains a small area of slopes over 25%. Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed homes will be served by private water and sanitary sewage facilities. Drainage : Based on topography provided by the applicant, the sites will drain to the southeast toward an existing seasonal stream. Lot sizes: The proposed plat contains lots of 1.08 and 1.29 acres. Both lots conform to the area requirements of the SR-1A zone. Future development: The proposed plat indicates two single-family homes (one on each lot) with on-site septic systems and private wells. State Environmental Quality Review Act : This project is an Unlisted action for SEQRA review purposes. A SEQRA long form EAF has been submitted. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 12-1990; resolved 1/22/1991 (3 lot residential subdivision) Subdivision 10-1991; resolved 10/22/1991 (2 lot subdivision of previously approved lot 3) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.37 +/- acre property (currently zoned SR-1A) into two properties. The lots are shown as sharing a common driveway off of Ridge Rd. The provision of a common driveway on this section of Ridge Rd. (a local arterial) meets the requirements of § 179-20-010 C (shared driveways). The proposed lots meet the dimensional requirements for lots in the SR-1A zone. The applicant is requesting the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Sketch Plan Approval - Previous engineering comments from SB 12-1990 and SB 10-1991 (previous subdivisions of this property) centered around the depth to groundwater on this property (Lot 2 of the original subdivision), and septic field setbacks from a seasonal stream located just off the south property line of this property. I have attached these comments for the Planning Board to refer to. No test pit data has been provided with this application. Based on the previous comments from earlier subdivisions of this property, Staff recommends that the proposed septic fields be located at least 200 ft. from the seasonal stream to the south. In addition, Staff recommends that any buildings (especially on lot 2A) be constructed at least 75 feet away from the limits of the seasonal stream (the Town of Queensbury shoreline setback for this zoning district).” MR. HILTON-Okay. Before you you have preliminary and final subdivision for an approximate 2.37 acre property that is proposed for subdivision into two residential properties. This was subject of an older subdivision in the early 90’s, well, one subdivision this lot was subject to actually. The property is zoned SR-1A. A shared driveway is proposed off of Ridge Road, which meets the requirements, shared driveway requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting waivers from stormwater management plan and Sketch Plan approval. With the previous approval, subdivision approval for this lot, the creation of this lot, the main issues seem to be the septic field setback from a seasonal stream to the south off the property. I’ve attached those previous engineering comments to give you some idea of what they, what was said, what they were talking about. Staff recommends that the proposed septic fields for this subdivision be located at least 200 feet from the seasonal stream, and in addition, that any buildings, especially obviously the one on Lot 2A, would meet the 75 foot setback from the seasonal stream. That’s the traditional setback for the SR-1A zone. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, and with me is Jon Lapper and the applicant, Mickie Hayes. As far as the Staff comments, pretty quick, this is a two lot subdivision on the east side of Route 9L, Ridge Road, just to the south of Clements Road, and as far as the seasonal stream, we show the location of that, just to the south of Lot 2B. We also show the 200 foot setback from that that was depicted in the previously approved subdivision. We show that the septic system is sized for the size home, three bedroom or four bedroom home can be fit a few hundred feet away, and the proposed house is shown over 120 feet away from the proposed stream, and we have no problems stipulating the 200 feet and the 75, 200 for the septic and 75 for the home. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. STEVES-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-The, when this was subdivided before, there were no restrictions or anything put in, no further subdivision or anything, George? You didn’t give us a copy of the approval of the previous subdivision. MR. HILTON-Yes. I know, we did not give you, there were no restrictions that restricted future development. Again, the lot widths, they meet the lot widths, the shared driveway. MR. RINGER-Okay. Yes. I didn’t have any problems. I just wanted to make sure that the previous subdivision didn’t have any restrictions. MR. HILTON-No. MR. RINGER-Then I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I have no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Knowing that the building inspector is going to do an excellent job in looking at the septic system, I want to take a look at what Rist-Frost had to say the last time about 13 years ago, that he just never suggested doing the test in the spring, the same as our existing sewer ordinance requires, because it was probably a good idea, and so I don’t know that the groundwater that you’re looking at now, unless you’re going to go through the mottling routine again. If you’re going to go through mottling, that’s the way to get rid of looking at this thing in the spring of the year. If you go to 136, they really talk about doing your groundwater test in the spring. So I don’t know how you know what level you’re getting into, unless you do that now, around this time of year. That’s my only comment, but I’d leave that to the building inspector. He’s going to look at that. He’s either going to issue you a permit or he’s not going to issue you a permit, and for me to get in the middle of that would be unsatisfactory. So that’s all I have. Other than that, I think this is a good subdivision, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Wow. Anything to add? MR. LAPPER-Just one. (lost words) happen in the spring because their other one may be a little later than they thought. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? MR. HILTON-No, that’s all we have at this time. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL RICHARDS MR. RICHARDS-My name is Bill Richards. I’ve lived across the street from that property since 1963. I think I know more about that property than anybody in this room because I walk it every day of the week. I walk up and down Clements Road. I watch the pond. I walk across the properties, before they were, long before they were developed, probably seven months out of the year at least you better wear boots walking across that property. I know that the hedgerow that’s on the east end of that property is going to be pulled out in order to make fill, because if these people get away with putting in less than 2500 yards of fill to bring that up to grade level, it’ll be a miracle, and if they’re planning on subdividing it for two houses, it’ll even be more fill. I know that the home built by Russell Brown in 1985, right directly across from my house, for one home, which was a whole lot higher than that grade is there, required not less then 3500 yards of fill. I watched it come truck after truck after truck, in 1985, because my front porch is right there. I don’t want to see another house there. I want to see open land. I want to see the deer run. You can tell, I’m sorry my voice is quavering because I feel very emotional about this whole thing. I love, love, love that area, and I do not want to see yet another house built in that area. I’ve seen enough. I don’t know what’s happening to Queensbury’s requirement for open space. Harrisena at one time was a farm land. The open space has disappeared. I can tell you, I can give you one statistic, informal though it may be (lost words) 50 cars a day. Now the average traffic right now by my porch is 240 cars per hour. That’s between Route 149 and let’s say Warner Bay. Over 200 houses have been built there. Each one containing a family that uses by average, by Federal standards, and Federal studies, 75,000 gallons a year, times all those houses. The aquifer is so badly degraded that the well that was drilled by my house in 1946, which used to supply an 80 acre dairy farm, a farm stand and two houses, is now barely sufficiently to supply my house because the aquifer is going. It’s disappearing. I don’t need another two houses across the street. I don’t even need one house across the street. The deer who run across that property on a regular basis don’t need those houses either. In other words, I don’t care if these guys own that property, that’s their problem, not mine. My problem is to keep them from building two houses. I don’t like the whole idea, and I don’t mind telling you about it, and if you think these comments are strong, get me outside and I’ll really give you strong comments, and that’s about all I have to say. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? JIM PALMER MR. PALMER-My name is Jim Palmer. I’m an artist, retired art director. I bought a house across from this property because of its natural view that I have with the fields across from me. When I bought the house in 1973, it was, had Holstein cows running back and forth, and deer along with the cows, and I don’t, I echo Bill’s sentiments exactly, because I don’t want to see another house there either. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. EMILY GODDARD MRS. GODDARD-Emily Goddard. I live directly opposite that piece of vacant land. We’ve lived there since 1992. We just love the rural feel of our area Harrisena, and it will be very sad to see two houses go in there. If it can be kept at one, that’s okay, and if it could be zero, that would be great, but there’s no need to have two houses squished in that two acre parcel of land. Thank you. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. Do you guys want to come back up. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments, responses? MR. LAPPER-There’s not much to say. It’s just sad. I mean, the neighbors don’t want to see it changed, and we understand that, but it’s a conforming two lot subdivision. It’s a lovely part of Town, and Mickie will do a very nice job with the houses, and we’re just sorry the neighbors are upset. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m more curious about everything that came out of the comment from the public relative to groundwater. MR. STEVES-Okay. On the previous subdivision, there was a test pit done right in the center of the lot which would have been original Lot Two, in the area that we have our septics there, or at a higher elevation as proposed, and that was Test Pit Number One done by Charlie Maine, and it had mottling at four feet three inches, and we’re at about two feet higher than that with our proposed systems. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are the test pits shown on the plat? MR. STEVES-This is on the original subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-I think I’d be inclined to want to see a new test pit done. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that. I mean, this data is 13 years old. MR. VOLLARO-It’s interesting that the 4.3 feet that Charlie Maine came up with back when the Rist-Frost program was done is the same, is that the same four feet, 4.3 you’re using, now, or have you got, did you come up with exactly the same data? MR. STEVES-No, that’s the data that was on the original subdivision plan. MR. VOLLARO-The original subdivision plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Why didn’t you want to a new test pit? MR. STEVES-With the data that was there, and the surrounding areas, two or three other subdivisions that have been done up along 9L, we’ve had similar data, one for Mr. Kellogg, another one for the subdivision you just approved, Farrington, all up and down in that area, another one that we had done just about a year and a half, two years ago on Clements Road for Mr. Batchelder all is pretty consistent at about the four to four and a half foot mark. MR. MAC EWAN-But the comment that one of the members of the public made was that that parcel right next door to you, the guy had to bring in a lot of fill. MR. STEVES-There was that seasonal stream on the property to the south, and as you can see on the contours, it does drop off considerably to the south and to the east. I don’t disagree with that, but not on our particular properties. The only portion being the very extreme southeastern corner of Lot 2B, which, where no development is proposed, and we couldn’t develop back in there because of the fact that we have stipulated 200 feet with the septic and 75 feet with the home. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I would tend to go along with taking a look at the high water on this property in the spring, like now, do a test pit now, rather than rely on the mottling that was done back 13 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) years ago, and that showed 4.3 feet. I mean, that 4.3 feet is really not consistent with what I heard from some of the neighbors here that have been around there a long time. It sounds like it’s a lot higher to me. The only way to check that is to do a test pit now during the spring. It won’t take much to do it. You’ll know for sure. MR. SANFORD-That seems reasonable. MR. RINGER-Yes. It’s reasonable. It’s a two lot subdivision, but, yes, I don’t see a problem with doing a test pit. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, how about if we do it and submit it to Staff? If it’s at 4.3, we don’t have to come back. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I don’t want to do that. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to do a 4.3 mottling, or 4.3 test pit? MR. LAPPER-No actual groundwater. Right now we’ll get groundwater. MR. STEVES-Mottling or groundwater at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, there seems to be a sense to just ram things through the review process here, and I’m unwilling to do that. We have procedures we follow, and when we ask for information be supplied us, I want to go that route. MR. LAPPER-I’m not going to argue with you, but can we submit it, since we already missed the deadline for this month, can you put us on for the first meeting of next month since it’s only test pit information, and let us submit it? MR. MAC EWAN-How long will it take you to do a test pit? MR. STEVES-I’ll get a hold of Charlie Maine tomorrow and probably get him there within the next few days. MR. HILTON-I just want to clarify, are we talking one pit where each proposed septic system is located? Or just one pit? MR. STEVES-Whatever the Board would like to see. MR. HILTON-Okay, and just to touch on the submission to Staff. Submission to Staff for information such as this is usually forwarded to C.T. Male. I personally don’t feel comfortable looking at a test pit and saying yes or no there’s high groundwater. MR. MAC EWAN-I realize you’re going to send it down there. Can you have the information to, if we were to table this and ask you to do two test pits, one for each proposed septic location, can you have that information to our Town office by close of business on Friday? MR. STEVES-That I cannot guarantee, no. MR. LAPPER-Certainly by the middle of next week. We’re not even at the end of this month. I mean, we just, the deadline was today for submission. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know. That’s what I’m thinking of. You could say maybe the middle of the week, by Wednesday, close of business? MR. LAPPER-Sure. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-And we’d put you on the last meeting for next month. We’ll give C.T. Male some time to review it. MR. LAPPER-They’re only going to need like five minutes to review it. MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but, you know, with their workload and stuff that we’re sending down to them, I just want to be sure we’re giving everybody ample time to review things. That’s all. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to rush things through for the sake of rushing things through. What I’m going to do is re-open the public hearing. I’m going to leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE & FINAL STAGE HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: To do a test pit for each of the proposed septic systems for both buildings that are being proposed on the lot, and this information to be submitted to Planning Staff by the 23 of April, rd which would then be forwarded to C. T. Male for their approval. We’re tabling this application to our second meeting of May, May 27. th Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-I just have one more request, Mr. Chairman. Next week we have a public hearing scheduled for the Western Reserve, West Mountain Road project. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And a number of the consultants will be away, because it’s a school vacation week. So we’d like to request that that get moved to May. MR. MAC EWAN-The second meeting of May. MR. HILTON-Well. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you getting filled up? MR. HILTON-We’re getting pretty deep. I mean, I guess I don’t have a problem with it, but. MR. MAC EWAN-This, though, would take precedence because it’s already on, it’s already in our pipeline, so if something has to be bounced for next month, a new application. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess we’ll have to contact, Staff will have to contact the Chairman tomorrow and we’ll have to work on the agenda, but in terms of Western Reserve, the public hearing was left open, and we’re. MR. MAC EWAN-If we have to re-advertise, they’ll foot the bill for it. MR. HILTON-So we’re moving that to May, the second meeting. Okay. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-As a matter of fact, I’ll guarantee you we’ll re-advertise it. All right. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2003 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II KATHARINE SEELYE AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY ZONE: WR-3A APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10’ X 16’ SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ADDITION WILL INCLUDE A FULL BASEMENT BELOW WHICH WILL EXTEND 5’ UNDER THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 17-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION: 179-4 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KATHARINE SEELYE, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-2003, Katharine Seelye, Meeting Date: April 15, 2003 “Project Description: Applicant proposes a 160 sq. ft. addition to an existing single-family residence. The proposed addition to this non-conforming structure (within the Lake George CEA) requires Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed addition meets the side yard and rear yard setbacks. The applicant received a variance from the ZBA to allow a lesser setback than the required 75-foot shoreline setback. 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? The proposed building addition is not expected to increase the burden on public services and facilities. 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? No adverse traffic impacts are anticipated with this proposal. 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? 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed building expansion is adequately sited and arranged to fit with other site features. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Not applicable to this project. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Parking appears to be adequate at this location. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian access exists from the parking area to the existing home. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant proposes to construct an eave trench to intercept and manage additional stormwater from the proposed addition. This method of managing new stormwater appears to be adequate. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Water and sanitary sewer services are both private systems. The proposed on-site septic system will be reviewed by the Building and Codes Department during the building permit process for this addition. 7. 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 proposed plans do not indicate any vegetation to be removed and no additional plantings are proposed. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. It appears the proposed expansion would not have a negative impact on emergency services at this site. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 160 sq. ft. addition to an existing single-family residence. The proposed addition was granted an Area Variance to allow a lesser setback than the required 75-foot shoreline setback. As part of the site plan, the applicant has provided an eave trench to manage additional stormwater that will be created by the new building addition. This method of stormwater management appears to be an acceptable method of managing new storm water that will occur as a result of the proposed addition. The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - Overall lot coverage will not exceed Floor Area Ratio requirements for the Waterfront Residential Three Acre (WR-3A zone). SEQR Status: SEQR Type: II, no further action required.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This application proposes a 160 square foot addition an existing single family residence. The proposal was received, was granted an Area Variance to encroach on the 75 foot shoreline setback by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The site plan proposes an eaves trench to manage stormwater. It appears to be an acceptable method of stormwater management. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management plan, a grading plan, lighting plan, landscaping plan, and overall the floor area ratio requirements will meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the owner and applicant, Katharine Seelye, sitting to my right, for this site plan review application. As summarized, 160 square foot addition to an existing single family house in a Waterfront Residential 3A. This property is located along Route 9L, west of Dunhams Bay. Lakefront property. As indicated, we last month received an Area Variance for shoreline setback relief, and the next step obviously here was site plan review. The addition of the 160 square feet has, also results in additional living space, and therefore a new septic system is part of this plan. The addition will include a basement below for storage and mechanical system purposes. The driving force behind this was the ability to have an area of the house, currently the existing structure is on sonotube type foundation. There’s not full foundation within in it, just crawl space below. There’s not a year round area for mechanical systems such as the water system. There is a drilled well located up gradient of the house site, and it’s desire to be able to have a water system which would be more three season or year round, actually not having to have it drained during the winter months, so it would be able to be used early season and late season without great difficulty, as well as a little additional area for storage within the structure. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’ll start with you. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-No. Tell me a little bit more about the septic system. My understanding was the water treatment system, that there is some kind of treatment, ultraviolet is it? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. The drilled well on the site does not meet the setback to the absorption field. We went before the Board of Health and received a variance for that relief from that separation distance with a condition as proposed by the owner, that an ultraviolet light treatment system would be part of the system, would be a requirement would be installed, would be reviewed by the building inspector. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Is there sort of a back up plan should something like that fail, or? Because my understanding is there’s close proximity between waste and water. Is that why this is needed? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-It’s a recommendation that I’ve made to be able to mitigate the difference in the separation distance. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that there’s a maintenance program in place for this and that kind of a thing. No further questions here. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I don’t have much. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good thing. MR. STROUGH-That’s a good thing. The only thing, now I see you have stormwater planned for the one addition. How does the rest of your house roof drain? Does it just sheet drain on to the lawn and then go into the lake? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And do you use fertilizers? That’s good. I’m done. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to get some idea of what the elevation of those septic systems are, visa vie the lake, what kind of elevation differences do we have there? MR. MAC ELROY-The area of the lake level is at 320, 319, and that area of the property is probably in the 330, low 330’s. So in the range of 15 feet differential. MR. VOLLARO-Differential between the lake and the elevation of the proposed test pit. MR. MAC ELROY-Approximately. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Now these are raised beds? MR. MAC ELROY-There would be some fill involved, whether, it may be shallow absorption system. Basically there was sufficient depth for vertical separation between if you put the trenches in at grade and then just simply filled over the top. That’s the basis of design. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-Well, the way Chapter 136 reads is that because you’re less than 1,000 feet from the lake, you’re roughly 100, just a little under 100 feet, Chapter 136 calls for at least three feet of naturally occurring soil over impervious layer or seasonally high groundwater. Did you check for that? MR. MAC ELROY-Which we have, yes. Yes, we’ve done test pits and perc tests in that site. MR. VOLLARO-On that site. Okay. When did you do that? What time of the year? MR. MAC ELROY-I believe it was, we got our approval from the Board of Health last May. Those test pits were either done in the late fall or early spring. MR. VOLLARO-When we get down to the, one of the things I wanted to discuss is the UV system. I suspect you’ve got a pump that pumps into a pressure tank that’s around 40 pounds, something like that? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. The treatment would be in addition to your normal mechanical system for the water system. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The UV is after the pressure tank, however. It looks at water coming in after the tank. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, the safety device, explain that to me. Is it a check valve that solenoid closes? MR. MAC ELROY-There’s a solenoid, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s an automatic closure on the loss of electricity. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the expansion itself, are you going to have any bedrooms in there? MRS. SEELYE-No. MR. VOLLARO-No, no bedrooms in the expansion. Okay. I just have a note here. I know that you’ve asked for waivers, and one of the waivers is your stormwater report. We looked at the property. It looks well manicured. It looks nice. Do you use herbicides, pesticides on that property at all? MRS. SEELYE-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I’m, you know, concerned about anything going into the lake. That’s why I was looking for stormwater, but if you don’t use any of that. Okay. Mr. Chairman, that’s all I wanted to talk about. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t get out to see the property. So I’m going to abstain on this application. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a copy of the variance in your file from the Board of Health? MR. VOLLARO-I do, sir. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-You do? Let me see it for a second. Tell me a little bit about this ultraviolet system that you’re going to use. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it’s getting to be a more common form of treatment around the lake, maybe in the City of Glens Falls. It is a device, a light, that kills the microorganisms that are of the size and of the criptosporidium and jardia that is the concern for health issues. It’s a relatively easy system to operate and maintain. You may check, wipe the bulb occasionally. It may require replacement of a bulb on a yearly basis. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that something to be done by the homeowner? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Really? MR. MAC ELROY-It can be, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Or certainly the companies that provide these can provide that maintenance as well. It’s the owner’s choice. MR. MAC EWAN-Because there is some dangers using the ultraviolet, you know, fooling around with the ultraviolet lights themselves. Some inherited health risks if you don’t maintain them properly, if you’re not properly trained to use them, and the only reason I say that is the industry I’m involved with, ultraviolet light is just starting to make it’s way into some of the equipment that we use, and it all has to be handled by certified people, and doing the maintenance on these things. I’m just curious as to how it fits into a residential environment, and you’re basically doing the same kind of thing with the ultraviolet light. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s basically a tanning bulb. MR. MAC EWAN-A little more intense than that. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you can get burnt by it. MR. MAC ELROY-There’s a certain strength of that intensity of that bulb, and it ranges. If you had a public water supply, the State Health Department would have jurisdiction and has certain requirements, standards for that. I can’t quote you the numbers, but it’s certainly a more common device. Where in the past, if people treated their lake water, it may have been through a chlorination system, chlorination disinfection. This ultraviolet system is a little more user friendly. You don’t have to maintain a level of chlorine residual within your system. You don’t have to replenish that chlorine from time to time. So in terms of user operation, it’s a simpler system. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I was curious because I didn’t see it noted on your plat, but as long as it’s well defined in the resolution done by the Board of Health, that’s fine with me. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there’s reference to the variance that was issued by the Board of Health on the plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but I didn’t’ see anything on your plat that said you were using a UV system, but the resolution clearly states it. All right. Public hearing. Anybody want to comment on this application? 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Type II. We do not need to do a SEQRA on this. Okay. Does someone want to introduce a resolution, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2003 KATHARINE SEELYE, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 22-2003 Applicant / Property Owner: Katharine Seelye SEQR Type: Type II Agent: Dennis MacElroy Zone: WR-3A Location: 14 Crooked Tree Drive Applicant proposes a 10’ x 16’ single story addition to an existing single family residence. Addition will include a full basement below which will extend 5’ under the existing structure. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. APA, CEA Cross Reference: AV 17-2003 Warren Co. Planning: 4/9/03 Tax Map No. 239.15-1-10 Lot size: 0.66 acres / Section: 179-4 Public Hearing: April 15, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/17/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/11/03, and 4/15 Staff Notes 4/9 Warren Co. Planning 4/8 Notice of Public Hearing 4/2 Meeting Notice 3/19 AV 17-2003: approved WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and will be held on April 15, 2003, 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 We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following comments: 1. The Planning Board has accepted the waiver requests: Stormwater Management Plan, Grading Plan, Lighting Plan and Landscaping Plan. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) 2. Deletion of the second to the last Whereas in the Staff prepared resolution regarding SEQRA. [so deleted] Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MRS. SEELYE-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FWW 3-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED GREAT ESCAPE AGENT: LEMERY GREISLER, LLC ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONDUCT A REGULATED ACTIVITY/DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A REGULATED WETLAND BY CONSTRUCTING AN ACCESS ROAD TO EAST SIDE OF PARK FROM EXISTING ACCESS ROAD. ALL CONSTRUCTION WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE 100 FOOT ADJACENT AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 54-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 SECTION: 179-6 JOHN LEMERY, JOHN COLLINS, DEAN LONG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a public hearing. MR. HILTON-Okay. What we’re looking at with this application is the site plan modification to allow the construction of two areas, an access drive. One is the reconfiguration of an access drive. Another is some additional hard surfacing to connect to existing drives. The fact that it’s within 100 feet of an Army Corps Wetland requires that this application receive a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands permit. It should be noted that this application, it appears that it will not require a DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit or an Army Corps permit. The main issue with the entire application appears to be stormwater and erosion control. We have some C.T. Male comments to that effect, and I think we’re still working on that, but that appears to be the main issue with this, and that’s all we have at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LEMERY-Good evening. MR. COLLINS-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. COLLINS-Okay. I’m John Collins, Vice President, General Manager of the Great Escape. With me is John Lemery, who’s our Counsel, and Dean Long from the LA Group. What we’re proposing is the elimination of an existing access road to our back area, our foods warehouse area, which goes up a 35 foot hill and then down to the warehouse. What we’re proposing is a connector road that will run parallel to jungle land on an existing asphalt road, and then run up, 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) basically up side Coco Loco Restaurant, if you’re familiar with the Park, and connect with the existing warehouse access road. We believe this will, for two reasons we need to do this, is because the new ride, we need to have emergency access, which we can have through the Park, but want to provide another access for emergency vehicles, as well as have access to the foods warehouse without having to go across pedestrian midways to accomplish that. Stormwater management obviously is a big part of what we talked about in our EIS. We believe this will improve a situation where we’re eliminating a 35 foot asphalt road that, or excuse me, that drops 35 feet straight towards the wetlands, and then put in a connector road where it will mitigate stormwater runoff. MR. LEMERY-I would just comment that we’re prepared to adopt the recommendations of C.T. Male in their response to the Planning Board relative to the additional silt fencing and the stormwater runoff issues. So we’re prepared, as part of the conditions, to adopt those, and make those part of the remediation. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Dean, anything you wanted to add? MR. LONG-If there’s nothing from the Board, if everybody understands where we are, or I can quickly run through it all on the map, just so you get a better. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we were up there Saturday, looked over the site. MR. LONG-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-We walked back and forth back in there. Rich, we’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-No. I did have a little trouble figuring it all out on the map, but when we took a look at it, we met one of your workers, and he pointed out where the road would be, and it seems to make some sense, and as long as you’re willing to go along with any comments on the stormwater, I’m fine with it. So, nothing further for me. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-When you said Coco Loco, I thought it might be that new ride. I’m fine. Gone. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else? MR. STROUGH-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. My only comment was I spent an inordinate time on this drawing trying to find this road, but when I got up there on Saturday, I said it’s here. We’re taking this hill out, it’s going right through here. I understood what they were talking about. MR. LONG-That’s because all of the areas are already, you know, we’re building so much of it on top of existing gravel and hard surfaces. MR. VOLLARO-What you could do is just turn on one or two layers on your CAD so you could just see the road. That would help a lot. That’s all I have, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s because we’re going to do these things together as far as the SEQRA goes, let’s move into the next application. Is that doable with you? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, not necessarily. Unless I’m mistaken, remember that the Great Escape. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Old Business. Never mind. Sorry, I thought it was New Business. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure if we were going to say the same thing, but remember that the Great Escape prepared the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and unless the proposal exceeds any of the thresholds, which I’d be very surprised by, then it’s not, then neither of these proposals would be subject to SEQRA review. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Thank you. It’s late. So we can introduce a motion on this, if someone wants to introduce it. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t open up, no public hearing. Does anyone want to comment regarding the Freshwater permit? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FWW 3-2003 GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Freshwater Wetlands Permit – FWW 3-2003 Applicant / Owner: Great Escape SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Lemery Greisler, LLC Zone: RC-15 Location: Great Escape Theme Park Applicant proposes to conduct a regulated activity / disturbance within 100 feet of a regulated wetland by constructing an access road to east side of park from existing access road. All construction will take place in the 100 foot adjacent area. Cross Reference: SP 54-2002 Warren Co. Planning: 4/9/03 Tax Map No. 36-2-3.1 Section: 179-6 Public Hearing: April 15, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/17/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/11/03, and 4/15 Staff Notes 4/9 Warren Co. Planning 4/8 Notice of Public Hearing 4/2 Meeting Notice 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 15, 2003; 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, 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will adopt the recommendations suggested by C. T. Male’s April 15, 2003 comments and make it part of the final submitted plan. 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 4/15/03 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 54-2002 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION GREAT ESCAPE AGENT: LEMERY GREISLER, LLC ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION IS AN ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING SERVICE ROAD WITHIN THE PARK (PARK AREA A IN FEIS). CROSS REFERENCE: FWW 3-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 JOHN COLLINS, JOHN LEMERY, DEAN LONG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing. MR. COLLINS-This is the Ghost Town. What we have is on our previously approved site plan for the Canyon Blaster which is the mine train roller coaster, engineering reinforcements required that we have a cross support that basically came right in the middle of the midway as 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) you come up Ghost Town hill. What we’re proposing to do is we have to shift the entrance to Ghost Town to the left approximately five feet, and when we do that we will now add handicap access because we were changing the entrance into Ghost Town. So that’s basically it. That’s the modification. We’ve had to shift the entrance to Ghost Town to accommodate not running in to this cross support. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-It looks pretty straightforward. I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to introduce it, please. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 54-2002 GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 54-2002 Applicant / Owner: Great Escape SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Lemery Greisler, LLC Zone: RC-15 MODIFICATION Location: Great Escape Theme Park Applicant proposes modification to approved site plan. Modification is alteration of an existing service road within the park (Park Area A in FEIS). Cross Reference: FWW 3-2003 Warren Co. Planning: 4/9/03 Tax Map No. 36-2-3.1 Public Hearing: Not required for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/17/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/11/03, and 4/15 Staff Notes 4/9 Warren Co. Planning 4/7 C. T. Male engineering comments 4/2 Meeting Notice 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification, 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, 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will adopt recommendations suggested by C. T. Male’s April 15, 2003 letter, and make it part of the final submitted plan. 2. Waiver requests granted: Lighting Plan, Landscaping Plan 3. 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 4/15/03 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize. You guys should have been right at the top of the agenda and not have to sit around all night. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. DISCUSSION ITEM: DUNKIN DONUTS, DIX AVENUE REGARDING PROPOSED NEW DUNKIN DONUTS PROJECT ON DIX AVENUE JERRY BURKE & GARRY ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. HILTON-Okay. Just a quick summary. We have a discussion item this evening. The applicant will be coming before you with a subdivision and site plan to allow, which proposes a Dunkin Donuts on Dix Avenue. You can see on the aerial here it involves this parcel here, opposite the McDonalds. This is the K-Mart parking lot. So it will be in this general area, and access management appears to be the major issue here, possible interconnection to the existing driveways, the potential to line up the drive with what’s across the street. Certainly we don’t want to create any situations, a worse situation or make it worse in the future. The applicant proposes a one way in, one way out. The Zoning Ordinance allows and suggests, or says that commercial drives should be limited to one. We’d be looking for one access point, with the potential, as I said, for connection to the parcel to the west, in the form of an easement, or some language that says in the future they’ll connect, and certainly maybe more of an actual physical access to the remaining lands here to the east. The part of the subdivision that where I guess will be vacant. That’s really what we’re looking at. Again, this is a clean slate, fresh, new site, and access management, as I said, appears to be the major issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask a question first, before I poll the Board. Are you buying the whole parcel or just a portion of it? For the record you are? MR. BURKE-No, sir. I’m Jerry Burke. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re not buying the whole parcel? MR. BURKE-You are correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Rats. Would you buy the whole parcel? It would be heck of a development site. MR. BURKE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No? Okay. All right. Larry, we’ll start with you. Unless you want to go through and give us a quick orientation. That’s up to you. MR. BURKE-I’m not sure that I need to. Pretty much we meet the zoning that’s in place out there at this site. I was just going to say, I do have a plan that has the entryways. When we met with George and Craig, they asked us to develop a plan that had those entryways, although that map’s pretty good, but this has a surveyed entryway where it is in relation to our site. I brought a few, I thought maybe I’d just pass them out so you guys could look at them. MR. MAC EWAN-I think one of the things that came up kind of in formal discussion and comment, I guess you could say, is that it would be nice if it could be either lined up with the McDonald’s, or, as George mentioned there, connected with the Quaker Farms parcel. MR. BURKE-We can’t line up with McDonald’s, for the simple reason we’re not buying that much frontage, and Mr. Schermerhorn is not selling that much frontage to us. MR. MAC EWAN-Is he retaining the remaining part of the remaining acreage? MR. BURKE-I don’t know what he’s doing. That you’d have to ask him. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know what’s going on? Can you offer some insight? Because my mind’s thinking here, even though it’s late, my mind’s thinking. MR. HILTON-No, I don’t know what Mr. Schermerhorn’s plans are. I guess the one way to look at it is that he owns the parcel as it exists right now. I would figure he’d be involved in the subdivision process. As part of the subdivision process, you know, we can discuss lot configuration, access, location of drives. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I’m thinking that maybe we can persuade Mr. Schermerhorn to do one boulevard type entrance into that thing that you could have access internally into this proposed site that they want to have and whatever other sites he wants to develop on it. I think we could probably persuade him to do that. MR. BURKE-I just talk to Jon, Jon Lapper’s Rich’s attorney. We just talked to Jon when he left. He was sweating, by the way, and he said that Rich, at this point in time, he’s not looking to build anything there. He has nobody that’s interested in anything there. He’s not going to build something on speculation, and he’s looking to sell us this parcel and pretty much that’s it. I think what he may be doing is authorizing us to do the subdivision for him. So when there is a subdivision, you’ll probably see us coming in to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that end of Town is starting to become more prevalent to development down there, and access management’s been a problem that’s been plaguing this Board for a couple of years, and if this is an opportunity. I mean, this isn’t the first time that parcel’s been in front of us for a proposed development, and the Board has pushed for the boulevard type entrance, which would eliminate a lot of curb cuts on Dix Avenue and help traffic flow much better and be much, obviously safer. I should add, though, that the last development that was in front of us was closer to that bend in the road, which was a real big traffic issue with us, because sight distance wasn’t there. Okay. Any other questions, comments? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a comment that it’s exactly like the one, from what it looks like, where the footprint is just like the one we’ve been debating all night. MR. BURKE-The one difference is that this site is one acre in size. So it’s more than twice the area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. So we won’t have the issues for turning radii and trucks getting in and out. MR. BURKE-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And vehicular. MR. BURKE-Right, and there’s no easement for anyone on the site. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to have to get by, I guess, trying to figure out 179-19 or 20 on an arterial road, which this road, Dix Avenue, is what we’re dealing with here. It talks about 440 foot of spacing between driveways. I guess this looks that has to be something that’s got to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get relief on that. MR. BURKE-Is that a recommendation, or is that a? MR. VOLLARO-179-19-010 is a requirement, I believe. MR. HILTON-Yes. I believe I calculated that at 330. MR. BURKE-Yes, that’s what you had in the. MR. HILTON-Yes. I just want to double check. Yes, I did put 330, and again, I believed that to be correct, based on the fact that this is listed as an arterial, and I’m going on the peak hour trips. I don’t believe that they’d be over 100, peak hour trips for this proposed use. I mean, again, a lot depends on what kind of data that they provide us, but, again, just based on this table, if it’s under 100, the separation distance that’s required is 330. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at that, too, but I don’t know, well, they’d have to tell us. MR. HILTON-Yes, absolutely. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. VOLLARO-I picked moderate, as opposed to small. Because it’s a, you know, the kind of thing that’s an in and an out, an in and an out, and that’s why I picked moderate and 440 as opposed to 330. MR. HILTON-Certainly if their peak hour trips were between 101 and 300, yes, the 440 would apply, and you’re right. I mean, I guess they would have to supply that information. MR. STROUGH-Well, I personally agree with the Chairman on this boulevard concept, because if we do things piecemeal here, and we don’t like it, and Mr. Schermerhorn has been willing to work with us in the past, and I could see another one acre, you know, fast food, fast turnaround right next to that, and another one next to that. Now we’re talking about two, four (lost words) ins and outs, two, four, six, and a stretch of highway there that, considering the in and outs on the other side, you know, I think the location’s fine. If we can get Richard to work with you, so that he can have one boulevard to service whatever else he’s going to do with this, and service you, I think that just makes a whole lot more sense. So I support the Chairman’s concept here. MR. VOLLARO-It certainly is a very viable option. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but I mean, that boulevard doesn’t have to be constructed prior to this site. It just sort of has to be earmarked that. MR. MAC EWAN-It would have to go hand in hand. MR. SANFORD-Would they? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, because he’s buying basically a one acre parcel, which is going to sit in that western corner of this large lot, and my mind is thinking that I would like to see that boulevard line up with the, in alignment with the McDonald’s, beverage center entrance. So that would pull that boulevard way off his parcel that he’s thinking of buying, but, you know, it’s not like he’s got to go in there three quarters of a mile with it. I mean, he could stub it in, you know, 500, 600 feet and just pave the first 200 feet of it or whatever. MR. STROUGH-And down the road he is going to do something with it. MR. MAC EWAN-You know he’s going to. MR. STROUGH-Probably next month, regardless of what he says. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s going to be on vacation for a whole week. He’s got a lot of time to think, and plan. MR. STROUGH-And he’s pretty easy to get along with. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the only other comment I would have, I think architecture. MR. ROBINSON-We’re going to have the Queensbury prototype. MR. BURKE-A boulevard across from McDonalds doesn’t work for us. MR. MAC EWAN-No, but it works for the whole development at build out. Having your access coming into that boulevard, is where I can envision access for every other piece of property in there that’s going to be developed. What it eliminates is potential for up to four or five curb cuts between the flower place and that first residential parcel on that corner. That’s what you try to eliminate. It makes internalization better. It makes it much safer. Do you understand what I’m saying, though? The boulevard would service the whole parcel, and off that boulevard would be the entrance into your parcel. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. BURKE-I understand that, and that limits the amount of traffic that comes into our parcel if we don’t have direct access from Dix Avenue. MR. STROUGH-It will be direct access. MR. BURKE-No, it won’t. It’ll be direct access as you pull in. You just don’t pull into my lot. You pull into a boulevard then you drive into my lot. MR. ROBINSON-There would be no exit out of our lot, either. You’re saying that all access would be through that boulevard. MR. MAC EWAN-Onto that boulevard. MR. STROUGH-Well, if Mr. Schermerhorn puts other enterprises that also attract traffic, this boulevard could provide possibly attract more business to your enterprise, if the other businesses are attracting people in that area, but if we allow six curb cuts along here, I think that’s insanity. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s discussion. I mean, that’s what this is all about is brainstorming. MR. BURKE-I mean, just to look at it, without Schermerhorn having anything there, to come in and then bend around, I don’t know exactly how it happened, but I think he’s going to land lock, like, there’s going to be some parcel in here that’s not going to be able to be used for anything, and then we’d come in to our lot. I think we’d have to reconfigure everything just to get the drive-thru to work, and I don’t know how people, it would be a tough, just negotiating the site. MR. MAC EWAN-We had a site, we had a commercial and a senior development proposed on that parcel about three or four years ago, and it was the same concept. It was going to be, the commercial activity was going to be toward the front and facing, fronting Dix Avenue, but the site was serviced by a boulevard, with the access to all the commercial activity off that boulevard and the boulevard eventually service the proposed senior housing place, and that’s the concept I’m thinking of here. From an access management, it makes so much sense. From a safety aspect it makes a heck of a lot of sense. Mr. Schermerhorn may not even be interested. MR. SANFORD-What your objection, that you’re going to lose business because of the boulevard is going to be difficult? MR. ROBINSON-The difficulty. MR. BURKE-Yes. The stores that don’t have direct access to the street traditionally don’t do the amount of business that stores, you know, if you have to pull in and turn around and. MR. SANFORD-Well, you’re going to be right there on Dix Avenue, though. I mean, you’re going to be very visual. MR. BURKE-I just have historical data that tells us, I mean, you know, a certain percentage. MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s another thing, too. Let’s say we can’t go the boulevard route. Can you show access to an adjacent property for future potential access? MR. ROBINSON-That we have shown. MR. STROUGH-Reserved for future drive? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. HILTON-I guess my thinking here is that, even if it’s, if it’s a boulevard or not, I think we’re still suggesting that the access be lined up with that McDonalds. I think boulevard is, I don’t know, a style. I mean, are you talking center median and all that? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking basically access, yes, lined up with it. MR. BURKE-But if I don’t own it, how do I line something up with it? MR. HILTON-Well, I think the key is at the time of subdivision, when the owner does have the property under his control, we, the Planning Board discusses with him ways to design the lot so that the access can be provided across the street from McDonalds. MR. STROUGH-When would Richard come in to see us again, next week? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-He’s gone. MR. STROUGH-He’s gone for a week? Can we sit down and talk with him. MR. BURKE-That’s 300 and, how many feet down, Garry, is this? We had it surveyed. What is it? What’s the distance? MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you know, we could sit here and talk about this until midnight. It’s getting late and it’s an exchange of ideas. You’ve kind of heard where we’re coming from and what we’d like to see developed with that parcel, and if we can work with you and make it happen, great, but it’s going to take some players. It’s going to take some planning. MR. BURKE-I have a question. Does the Board have the right, if this piece is subdivided out, to deny access onto the street? If Richard says I’m not going to do a shared driveway with you, and I own this piece of property at that point in time, does the Board have the authority to say, you can’t do anything with it? You now own an acre and you’re stuck with it? MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, you can answer that. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the applicant’s missing an obvious point, but maybe it’s not so obvious. The Board has the right to deny the subdivision. It wouldn’t be stuck owning an acre without access. If you already own land, you may have heard somewhere that the Board should not be trying to land lock it, and that’s true, and the Board typically wouldn’t do that, but the Board has the authority to deny the subdivision approval that you or Schermerhorn’s going to have to seek in furtherance of this project, and while you may not have control, now or ever over the remaining portion of the property over which some jurisdiction would have to be exercised to get these intersections to line up, certainly your grantor has the that ownership interest and he’s part of the, his property is part of the subdivision. MR. BURKE-So if he sells a conforming lot, one that meets all the standards, you still have the right to deny him to subdivide his property. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. There’s a whole lot of subdivision criteria that don’t guarantee subdivision approval. One of them is means of access. MR. BURKE-Even if it meets the Code? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know how far you want to go with this? MR. BURKE-I’m not an attorney, okay. I make donuts for a living. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, your proposal doesn’t meet the Code, okay. Let’s take it at that, right? The Code talks about, correct me if I’m wrong, aligning the intersections, right? So your current proposal doesn’t meet the Code. MR. BURKE-The Code talks about aligning the intersections or the Board talks about aligning the intersections? MR. VOLLARO-The Code does. We usually don’t legislate over the top of Codes. MR. MAC EWAN-Basically what you’re trying to do right now is you’re trying to talk about two different processes here. The first process is the subdivision of land. The Subdivision Regulations empower this Board with a lot of scrutiny to a lot of design standards that meet within the Town’s Subdivision Reg’s. One of them’s access management. The second thing that you’re talking about is your site plan that you want to seek and put on the application which is a whole different set of criteria that we use to judge that, and in that also addresses access management, along with a bunch of other criteria that this Board has the power to review. So it’s two issues here. MR. BURKE-Okay. MR. ROBINSON-Is there something that can be done with the access to the west? MR. MAC EWAN-You mean the old King Fuels site? It’s pretty much straddling your property line from what I’m seeing up there on that drawing, on the photo. MR. ROBINSON-It’s just, yes, it’s just off our property, it’s actually closer than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Another thing that might be considered is see if you can get a cross easement from the garden place, using their driveway. MR. ROBINSON-I’m just thinking that, and I’m not speaking for Schermerhorn, but if we’re taking another 80 feet of frontage, that’s probably frontage that’s worth a few dollars. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we have these things on for discussions, is to exchange ideas and see where we can go with it. Another deal killer, Rich might not even be interested, but by the same token, if he comes in for a subdivision, I’m sure everyone up here is going to be looking for a single access to that subdivision, and how those lots are going to be cut up, and how it’s going to be, how you’re going to have vehicle movement in there. Because that’s a busy road, and the concern that this Board’s had with past applications right there is that corner, that bend in the road. You start lining up five or six curb cuts coming out there between the garden place and that first residence, by the time you get closer to that first residence, you’re going to have problems with sight distance coming around the corner. We denied an application, actually I think they ended up withdrawing the application, because of that, and this Board was unwilling to move on that because it was a big concern with us. MR. ROBINSON-See, that’s why we stayed down at the other end, we stayed away from it. MR. MAC EWAN-We also worked with the beverage center there, too, because there were some issues with that, and we had to re-work that one around. MR. SANFORD-You do a boulevard entrance, aren’t you going to have to have a light there? MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily. When I say boulevard, I don’t mean it necessarily has to be a median divided road each direction. I’m just thinking a wider than average road, one access feeding off, I mean, they use them, I’ve seen them in Clifton Park area, you know, we’ve been trying to push the issue up here, but the problem we’ve had up here, up to this point, is basically that you’re not getting a bunch of applications coming in that are adjacent to each 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) other where you could really make it work. Now is an opportunity, we’re dealing with a clean slate here. It’s a vacant piece of land. MR. SANFORD-The problem I have is you’re pretty close to that main intersection where the light is, and then you’re going to be presenting a. MR. MAC EWAN-No you’re not. If you go right across from the McDonalds entrance, the McDonalds and the Anchor Beverage entrance right there, and aligned it up that way, that’s also a highway standard. Highway standard, they want to see intersections aligned at 90. MR. SANFORD-No, I agree with you, Craig. I’m just saying that it’s close to that main intersection, but you’re right. You’re moving it actually the other direction. MR. MAC EWAN-When were you planning on making application, next month? So the first step you’ve got to do is subdivision. MR. BURKE-We can do that simultaneously. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe. Maybe not. I mean, you can make your application for both of them at the same time, yes. MR. BURKE-How about where we have that water retention pond, right on the side of our property, if we could talk Rich into doing a shared driveway there. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s kind of hard to speak for Rich when he’s not here. I mean, it’s just an exchange of ideas here, and I think you kind of get what the Board would like to see. MR. ROBINSON-What he’s suggesting is that we do something on the edge of both, but it doesn’t line up with what’s going in to McDonalds. MR. MAC EWAN-At this point, my personal opinion is I’d like to see, show me a subdivision plat and what you’ve got, and take it from there. MR. RINGER-That would be better. MR. BURKE-Okay. Any other comments anybody had on the layout? MR. MAC EWAN-Architecture, I guess. MR. STROUGH-They said they were going to do the Queensbury style. MR. MAC EWAN-Queensbury prototype. Just as a comment, I don’t want you to think that we pushed you beyond what architectural design we have, that we’ve never done with any other applicants. When you see the new Home Depot open up, you’ll see a Home Depot you’ve never seen before. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Four months of evolving. MR. STROUGH-That was four. Home Depot One, Home Depot Two, Home Depot Three, and Home Depot Four. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And Rich Schermerhorn has come a long way. MR. MAC EWAN-And FYI, this Home Depot is the only one of its kind in the country, to date, that we know of. So, I mean, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, you know, these design corridors we have we’ve been striving to work with applicants when we can do it. and make it a better Town for everybody. 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/15/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-We did a Stewarts store that is completely, they have one other Stewarts store like this in Clifton Park, and they put it in. MR. BURKE-Well, thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck. See you next month. This thing with John Salvador, let’s deal with that. MR. RINGER-I didn’t read it. MR. HILTON-Well, Craig drafted the letter. As I understand it, his site plan for that handicapped access way was approved, and Craig signed the plans and submitted a copy to him and John resubmitted what we gave you tonight, a copy, I believe we gave you, with the letter. MR. MAC EWAN-I looked a letter that he drafted here last week, and he wanted to have the plat signed by the Chairman, a site plan. MR. HILTON-Yes. What he presented was the plan with the conditions and the stormwater all on one mylar that he wanted Craig to sign, and Craig said he wasn’t going to sign it, which I think the letter you got indicates that he wasn’t going to sign it, and I think there’s some concern, the appearance, that it appears to be a subdivision, and he didn’t want to go signing something when in fact Craig, as the Zoning Administrator, had already signed off on his site plan that was approved. So, having said that, he drafted that letter to John saying I’m sorry, I’m not going to sign your mylar, and the information that we provided to you tonight is just to keep you up to speed and up to date and keep you in the loop. MR. MAC EWAN-And he’s FOILing, what’s the reason behind the FOILing? MR. HILTON-Well, I think he FOILs quite a few things. Real quick, just to remind everyone, I gave you this letter from Marilyn, this e-mail from Marilyn, asking for comments on that Open Space plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HILTON-So, just to let you know. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 78