Loading...
2003-10-21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY JOHN STROUGH ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes. Would someone like to move them? CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 15, 2003: NONE August 19, 2003: NONE August 26, 2003: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR JULY 15, AUGUST 19, AND AUGUST 26, 2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2003, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro EXPEDITED REVIEW: SUBDIVISION NO. 12-64 MODIFICATION PREVIOUS SEQR JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS PROPERTY OWNER: DIAMOND POINT REALTY BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT – TWICWOOD, LOTS 53 & 54 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION BY MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LOT LINES. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD . CROSS REFERENCE: 12-64 TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-28, 29 TOM JARRETT & BOB HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. HILTON-Really quickly, this is a simple modification to a previously approved Planning Board subdivision, which result in a conforming structure on Lot 54 of the subdivision. It would not impact, negatively impact, the conformity of 53. As you mentioned, this is an Expedited Review item. Staff doesn’t anticipate any negative impacts with this item, and that’s all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, Mr. Jarrett. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett and Bob Holmes from Jarrett-Martin Engineering. MR. HOLMES-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Northeast Development Group owned three lots on Twicwood Lane. The centermost lot needs a lot line adjustment between that lot and the lot to the north, and I’ll let Bob explain what happened and what we’re proposing. MR. HOLMES-Apparently at the time of construction on Lot 54, when the building was staked out, the stakes were inadvertently moved closer to the line within the side lot setback. So at this time, we were looking to make that correction by adjusting the lot line slightly to the north. MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds pretty straightforward. MR. HOLMES-Yes. I’d just make one note that in the letter that we submitted to you on September 9, I mentioned that the building permit was for Lot 53. That’s actually for Lot 54, if th you hadn’t noticed. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions, comments from Board members? Hearing none, does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 12-64 JARRETT- MARTIN ENGINEERS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Whereas, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 12-64 Applicant: Jarrett-Martin Engineers Modification Property Owner: Diamond Point Realty Previous SEQR Boundary line adjustment – Twicwood, Lots 53 & 54 Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved subdivision by modifying previously approved lot lines. Modifications to previously approved subdivisions require approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: 12-64 Tax Map No. 296.9-1-28, 29 Public Hearing: Not required for Modification Whereas, the application was received 9/15/03, and Whereas, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 10/17/03, and 10/21 Staff Notes 9/29 Meeting Notice Whereas, a public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas the Planning Board is reaffirming the previous SEQR, and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that We find the following: The application for MODIFICATION TO LOTS 53 & 54 is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following condition: 1. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 21st day of October 2003 by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-Do we want to talk anything about the pre-approved SEQRA on this? MR. MAC EWAN-It should be in the motion, but you can boilerplate it if you want, but it’s in the motion, no changes to the original SEQRA findings. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So be it. That’s the motion, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Do I have a second? MR. SANFORD-I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. HOLMES-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS PUD SITE PLAN 54-1999 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION DAVID WENDTH, NE HEALTH AGENT: JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES ZONE: PUD LOCATION: THE GLEN @ HILAND MEADOWS APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUD SITE PLAN BY CONSTRUCTING A 26 SPACE PARKING AREA, A KIOSK/SITTING AREA, ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL SITE LANDSCAPING. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 296.8-3-3 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: ART. 12 DAVID WENDTH, PRESENT; JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And a public hearing isn’t required for a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This is a modification for a previously approved PUD Site Plan for the Glen at Hiland Meadows, proposes a new 26 space parking area, kiosk, and terraced patio area, as well as additional landscaping. The applicant has submitted an elevation, if you will, showing what 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) the kiosk will look like. The applicant has also submitted a stormwater management report which has been forwarded to C.T. Male for their review and comment. We have, in fact, received yesterday a signoff from C.T. Male on this project. That’s all we have at this time for this one. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. WENDTH-Good evening. Just as a way of introduction, my name is David Wendth. I was before you several years ago when we went through the project presented to you, as we were developing it. I’m with Northeast Health and the Eddy. With me tonight is Barb LaBoff who’s the Executive Director at the Glen at Hiland Meadows, Nick Norton who’s the Director Maintenance at The Glen, as well as Jim Miller from Miller Associates, who I believe you all are familiar with. Just as a background, and bring back some history, you’ll recall The Glen at Hiland Meadows was developed as a joint venture agreement between the Glens Falls Home and the Eddy, and back in 1998, ’99, when we were before this Board, we did state that as a matter of practice the Eddy, when we’re operating our facilities, we do perform landscape enhancements ongoing for our projects. Obviously, at the beginning of a project you have a bunch of constraints, but certainly we want to continue developing the site as far as planting goes, and create a real neat environment for the residents. Tonight, Jim will be sharing with you some of the plans that we have, as far as landscape improvements go, to the site. Also back in 1998, ’99, we spoke to you about parking requirements, and if you will recall, at that point in time, because senior housing does not necessarily have parking requirements as far as Code goes. We used our experience to date on several of our communities throughout the Capital District to establish how many parking spaces per dwelling unit would be required. The base line that we typically have used up to that point was .5 spaces per dwelling unit for independent living apartments, and then a full compliment of parking spaces for staff, guests, as well as assisted living residents. Since that time, parking has been a challenge, over the past year or so, and I think it has to do with the fact, the fill up and the type of resident that is moving into the community. It’s a good problem. I’ve said that to Jim when we first started out, and as well as to staff when we met with them, from the standpoint, the residents that we have moving in to the Glen are very active individuals. Hence, they bring cars. So basically what we’re looking to review tonight, again, is to expand some parking, surface parking areas. Those spaces that we’ve identified as the new parking surface area would be dedicated to staff so that we can get staff away from the main building and leave the spaces near the building for the residents and the staff. We believe this will address the problem here in the future. So I’ll turn it over to Jim. MR. MILLER-Thank you. For the record, Jim Miller, landscape architect. One of the, the main thrust of the project was to establish a master plan for a five to seven year improvement program that was going to be primarily landscaping, is going to include irrigation, in those landscape areas, and there was a couple of areas where we were doing the terrace and we’re doing a kiosk and sitting area and the parking area that David talked about that we felt were necessary for site plan review, which is why we’re here, and what I’d like to do is give a quick overall of the whole program and focus on the hard surface areas. This is an overall plan that shows the existing facility with the cottages along Kenwood Circle. Longwood Drive is the main access road back to the main building, with the Independent Living Center and the Assisted Living Center. The cottage area was primarily landscape improvements, and this is the main entrance, which is now irrigated, and then this is the cul de sac for the cottages. The planting will include street trees along the road. As you know, it’s a pretty wide open site. One of the concerns has been buffering along Meadowbrook Road, and also along the Hiland Springs apartment complex. There’ll be more buffering to provide privacy. Irrigation will be installed in all the front yards. That’s actually going to be the first phase. There will be some landscaping to dress up areas like the cul de sac and the entry, and some of those types of things, and the other portion of the improvements at the cottages is we have a wetland and detention area along the back portion, which leaves sort of an unfinished edge to the backyards and the intent is to add some additional landscaping, more decorative landscaping to help define that edge and also to help provide some screening to the apartments. So that was the main thrust of the improvements at the cottages. At the main building, we would continue 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) with the street tree planting. We would continue with the buffering along the apartments. Some of the other items that we didn’t include the drawings, but we’re addressing re-doing the planting in some key areas. Some of the entrances some of the terrace areas where there’s more visitors and there’s more resident activity, and then the three areas that we thought really we needed to be here before the Planning Board for is the kiosk area, which is located in this corner where it overlooks the wetland that’s evolved in the area of the detention area, but also there’s views out across the Hiland Golf course in that area. So we wanted to develop an area for the residents to come out and that’ll also be a perennial garden. The parking area, which we talked about, is off this side of Longview Drive. The main service area to the building is in here, and the intent was that staff would park in this lot, and as David mentioned, that’s been a problem because there’s more residents parking required. Staff is now parking back along the road. So the intent is to develop this parking area so staff will park here, freeing up space in that parking lot, and the third area we submitted to you is development of a terrace off of the multi-purpose room to promote some outdoor gathering, outdoor activities. There’s some terraces off of some of the other areas like the dining room. So the intent was to provide that additional space. The terrace is fairly simple. There’s an exit door that comes out, two exit doors that come out. It’s a concrete terrace that’s 28 by 42 feet. Low bollard lighting, similar to what’s been used at the other terraces. There’s some provision for in the future possibly putting some kind of a water feature or fountain there, and then some substantial landscaping to buffer some of the units along one side of the building and some of the air handling units, but mostly keep this area open to the lawn, out to the rear of the building, and the other plan was plans for the kiosk and parking area. The kiosk is fairly simple. There’s a part where the garage is in the back in the detention area, develop a walkway off of the sidewalks and also accessible from the parking, the existing parking area. This is just going to be a crushed stone surface to a kiosk in the area. There would be railings to create sort of an overlook, and the intent is to introduce some plantings and some perennials and some flower gardens and hopefully this is something that would be expanded in the future where there’s some room in this area for that kind of activity to happen. Some of the other landscaping has to do with providing some buffering by the garage, and around some of the utilities, improving some landscaping around some of the signage and those types of things. The parking areas for 26 parking spaces, it’s laid out so the staff has access to the driveway and the walkway that would come in. It would be planted along Longview Drive. There would be some berming, shrub planting and tree planting along there, and then there’s some signage here that directs people to parking areas, which would remain and be relocated. The lighting, right now, there’s cut off lights along the main road. We’d use similar type of lights, and they probably wouldn’t be required all night that the peak use, or staff, is through dinner hour. So after dinner hour staff drops down, this parking lot would probably not be necessary at that time. With that, that’s sort of an overview of the improvements, if you have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty straightforward. Okay, Mr. Strough, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, the proposed terrace area is going to be a sitting area? MR. MILLER-Well, it can be used for any kind of a gathering. Typically have some tables and chairs there, but it could be, you know, used for small parties or. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, it’s fine, and I think the improvements you’re suggesting are great. I mean, they’re all big pluses, I think, for this project. The low bollard lighting is going to be okay for pedestrian safety there, isn’t it? Yes, okay. All right. The gazebo looks great. Now what’s going to be the pedestrian access for the gazebo? MR. MILLER-The material? MR. STROUGH-No, I’m just a little bit, there’s going to be a sidewalk going to it? MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, this is the existing sidewalk system that extends all around the facility into the building. So the main access, walking out from the buildings, would be accessing that sidewalk and crossing Longview Drive to get out into this area, and then we’ve provided a 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) secondary access to the parking area in case someone for some reason drove in, to access it from the parking. MR. STROUGH-All right. Yes, that’s good. Now, the only other landscaping feature you didn’t mention, and you went through all of it very nicely, but, up near Meadowbrook, on the west side, northwest side of the property, you’re removing a hedgerow and doing some plantings in there? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Now, is that just to neaten it up? MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, there’s actually a few, couple of areas there, up in here, you can see there was a note, it’s real, here we’re not doing any planting, but the intent there is to remove some of the brush. They’ve been mowing more up through there. As a matter of fact, there’s actually a trail that comes up, just see people walking out into that meadow, but the intent was to prune, some of those trees are Poplars, prune them up and make them look a little neater and remove some of the brush. Part of the problem here is that the existing hedgerow comes up, and it’s pretty weedy, and from these cottage units in the back, you look right out, and it really doesn’t look very good, plus it’s all deciduous. So in the wintertime you’re looking right at the Meadowbrook Road. So the intent was to remove some of that, and then plant it with mostly evergreens, mostly spruce trees along the top of that mound. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, that’s what I figured, but I thought I’d ask and make sure. Now, just, you know, the project’s fine. I have no problem with it. I think it’s great, but the future expansion cul de sacs, one goes to the north, one goes to the south, have those already been approved? MR. WENDTH-No, actually, as my memory serves me correct, those were just identified on the property when we were here before, to show potential expansion. We would have to come back to the Planning Board for site plan approval. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I was just curious. Thank you. No, no further questions. It looks like a great proposal to me. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I only have one comment, I guess. I wanted to ask Staff, you said we had a signoff from C.T. Male, did the drainage report have a re-do for the 50 year storm do you know? I know that he covered it in his letter, C.T. Male did, but I was just wondering if this drainage report was changed? MR. MILLER-Bob, I could answer that. There was an addendum to the drainage report that was prepared by the engineer, and he had some discussions with Jim Houston and signed off on that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’ll be an addendum to this drainage report that talks about a 50 year storm? MR. MILLER-There is an addendum that’s been accepted. That’s right. There’s been an addendum that’s been accepted by C.T Male. MR. VOLLARO-It would be nice if we had something, do you have anything in the file on that, George? MR. HILTON-We have a letter from Jim Houston stating that they’ve received, they, C.T. Male, received additional information. As far as the updated report, you know, we don’t have that right now. We have the signoff, though. You could certainly request that it be submitted. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. VOLLARO-I just want to make sure that the drainage report covers the 50 year storm, because it was prepared against the 10 year storm, and it would be good if we had something in there. As long as there’s going to be an addendum to it, I’m sure Jim will cover that. MR. MILLER-Yes. I’ll make sure copies of it get submitted to the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the only other comment I had was on the parking area for the employees. When we talk about not needing an awful lot of light in there, you know, at five o’clock in the winter it’s dark, and if they’re just going to be serving, that parking lot’s just going to be serving for dinner capability, it probably is going to be pretty dark when people come walking back out after that period is over, and it just seems to me that a little more lighting, I just didn’t see, the only lighting you’ve got doesn’t even cover the back, the back parking areas at all. I mean, you know, your light spillage, and that’s my only comment. I think there should be more lights in there, a couple of more lights. I recognize at night people go away and the parking lot won’t be used, but in the wintertime, at five o’clock, it’s dark. That could get to be a pretty lonely spot out there to go walking through. It’s just, I don’t know, you know, in looking at it, just looking at the amount of coverage, it doesn’t look like enough. So I would be proposing that we put at least another two lights out in the back, along that back line. MR. WENDTH-Am I correct? The lighting, I believe, that we are looking at is a directional type lighting. So it’s flooding the entire parking lot area. They’re not shoeboxes that point straight down. The foot candle it pushing out into the parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-In looking at the lighting diagram, it doesn’t seem to cover it. I looked at that, and it doesn’t seem to cover the back, if you take a look at the lighting diagram that you folks supplied. MR. WENDTH-Okay. I’ll take a look at that. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t get all the way back here. If you look at your KP-2. MR. WENDTH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the drawing you’ve got up there, and the lighting doesn’t cover any of those back. MR. MILLER-It does. Well, it diminishes, obviously, across the parking lot. I think the intent was that, you know, we didn’t really need it lit to the extent of, you know, a main parking area, when we looked at it. So when we discussed it with the clients, that was their feeling that if we had two in the lot and one along the driveway, that would be adequate for the amount of night use it gets. MR. VOLLARO-They’re described as cut off lights. So they probably are (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-You’re by yourself on this one, Bob, Mr. Vollaro. You’re out there on that limb all by yourself. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve been there before, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move it along. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. It looks really beautiful, and we were up there on Saturday, and it looks like it’s been there for a while and it’s growing. Things are flourishing, and it looks 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) nice, and I think the autumn seasonal displays in the front are very, very eye-catching, very pretty. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. No, I’m comfortable with everything. Just a clarification point, though, that parking area is going to be primarily used for the staff, right? MR. WENDTH-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Yes, I’m fine with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything to add. All the questions I had have already been addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s tough when we start at the other end of the table, isn’t it? Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. I would like to comment that I think the whole project is spectacular. MR. WENDTH-Thank you. MR. METIVIER-It’s beautiful. Well, you know, we drove by it once during site plan, and Mr. MacEwan made a comment that, you know, it was a great project, you know, it was well thought out, and it’s stunning. MR. HILTON-I just want to clarify, the light detail shows a cut off fixture directing light to the ground. You had mentioned flooding forward. MR. MILLER-Well, it’s a forward casting lens, is what it is. MR. HILTON-Okay, but it’s a pole cut off fixture. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does somebody want to move it? MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ll move it. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO PUD SITE PLAN NO. 54-1999 DAVID WENDTH, NE HEALTH, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Whereas, an application has been made to this Board for the following: PUD Site Plan No. 54-1999 Applicant/Property Owner: David Wendth, NE Health SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: James Miller, Miller Associates Zone: PUD MODIFICATION Location: The Glen @ Hiland Meadows Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved PUD site plan by constructing a 26 space parking area, a kiosk/sitting area, along with additional site landscaping. Modifications to previously approved site plans require approval from the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 296.8-1-3 Lot size: N/A / Section: Art. 12 Public Hearing: Not required for Modification 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) Whereas, the application was received on 9/15/03; and Whereas, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 10/17/03, and 10/21 Staff Notes 9/29 Meeting Notice Whereas, a public hearing is not required for a site plan modification; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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 Planning Board reaffirms previous SEQR, 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 and is subject to the following condition: 1. Provide copy of an updated stormwater management plan. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. WENDTH-Thank you. MR. MILLER-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 36-2002 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION C.R. BARD, INC. AGENT: RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ZONE: LI LOCATION: 289 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN BY CONSTRUCTING 50 EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 65-02, AV 96-90, SP 4-91 WRAREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-43 LOT SIZE: 7.90 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 CHRISTINE WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPILCANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And again, there’s no public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to modify a previous site plan by constructing 50 parking spaces to be used as employee parking. They have requested the following waivers, grading plan and a landscaping plan waiver. The site plan proposes the parking located north and west of the recently approved building addition, and the applicant has submitted a stormwater report and it’s been forwarded to C.T. Male for their review and comment. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating two freestanding floodlights. In fact, it appears that they would be mounted above 90 degrees and throwing light forward, and perhaps one solution that would provide lights more in conformance with our zoning code would be additional lights on the other side of the parking lot, and it might more evenly distribute the light. I guess the question is, what is the mounting angle of the freestanding fixtures, and the proposed wall mounted fixture, I guess the question would be, is it a cut off fixture. Any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during the review of this application, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MRS. WHEELER-Good evening. My name’s Christine Wheeler from Rist-Frost Associates. This is a modification for the site plan approval to Building 5, and I believe 5A as well, at C.R. Bard. They’re in a growth phase right now and have really found a need for additional parking spaces for their employees. They currently operate flextime where they find that a certain percentage of employees are there at the same hours of the day, particularly between noon and three o’clock in the afternoon. Currently, they’re parking off pavement. They’re trying to make parking spaces wherever they can, and we’re hoping that another 50 parking spaces would accommodate their current need, as well as address their future needs for expansion when the Building 5 and 5A structures are completed. We submitted a stormwater management report to C.T. Male and received comments from them on Friday. I have submitted a response to that this afternoon. So that has not been addressed yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that your response, C.T. Male was relative to the C-1 site plan in the letter? MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve not received a response from them? MRS. WHEELER-No, I have not. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MRS. WHEELER-No, there’s nothing else I’d like to add. I haven’t received any comments from C.T. Male regarding the lighting in addition to the comment that the lighting seems weak around, in the parking area. I’d like to add to that that we did not include an analysis of existing lighting at the facility as part of this project, and there is other lighting available in the back of Building Five, and on the parking lot located to the northwest of Building Four. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just have one question, a couple of questions, I guess, but the first one I have is concerning our Code, which is 179-4-060, and talking about the number of employees and how much parking would be allowed. Now we picked the easiest one for you, which is one per employee on the maximum work shift, plus one per company vehicle. All the other areas talked about one for every two employees. So we picked the one that would favor you there, at least I did, assembly operation and use. Now, in order to come up with the number of parking spaces that you require, how many employees will you have on that first shift, on your maximum? MRS. WHEELER-I don’t recall what exactly the number of employees on the first shift were. When we had come up with our figure, we had included some, we had some growth included in that number as well. They’re expecting to be hiring, I don’t know how substantial, but a 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) number of employees within the next couple of months, most of which would be on first shift. That number was accounted for, and I did not include any of the flextime, since the Code does not provide for that. MR. VOLLARO-Did you get a chance to look at our 179-4 Code? MRS. WHEELER-Yes, we did, and we had gone back and forth between myself and our client about what would be the appropriate numbers to use. We had received some reports from Human Resources regarding the number of employees that were there, and we had some projected numbers for future employees as well. MR. VOLLARO-Well, according to the Code, we’re allowed to give you a 20%, it says no use may provide parking in excess of 20% over the amount specified in this section. So you’ve got a 20% buffer in there as well, that you can use. I just wanted to know what that was, because we’d be approving 456 parking spaces, without knowing how to apply that number, or I wouldn’t know how to apply that number. MRS. WHEELER-On the original application, I believe that we were in excess parking spaces by about 30, based on the number of employees in the application submitted for Building 5. I think we’ve found that an addition of 60 employees from the time that original application was filed was appropriate to account for their growth, in the past year, in addition to growth that they’re anticipating in the next year. MR. VOLLARO-What is your final growth number going to look like? The way this is worded, it’s a little, I’m not sure I appreciate the wording in this thing, but it’s the way it is worded, one employee on the maximum working shift. I don’t know exactly what that means. I mean, I know what they’re driving at, you have a main shift and maybe a supplementary shift later on, but I’m trying to just get it, if we approve 456, is it within our 20% limit, based on the number of employees that you have, and I don’t know that number. MRS. WHEELER-What I had originally come up with was approximately 550 employees on the first shift, and we had applied some growth, like approximately 10% growth. MR. VOLLARO-If you’ve got that much, then you’re okay, with 456. That’s fine. If that’s your number, then 456 is well within the 20%. You don’t even need the 20% to do it, at 500 employees. Okay. So I don’t have a problem with that. I just wanted to clear up where we were on that. I had no way of getting back to the number. Staff’s comment on the lighting, I guess we want to just take a look at that lighting in that lot, probably floodlighting is not something that we usually use, especially on parking lots and stuff like that. Now, I’d just like to ask Staff a question. When you said place additional lights, you’re looking at softening the lighting that they’ve proposed, is that what you had in mind when you wrote this Staff note? MR. HILTON-Well, actually, I’m not so sure that, I think the wattage may be appropriate. I’m just concerned with the angle of the lenses and the fixtures shooting out and possible glare. Whereas, if you had cut off, 90 degree, facing downward fixtures, and you put two additional on the other end of the parking lot, you may have more evenly distributed light, and be more in conformance with our Code. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. What are the heights of those? Because they could put cut off fixtures where they have floods. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, when you make your comment that you’re worried about glare from the floodlights, are you worried about spilling on to another property? MR. HILTON-No, no. It’s more of, if you have a light at an angle other than 90 degrees, and someone is driving past it or into it or something, you know, they are lower wattage lights, but still, I think you’d want them down facing, for safety purposes. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. MAC EWAN-How big of an issue is that with you? Scale of one to ten. MR. HILTON-Four, I don’t know. I just think, as far as, again, our Code calls for down facing lights and you’d want to be in conformance with that as much as possible, and I understand the need for lighting the parking lot, and I just thought as an alternative to using the two fixtures and aiming them up to try to light the entire light, maybe two additional poles might do the trick. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-Maybe something that would help out on that is that the pole is only 15 feet high. It’s a square, straight, aluminum 15 high, black pole, which is well within our Code height, and perhaps that would mitigate it somewhat by leaving the floods there, the fact that the light pole is lower. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if I caught it. Did you say that those lights were adjustable on the poles, you can adjust the angles? MRS. WHEELER-I believe the lights are adjustable. I think it’s light we typically use on a lot of. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we condition the modification to adjust the angles on the lights to alleviate the? MR. HILTON-I guess I don’t understand what you’re saying. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re worried about them casting out. You want them angled down a little bit more. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-They have a light pole that has the ability to adjust that, so you’re not getting the blindingness of when you’re pulling in the lot. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So if we condition this modification that, if we should consider approval on it, to have them adjust it so that they’re more downcast than they are flooding out. MR. HILTON-I think that’s fine, and again, understanding the concern and the applicant’s desire to light the entire lot, I don’t want to have the back side dark, if you decrease that angle, and you might want to explore additional lighting, like I said, on the other side of the lot. MRS. WHEELER-And I believe the reason why our electrical department head decided to choose that type of lighting is that the applicant had expressed concern with the number of employees that work during the nightshift. They wanted to make sure that the whole lot was adequately lit, for safety issues, especially considering there’s a wooded area in the back side of the lot. MR. SANFORD-Well, would the applicant consider putting in the four lights versus the two? MRS. WHEELER-I haven’t addressed that with the applicant, however, I think C.R. Bard’s been very receptive in the past to any of the comments. So I don’t think it would be a problem. MR. SANFORD-I would be more inclined to want to go in that direction, and just condition the approval on four lights. I don’t know what everybody else thinks. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a good approach. I think I would even suggest, if it’s possible, that the floodlights come off and there be four lights with sharp cut offs, 90 degree cut offs. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re heading that way, then. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s the only question I had. The C.T. Male comments were not yet answered. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, looking through what they had to respond to C.T. Male, I see the really big, to me, in my mind, the only big outstanding issue is line item four, and they’re concerned about making the pipe a larger size or increasing the slope on it to gain the velocity in it. Everything else seems to be relative to the subject of C-1, Site Plan, bullet item two, three, and five all are relative to putting notes on a drawing. MR. VOLLARO-And one is in general just change that drawing to site/grading plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. So, I would feel comfortable that, you know, they could work it out, Rist-Frost could work it out with C.T. Male to get the signoff on the velocity of that pipe flow, whether they upsize it or whatever, but the rest of it just seems to be, with the exception of lighting, which we just covered, is generally just a, you know, putting details on drawings and stuff. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. MR. HILTON-I don’t want to interrupt, but I spoke with Jim Houston today and he did indicate that he’d be comfortable with a conditioned signoff. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It sounds good. Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m okay right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Based on the comments you were just making, it kind of begs the question, to what the applicant’s response was to item four from the C.T. Male letter. MRS. WHEELER-Which is regarding the velocity of the? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. WHEELER-Our reasoning for submitting the plan that we did is we’re trying to utilize some drywells that were approved with Building 5. Those drywells take roof runoff from the new facility. We’re trying to reuse them, but as a result they’re a little bit high. So in order to be able to pipe them into the drywells, I had to reduce the slope in order to make it in to them. That’s my response to comment number four, and I’m willing to work with Jim Houston and see what his recommendations are as far as alleviating that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So at this point you really can’t increase the slope of the pipe. So you’d probably be looking at increasing the diameter of the pipe. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MRS. WHEELER-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I didn’t really have any other questions. I had the same concerns with the lighting that we already discussed. There’s no use in going on with that further. I think, other than that, it’s all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it, then? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’ve got some conditions here. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s your conditions first, before we move it. MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s address the difficult one, the one on the lighting I had trouble wording it, but here’s what I’ve got. All parking lot lighting will be mounted at 90 degree angles to the light poles. Two additional similar light poles or fixtures may be added if the light is insufficient. All wall mounted fixtures will be fixtures with cut off. MR. MAC EWAN-Back up to your may be added if the light is insufficient. Who says that it’s insufficient and who dictates whether it’s adequate? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I had trouble with that. MR. SCHACHNER-And when. MR. MAC EWAN-And when. Let’s just add it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-That way there’s no guessing game. MR. STROUGH-All right. Two additional similar light pole fixtures will be added to the, what is that, the. MR. VOLLARO-We want to put four 90 degree downcast cut off lights on each one of those poles, John. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but where do you want the location of the other two poles? MR. VOLLARO-Directly opposite the poles that are there now. MR. STROUGH-That’s on the north side. MR. MAC EWAN-It would be along the bike trail. MR. VOLLARO-In direct opposite to the lights that are there now. Just on the north side of the lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the north side of the parking lot. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay, north side of the parking lot adjacent to the bike trail, and what else I have, I grant the landscaping waiver request, but do we grant the grading waiver request? Because C.T. Male has asked for grading information. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what he said, John, in C.T. Male’s letter, if you read it under general, he said some grading information is shown on the site plan, and this drawing could be re-titled site and grading plan, and I think he would be happy with that. MR. STROUGH-So we don’t need to grant a waiver for it because it’s going to be part of C.T. Male’s request. MR. MAC EWAN-Part of the signoff that they will be seeking may have to re-grade the slope for that drainage pipe, or it may change the size of the pipe, that’s to be determined by C.T. Male. MR. STROUGH-Right. So I’ve got we grant the landscape waiver only, and then I’ve got, address Town Engineer concerns as listed in the October 17 C.T. Male letter and obtain a C.T. th Male signoff, is the last condition. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Go ahead? MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 26-2002 C.R. BARD, INC., 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: Site Plan 36-2002 Applicant/Property Owner: C.R. Bard, Inc. SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Rist-Frost Associates, P.C. Zone: LI MODIFICATION Location: 289 Bay Road Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved site plan by constructing 50 employee parking spaces. Modifications to previously approved site plans require approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 65-02, AV 96-90, SP 4-91 Warren Co. Planning: 10/8/03 Tax Map No. 302.7-1-43 Lot size: 7.90 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: Not required for modification Whereas, the application was received on 9/15/03; and Whereas, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 10/17/03, and 10/21 Staff Notes 9/29 Meeting Notice Whereas, a public hearing is not required for a site plan modification, and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board is reaffirming the previous SEQR, 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Board does grant the landscaping waiver request. 2. All parking lot lighting will be mounted at 90 degree angles to the light poles. 3. Two additional similar light poles and fixtures will be added to the north side of the parking area adjacent to the bicycle path. 4. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures will be fixtures with cutoffs. 5. The applicant will address the Town Engineer’s concerns as listed in the October 17, 2003 C.T. Male letter and obtain a C.T. Male signoff. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MRS. WHEELER-Thank you very much for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 35-1989 SEQRA TYPE II MODIFICATION STEWART’S AGENT: BRANDON MYERS ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: 977 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF CURRENT GAS ISLANDS FROM 2 PUMPS AND A 24’ X 32’ CANOPY TO 3 PUMPS AND A 20’ X 60’ CANOPY. EXPANSION OF AN ALLOWED USE IN THE NC-1A ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 8-2003 APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-11 LOT SIZE: 1.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And, again, this is another modification. So no public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please. MR. HILTON-Following the most recent tabling of this application, the applicant has re- submitted information, including a lighting plan, which shows gas island light levels with an average of 25.31 foot candles. As the Planning Board requested, Staff researched the lighting 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) plan for the previously approved Getty on the northeast corner of Ridge Road and 149, with the main Getty canopy having an average foot candle of 32.19. However, it should be noted the Getty site plan approval has expired, since no action was taken within one year of approval, and that lighting plan was approved prior to the current lighting standards being enacted, as part of the April 2002 Zoning Ordinance revision. Current canopy light levels as proposed appear to be lower than some of the more commercial areas, Route 9/Quaker Road. However, the Board has indicated recently those light levels that have been recently approved along Route 9 and Quaker Road may be too high, and as the example, USA Gas application is still being reviewed by the Planning Board, has an average proposed gas island canopy light level of 17.9 foot candles. As this area is in a more rural scenic area of Queensbury, Staff believes the canopy light level should be closer to the 10 foot candle average listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has prepared an additional memorandum concerning lighting which is in your packets, and the only additional comment would be that any C.T. Male comments should be addressed during the review of this application. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Has C.T. Male been forwarded this application for review? MR. HILTON-Yes, they have. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve not received any comments back from them yet? MR. HILTON-We do not have a signoff. No. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a letter from them telling what the deficiencies are or something to that effect? Because I have nothing in my packet. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either. MR. HILTON-Again, I don’t have a signoff. We didn’t receive one today. I understand C.T. Male has been speaking with the applicant back and forth. MR. MAC EWAN-Correspondence like the previous application, saying what needs to be corrected, added, deleted? MR. HILTON-That’s been going on. I was just handed this letter from Stewart’s responding to C.T. Male comments dated October 21. This is the only update I’ve seen. Again, I’m aware st that the applicant’s been talking with C.T. Male, but I don’t know what the outcome is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, but the Town has not received any correspondence to date then. Okay. Good evening. MR. LEWIS-Good evening. How are you? My name is Tom Lewis. I’m the Real Estate representative of Stewart’s Ice Cream. Just to briefly review why we’re doing what we’re doing, we’re going over a number of our existing shops that have what might reasonably call internal circulation issues, where there are a number of customers on a regular basis that it warrants an investment to see whether we could fix it. We’ve done upgrades in Milton, Wilton, Clifton Park. There’s a couple of others. So we had appeared before the Zoning Board with the hopes of moving from our existing island, which is over here, by the red dots, which has a pump here and a pump here, and, as I said earlier, that there are lots of old shops that are like that, and if you could just look over here at my little diagram, there’s a pump here, there’s a pump island here. This is how it exists now. A car pulls, say they’re going this way, there’s a car there. They put their hose here, and this car isn’t able to fit here, because this guy’s in the way. So we’ve learned, having the islands next to each other, if they’re like this, it functions much, much better. You could have a car here, one here, one here, one here, one here. So we’re upgrading a number of our shops. We had wanted, as the application says, three pump islands, which was one here, one here, one here. We were not able to get the necessary Area Variance. So we’re down to two. So if I could just hand this out. Just to show what our estimate is. So, our green space is 64%. We’re going from 14 parking spaces up to 22, and we feel this will 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) greatly improve how the cars move in and out, just a lot faster and it’s not any more complicated than that. As to the C.T. Male comments, our engineer has had discussions with Jim Edwards, and we had a verbal over the phone, okay, you’ve addressed everything, but if the Board approves it, we’d be happy to have it contingent on all those issues being met. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the whole point. What are the issues that C.T. Male has? I don’t think I would be in a position to want to guide this Board in a direction of giving any conditional approvals without seeing a C.T. Male signoff first. MR. LEWIS-Okay. That’s fine. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just to update you here, again, we did receive a, I just received a letter from Stewart’s dated October 21 responding to a C.T. Male letter of October 20. I do stth have a copy of the C.T. Male letter of October 20. It has, I’d say four or five comments. Some th items have been addressed. Some they have comments on. Again, it’s not a signoff. They do appear to be somewhat minor, but, just want to let you know that we do have a letter from C.T. Male dated October 20. th MR. LEWIS-We’re not in a hurry, Mr. Chairman. It doesn’t matter. We’re not in a hurry. We can’t build this year anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LEWIS-We wouldn’t want to rush you. MR. MAC EWAN-Continue on. MR. LEWIS-Okay. As to the lighting, at our last meeting we were asked to meet or go under the Getty, and I think we’ve done that. As the lighting plan shows, the Getty was 41. Maximum, we’re 30.2. They were minimum 25.6. We’re 20.1. Average, the Getty was 32. We’re at 25.3, and we’re also under the Cumberland Farm at Kendrick Road. So hopefully we’ve exceeded what the Board wanted. Let me just hand out some photos as to lighting, just to show you how we’re down lit and recessed. This is in Milton. That’s us. That’s a neighbor. That’s in Milton, Route 50, there’s a Mobil on the top, and that’s our one that we built about a couple of years ago. So, hopefully the Board will be happy with the lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-Is the lighting in this photograph the same as what you’re proposing now? MR. LEWIS-I’m not sure. It may be less, but it’s certainly not more, and the fixtures shown on the plan that the light is inside the canopy area with the outside fixture just a little bit under, as you can see in that photograph, and the Board also wanted an easement allowing for possible vehicular access to the lot. So that’s on that plan over here. You can see that on your plan, not this colored one, where we’ve shown possible access that would be up to the Board. They’ve asked for an in and out at both entrances. We have that, and shall I pass around some handouts about the canopy? Is that now or later? What’s the Board’s pleasure? Because I know that was an issue also. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. If you want to hand some out, that’s fine. MR. LEWIS-And the last time we were here, we had delusions of this Mobil blue. We read the Code, recognized that’s not going to happen. What we have on the top matches the roof on the building. That’s what we hope this Board will accept. The one after it shows architectural shingles, which is another one we’ve done, or we have copies of cedar shakes, which is more Adirondack-y. I think that one is in Modina in Ulster County that we’ve done a number of those where it matches the roof design. Again, the last handout are what might be called typical Adirondack cedar shakes. MR. MAC EWAN-This one here? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. LEWIS-Yes. I would suggest what we’re asking match the roof. It looks better in our opinion, but obviously the Board has their opinion. That’s all I’ve got. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I appreciate Tom giving us the different renderings here of what they’ve been using, and, you know, I’m in that Stewart’s store a lot. MR. LEWIS-Thanks for the business. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re welcome, and when I’m in there, it seems like the other half of the world is in there, too. Very, very, very busy, and I really have to take my time, and, you know, maybe I’m more aware of the potential accidents that could happen there because of being on this Board, but I just, I get nervous when I go in there. Not nervous to the point where I won’t go in, but I’m really extra careful, and I’m just concerned about the room, when and if, you know, the extra three pump station goes in, and I’m still not convinced that there is going to be enough room to go in and out and navigate the cars. I mean, I’m looking at it now, not looking at you, because I know where I always park, and it’s tight. I feel it’s really tight. MR. LEWIS-I mean, Catherine, we aren’t doing the third one. We wanted to do the third one, and I know the application says we’re doing a third one. We’re not. We’re only doing two. There are two islands there now. If we’re approved, there will still only be two. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But didn’t we talk about it last time, that we were going to extend it? MR. LEWIS-We’re only getting two. The number of, it is our contention, belief, that if there was a third, it gets cars in and out quicker. We can’t get there from here. The rules are the rules. We cannot get the necessary Area Variance. The number of pumps remains the same. What will happen here is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re going to turn it around. MR. LEWIS-Well, right now the pumps are like this. They will be like this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. LEWIS-Which will have less congestion in the parking lot. This can only mean that there are less cars waiting. That’s the only possible outcome here. I can’t get more cars, you know, more pumps, because we’re going from two to two. I wanted to go to three. I can’t get there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you just feel that, with this configuration, you’ll be able to get more in and out faster? MR. LEWIS-I know we will be able to get more in and out. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that will enhance the business. I’m still concerned of the little, the little entranceway into the store, where that comes out, and it just seems like it’s close there, too. It will be close with the way the new configuration. MR. LEWIS-You mean curb cuts, where the curb cuts are? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, the curb, I think the salvation is the light, and I always go in through Ridge Road when I’m coming up, when I’m going west on 149. I always take a right at the light, and go in the Ridge Road entrance instead of the 149 entrance, but what I’m saying is, is the entrance way into the store, the door that goes into the store, that comes out, there’s a little threshold there, and I just feel, I’m just wondering if that’s going to be enough. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. LEWIS-In this area here? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Right there, if that’s enough room for the cars to get by there, people walking in and out of the store, yes. MR. LEWIS-That is exactly the right distance. A lot of times I will go to various boards over the State, and it’s just natural, they either want this in or out. It happens all the time, Catherine. All the time. MR. STROUGH-I think what Cathy’s talking about is cars trying to go from, let’s say 149. MR. LEWIS-You mean in here. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right, and people walking out of the store and then their cars are parked on either side of the building and believe me, not only are they parked on the side of the building, they’re parked even farther north because there’s always so many cars in there. They’re not eve parked in the parking spots because there’s not enough. MR. LEWIS-That’s why we’re here, because we know what you’re saying is exactly right, and we’re trying to fix it. We’re going from 14 parking spaces, adding 8 more. The door is where the door is, whether we do this or not. The distance between here and here is almost exactly the same, whether we do this or not. You see, this island is here now. Here’s where the two islands are. So that now where you have two cars here, one here and one here, you’re only going to have one. Right now there are two. If this Board says I’m sorry, Tom, nice guy, ain’t going to happen, okay, we walk away. You’re going to have one car here. One car here. The distance is the same. If we’re able to fix it, you’re only going to have one car here and not two. The distance between here and here is exactly the right amount to have a car here, and easily have a car come through here. If you have it wider, than there’s room for an extra half a car. If you have it further this way, then it’s too tight. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s probably throwing off Board members on that is you’re looking at the footprint of the canopy, recognizing that canopy is 14 feet up in the air. MR. STROUGH-Well, and I assume, too, that a sloppy parked car filling up with gas might go as far as the canopy, or maybe even worse. I mean, we have to assume the worst case scenario, but, in line with what you’re saying, Cathy, yesterday, I went to the Stewart’s store on the corner of Cronin and Bay, and I wanted to pace out the distance between their canopy and their front door there, because that even was a concern to me. So, as I started to pace out, from the door, from the front door, the main entrance to the Stewart’s, I almost got through that, I was almost clipped by a taxi cab. So, and he parked right in front of the door, and I had to move around the taxi cab. So then I said, okay, I’ll start from the canopy and pace towards the door, and I almost got clipped by another car, a white car. So I said, these are legitimate concerns. These cars whizzing through between the canopy and the entrance of that store, it almost seems like an accident waiting to happen. If the cars could be directed around the canopy, and away from the entrance to the store, I would be more comfortable. MR. LEWIS-How do we do that? MR. STROUGH-Well, is it possible to drive around the canopy on what looks like the eastern side of that canopy? MR. LEWIS-You mean here? MR. STROUGH-Yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. LEWIS-Well, yes. There will be a car that’ll be parked here, that will be filling up, and someone’s going to go around them. Yes, that will happen. There’s no question. MR. STROUGH-Well, what I was saying, cars going between Ridge Road and 149, one way or the other, if they could be even, you know, a lot of cars don’t go to Stewart’s to get gas, because cars going to Stewart’s to get gas isn’t a problem. MR. LEWIS-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-Especially going between streets. It’s those cars that are pulling in, getting a cup of coffee, and then they want to proceed up the other street, for example, if I’m proceeding east on 149, and my intention is to go to Stewart’s, get a cup of coffee and proceed north on Ridge Road, I will park on the south side of Stewart’s, cut through, right in front of that entrance, and go over to the Ridge Street entrance. MR. LEWIS-So you’re one of the guys cutting through. MR. STROUGH-That’s right. That’s the propensity. I’m just sharing Cathy’s concerns with public safety and the internal circulation of the traffic. MR. LEWIS-John, this is about improving internal circulation. There’s no other reason for us doing this. We want the same thing you want, and we’ve built enough of these little suckers that we really know how to do it. MR. SANFORD-I see it as an improvement. MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, on the other side of the coin, the one on Corinth Road, I’ve never seen the issue, being able to circulate through there. MR. LEWIS-There’s an extra island there. MR. STROUGH-Is the canopy as close to the front door as this is? Because this is about 15, 18 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d say this is maybe right around 20 feet probably. MR. STROUGH-By the way, the canopy over on Bay Road was about 30 feet, about 32 feet, some place in there. I didn’t take a tape measure, but I did pace it out. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe that’s why, John. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, right now I don’t like the situation. So hopefully this will be a better plan, because right now the situation is a little precarious. MR. LEWIS-I know there’s always a certain amount of suspicion, tension between Planning Board members and applicant, occasionally, occasionally. The reason for the first little piece of paper that I handed out, that I handed out last time. This is not a money issue. This is not return on investment. This is a return on better service. That’s what all these are about. The third island would have helped a little better. We can’t get there. This is about, the biggest reason, I think, why the company does that well, why that many people go in and out of our shops, good services, good prices, good people, and we’ve learned the customer is king. If you treat the customer right, and improve things, guess what, they like you better. They buy more coffee. That’s what this is about. MR. STROUGH-All right. How about this? Could you stripe the entrance going to the canopy as a pedestrian walkway so that, you know, in New York State, cars are alerted to that that might be a pedestrian crossing area, and they might slow down a little. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. LEWIS-You mean here? MR. STROUGH-No, no, in front of your store. MR. LEWIS-You know what we did in Greenfield, I’m not sure you were at that meeting, we have like some kind of pavement blocks, like a striping only better. We’ve only done this one space, that goes from like here to here. So I think that answer to your question is yes. MR. STROUGH-That would help, I think, significantly. MR. LEWIS-Not a problem, happy to do that. I was actually very, very happy how that worked out. It’s a little odd here, because usually we have this, you know, right over here, but the answer is yes. MR. LEWIS-Have you seen that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. LEWIS- Are you allowed to tell the Board how that works? That’s a good idea. MR. MAC EWAN-An unsolicited expert opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-I was commenting to the Chairman the store on Bay Road, maybe the reason why it is a problem, John, is because the distance is greater and it actually may encourage cars to try to cut through there quickly, rather than if it’s a little tighter, you know you’ve got to slow down. You know you can’t just buzz right through. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and you add a crosswalk there, Chris, that shows the driver that this is a pedestrian walk through, they might even be a little bit more caution. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, I think the crosswalk idea is a great idea. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, that problem’s solved. I’m sorry, Cathy, for interrupting. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I have an appreciation for your concept. Right now, you have the pumps, and sometimes, when I used to go there, if I’m working quicker than the other guy, I may have to actually back up and try to negotiate getting out, whereas this kind of a design will pretty well have one way traffic, as I see it, the way you’re setting up these pumps. Is that correct? MR. LEWIS-Well, it makes it easier for that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. LEWIS-You will always have some folks out there who just, you know, they demand to park in a, you know, right here. We always have somebody parking here, and it’s just, you know. MR. SANFORD-No, I’m talking about the person getting the gas. Right now, you have the, your tanks or your pumps are, you’re taking two cars on each side. Right? MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. LEWIS-One here, one here; one here, one here. The cars will move in and out easier, because when they had to go here and here, you had a lot of negotiations around. This eliminates that. MR. SANFORD-Now, what Mr. Strough was suggesting, or what you volunteered, is that sort of like a raised, almost what would be like a speed bump? MR. LEWIS-No, definitely not. You don’t want to go there. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. LEWIS-It’ll clearly look like a pedestrian walkway. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. LEWIS-And if we are unable to have a vote this evening because of the engineer’s comments. Next time we’ll bring you a photo. You’ll be happy with it. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, yes, no, I support what you’ve suggested and Mr. Strough has advocated for, because I think that certainly visually will cause people to pay a little bit more attention to the fact that there’s likely to be people walking there. As to whether or not we could get an approval tonight, I, for one, at least, would be interested in hearing maybe have George read that letter and see if the concerns are material and whether or not we could perhaps go for an approval, if the Board’s so inclined, with conditioning it upon C.T. Male’s signoff, but that’s your call, Craig. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I think about the only remaining issue I have is the lighting, and the canopy lighting specifically, and I’m not sure how the other Board members feel about that either. I guess I’m suggesting that maybe what, you know, the latest rendition might still be a little high, in terms of total foot candles. MR. LEWIS-If I understand the numbers right from my engineer, isn’t this going to be lower than anything that’s ever been done in the Town, George? MR. HILTON-Not quite. Again, I’d noted the USA Gas, which is an active application before this Board, was located on Route 9, which has come in with an average foot candle of 17.9, underneath the canopy. You’re proposing 25.31, which as I’ve stated is lower than some of the more recent applications that have come before this Board, but again, some of the comments I’ve heard from the Board have been that even those levels might be too high, and I think in this, again, in this more rural area, we would be looking for something more in line with the ten foot candle average. MR. HUNSINGER-I would be curious, the photos that you passed out of your existing store, I’d be curious as to what wattage those fixtures are. Because I mean at least from a photograph, you know, that looks pretty acceptable to me. Again, I’m only one person, and certainly the Mobil station example is what we don’t want. I mean, I think everyone would agree to that. MR. LEWIS-Yes. That’s actually a little more modest than some of the other competitors that are really into lights, and as I said last month, I mean, lighting is not a big deal for me. I just need safety. Now, if there’s no vote this evening, I’ll get the exact number, but I know what we’re proposing is either the same or less than that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, you know, and as a Planning Board member, it’s kind of hard to, you know, we talk about some numbers, but until you go out and see what it actually looks like on a site, you know, that’s the only way that I can really truly understand what that means, and there have been some that we approved that in hindsight I think were too much, and I actually, 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) I go to the store on Bay a lot, but a more recent project that we approved is Cumberland Farms on Quaker and Ridge, and I think when we approved that, we thought that that was a pretty good plan. In hindsight, I think it’s a bit much. MR. LEWIS-Because we are less than that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good. MR. LEWIS-That one is maximum 37.7, and we’re 30.2. That would be more than 20% less. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think that that one is too much, and your neighborhood, it’s even less developed than that store. MR. LEWIS-And I mean, again, that’s why, I mean, out there, you know, in ruralville, it’s not a big deal. We think this is. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a very big deal. MR. LEWIS-No, I mean for us. We’re willing to work with this Board. That is all we meant, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s probably the problem, is because of the fact that where this particular store is located in a Rural Residential zone, that when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was revised a few years back, the sensitivity of keeping the rural aspect is very important to any kind of application we approve. On a footnote, I’m glad the Getty station never, ever materialized, because if we had to do it over again, I would do it a whole different way than we did. MR. LEWIS-All I meant was it is not a big deal for us. It’s not, you know, a deal killer. We’re happy to work with you on that. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the lowest that you feel you can go to be comfortable and safety conscious, foot candle wise? MR. LEWIS-Something other than this, I guess. I mean, you know, we though this was where we should be. This is where we think we should be. If this Board feels no, we want something lower than that, then. MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, though, with the Cumberland Farms that we had on Route 9 and Kendrick, we thought that those numbers were going to be low, and in hindsight they aren’t. MR. STROUGH-That’s outrageous, and the flags on top don’t do anything to help. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s also that way on Main Street, too. MR. STROUGH-I mean, I’m patriotic, but. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. So we need to work on this lighting a little bit. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe perhaps they put in lights that weren’t what they speced. I mean, is that possible? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question. When Bruce goes out and does the site inspections for CO purposes, how in-depth does he get in his reviews? I mean, I know we’re looking at landscaping. We’re looking at parking stalls, signage and stuff like that. Say if we approved a certain luminary on a shoebox light, how do we know that that’s exactly what was put in? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. HILTON-Well, I think that, well, I’m pretty certain that he, at least, inquires about it. Some cases you get there and the lights are already on or already installed, and it’s difficult to get up there and look at the, you know, the manufacturer’s tag or something and see what the specs are. I know in some cases he’s been able to actually look at packaging and verify that it’s the right wattage, and the right information as approved. MR. MAC EWAN-Does that maybe go through, from a Building Inspector’s standpoint when they get in certain phases during the construction when they go out and inspect? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know if the Board’s had a chance to review the second memo that Staff prepared about lighting, but you’ll notice that one of the bullet items on Page Three of that memo, this is just a Staff recommendation, but it seems to be responsive to your current concerns, and I can’t imagine the applicant would have any problem with it. It says, “The final resolution should contain a condition that the Code Enforcement Officer be contacted before installation of any light poles, fixtures and lamps. The Officer than then check materials against specifications while materials are laid out on the ground”, and Staff has the words, are laid out on the ground, in italics, and I’m guessing, I haven’t discussed this with Staff, and I don’t think George is the author of this memo, but I’m guessing the purpose of that language being in italics is exactly what we’re talking about, because once it’s up in the air, it’s a whole lot harder to check it out. MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds good. Anything else, Chris? MR. VOLLARO-I might want to add to that, Mark, that that memo was extremely well prepared, in addressing this lighting issue, which hasn’t been talked about yet on this Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think Marilyn’s done a really good job of getting information to us on lighting. Just a final comment, just kind of a silly comment on your pump orientation. Wouldn’t life be so much easier if all cars had their gas tank on the same side? MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It boggles my mind that we don’t do that. MR. LEWIS-It’s called General Motors. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else? Tony? MR. METIVIER-I just wanted to make a comment about this Stewart’s in particular. It just so happens I go there often, up to the lake, and Saturday and Sunday mornings, this Stewart’s attracts something that most others don’t, and that’s a lot of boats on the way up to the lake. The current situation is, if you have a truck pulling a boat up, that they’re going to take up the whole side, and those that are courteous enough to pull up forward, now you’ve blocked all the traffic to get around them. So, I’m trying to decide, and I think this set up here with the two pumps is much better, because there’s not the, you won’t have the ability or the need to pull up and then stick out that much further, and, you know, you might think it’s silly, but it’s really not, because Saturday and Sunday mornings are probably your busiest times, I would assume, throughout the day, and furthermore, you know, you’re also getting most of your boats up there Saturday and Sunday mornings early enough, where this is where your biggest congestion probably occurs throughout the entire day. I mean, I’ve sat up there at times, getting gas for the boat, you know, early in the morning, and see people coming in and out, and, overall, I’ve never seen any problems. The biggest problem I see with that Stewart’s is that if there’s a line of traffic, you will actually see people cutting through to get out onto 149. It drives me nuts, and, you know, if there’s something that you could do, you know, have one of your employees out there with a bee bee gun or something and shooting these people, great, but you can’t. So there’s no way to stop that. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. LEWIS-No, not going to happen. MR. METIVIER-No. The point is that, you know, I am there often enough at what I feel is peak times, that this solution is going to be much better overall, because if you think about it, you know, you have a lot of construction workers up that way. You have the people going up to the lake, the boats, people coming down to get their coffee. I mean, it’s just a madhouse in the mornings, and I guess my point is I think this situation will warrant itself a better solution than what you currently have. MR. LEWIS-I had actually mentioned last month, or last time I was here, August or something, initially, that this is also in part because of that boat situation. There’s no question that happens, which is one more reason, I mean, there’s a lot of thought that goes into which sites we’re going to do this, and we discuss it with the manager, the district manager, Real Estate department. So the answer is, this will help that, which is probably why we’re doing it. MR. METIVIER-The other thing, too, that makes this a little bit different than like even Bay is Bay is, when you come on to Bay, you have traffic coming in three different directions, because you have the bank and there’s a drive thru and the tendency is to drive around and cut back through again. So that traffic flow there doesn’t work very well, because you’re almost at a 90 degree angle, and at the intersection where the gas pumps are, you have people coming out and you have cars coming this way and that way, and you really can’t see what’s coming ahead of you. Whereas here you almost have a straight line of sight for cars coming the other way, which I think will alleviate some of the pedestrian problems that might exist at some of the other Stewart’s. MR. LEWIS-There’s a number of shops that we’ve learned that when you have enough land to build a turnaround, like we call it, which is this, greatly helps that situation, especially for the big boats, if you will, that they could go here, but luckily we have enough land here that we could do this. There’s a lot of shops that are much worse than this one, in terms of internal circulation issues, cars going every which way, more customers than come here, and there’s just not enough land. You can’t fix it. You just live with it. MR. METIVIER-That leads me to one question. This is just curiosity more than anything. The Stewart’s that is on Broad and Park, there on the corner. MR. LEWIS-That used to have gas? MR. METIVIER-Yes. Why were those taken out, the pumps? MR. LEWIS-The same thing. We have 316 shops. We’re looking at 316 shops to see how could we make it better. Okay. Removing the gas made that infinitely (lost word). The amount of money we made on gas didn’t warrant the customer hassle, just that simple. There’ll be about three or four more shops with gas, we’re going to pull the gas. Loose a few bucks. You have a better operation. MR. METIVIER-That’s interesting. MR. LEWIS-People go to one store. They go to another store. They go to another store, and after a while, you actually get what’s called a good reputation. There are some customers, it’s not me that makes it, it’s the people that work in the stores. I’m just a hack out there, you know, come before Planning Boards. MR. METIVIER-I’m not suggesting removing these pumps. Because I’ll be awfully disappointed if you do that, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right, now, let’s get back to the style of canopies, which you introduced in the beginning, and I’m glad to see that you have offered alternatives, because that Mobil one didn’t work. MR. LEWIS-Yes, I think I read that last time. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Now, I forgot, the roof style on the building is what now, is that shingles? MR. LEWIS-It’s a metal roof that matches the canopy that’s there. MR. STROUGH-And it’s bronze. MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Are you going to verify that? MR. LEWIS-I have a photo in here with the shop. Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LEWIS-It’ll be the same bronze, not that blue. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Good. All right. MR. LEWIS-It’ll match it. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, that’ll work fine for me. That’s good. So that gets that concern out of the way. Well, I think it should match the roof. The bronze, not the blue. MR. LEWIS-It’ll match. MR. STROUGH-And the cedar shakes, with the Stewart’s that have the cedar shakes on the, what is that, mezzanine, or what’s it called, mezzanine going around? MR. LEWIS-The fascia. MR. STROUGH-Roof fascia. I’m just saying it should match, and I think the brown goes fine. MR. LEWIS-See our old shops where we had the cedar shakes, where that is now, then it made sense doing that on the canopy, too. MR. STROUGH-I would think it would look, as long as it’s brown. It’ll be fine. Okay. Now, yes, the last thing I’ve got from C.T. Male is August 14. So, now, Marilyn put down a list of th concerns on the lighting, and I don’t know if you’ve gone down through those and addressed those concerns. So first of all, she was wondering if existing street lighting had been taken into account, when doing the lighting foot candles around the building. MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And it was? MR. LEWIS-Yes, and again, this is as low, if not the lowest proposal we’ve ever made. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’re not talking about the canopy. MR. LEWIS-No, we’re talking about everything. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. LEWIS-No, no. Just, there’s a pole here and here and that’s also on the plan, on the bottom there’s a summary on that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LEWIS-I mean, we don’t want it bright. If the Board wants it less than less, okay, you know, whatever, just as long as it ends up, cars can see each other, that’s all I care about. No, that cars can see people. That’s what I care about. MR. STROUGH-All right, and she says a luminary schedule in the plans need to be revised to be consistent. For example, Label C is for soffit lights on the (lost word). MR. LEWIS-Yes, that’s been switched. You’re right. C is B and B is C. MR. STROUGH-So that’s going to be corrected. MR. LEWIS-Yes, sir. MR. STROUGH-And she has other questions. Is a luminary schedule available showing symbols, quantity, arrangement, lumens, light loss factors, wattages, lamp types, Question Number Six on her. MR. LEWIS-I think that’s on the plan on Page Two, or Page Three. All of that I do believe is addressed there. I mean, that’s going back to August, right, that you’re reading? MR. STROUGH-This here is October 14. th MR. LEWIS-Okay, and, this is my last copy of this, but I think this addresses everything there, but again, our fault for not having gotten it to Jim Edwards sooner. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the Chris Potter letter? MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That letter doesn’t address any of the comments that he’s making relative to lighting. MR. STROUGH-Well, it says here, we have updated the plans as per comment letter dated October 20. th MR. MAC EWAN-That would be the C.T. Male letter. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and this is dated October 14. This talked about the invert levels and the th septic systems. This doesn’t address Marilyn Ryba’s. MR. LEWIS-I don’t know that I ever saw that letter. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So these lighting concerns have to be addressed, and then she does point out. She says, you know, it’s a rural area, and she says that the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, the IESNA, recommends average illuminants for pump islands with lights surrounding at 10 foot candles. The recommendation for dark surroundings, such as those found in rural areas, is actually five foot candles. So the ten foot candle average is actually at the higher end of the IESNA standards. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. SANFORD-John, you’re the same guy who was arguing about safety issues, and now you’re saying you want really dim lighting. MR. LEWIS-That’s all we care about, John. MR. STROUGH-Well, do you know this is dim lighting, Mr. Sanford? MR. SANFORD-Well, I also see where she gives the lowest that we have in the area as an average of 17.9, with a maximum of 22.1 and a minimum of 11.5. I, for one, would feel comfortable if they would meet or beat that. MR. MAC EWAN-What area is that she’s referring to in her memo? MR. SANFORD-She’s referring to Route 9 and Glenwood. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a Highway Commercial Intensive zone. MR. HILTON-Yes, those are my comments, that is a Highway Commercial Intensive zone, as part of the USA Gas plan. MR. SANFORD-But that would still be, if. MR. MAC EWAN-The Zoning Ordinance gives specific lighting recommendations for each zone in the Town. This area where this particular Stewart’s is located is in a Rural Residential zone, which the Comprehensive Land Use Plan says that we need to keep the rural aspect of that area of Town. Lighting is a significant issue with anything that’s developed in that portion of Town. That’s where we’re going with this. MR. LEWIS-Is it quantified? I mean, you understand, we want to give you what you want. Is there any doubt in your mind about that? MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by is it quantified? MR. LEWIS-Does it say X amount of foot candles maximum? I mean, anything in Code it gets really easy for us. MR. MAC EWAN-It specifies, 10, is that what the Ordinance is saying? That’s quantified. MR. LEWIS-We would like to do what’s in the Code. We would also like to just say if we do that, and this Board goes out there and says, you know, it should be more than that, so that cars don’t hit, you know, people, then we want you to let us change it and fix it. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. LEWIS-That works for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Speaking on behalf of the Board, I highly doubt that they would go out after the fact and say you need to increase it. MR. LEWIS-Only if they really thought they did. If they don’t, then. MR. STROUGH-Well, I would like to get a feel of what 10 foot candles looks like under the canopy, with the rest of the parking lighting, with the street lighting, and see if that’s going to be an issue, and it might not be, as well. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, if we did get 10, I would make a special point of going out there, several times, to verify that it was working. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. STROUGH-And I would call Tony and see if it’s okay. MR. METIVIER-Do you know what it currently is at, today, up there? MR. LEWIS-I have no idea. MR. METIVIER-Because I mean that, overall, isn’t a bad site. I don’t think it’s bright, but it’s certainly not dim. I mean, if we could get. MR. LEWIS-I’m sure it’s a lot more than what we’re proposing. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Four hundred watts are there now, versus 295. MR. LEWIS-Yes. We always used to use the 400’s. I know that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The Corinth Road store, obviously, I know is in a different zone, but when I go by that at 10:30 at night, like on my way home tonight, I have looked at it and said, you know, that doesn’t jump out at me. That is subdued lighting and it’s comfortable, and that’s in a zone that can allow more foot candles than the site we’re looking at now. So what my point is, if you go by the Corinth Road store, and, obviously that’s going to be a lot more than what we’re, what we want out here on 149, and at least will give you some kind of a benchmark to start from, a guideline to start from. MR. SANFORD-We have that, Cathy. The Corinth Road has average foot candles of 30.76. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I’m saying. That’s high, and, to me, it’s not high at all when I go by. It’s the way the lights are situated under the canopy, I think it’s not, it doesn’t come right out and grab you. So what I’m saying is that anything that’s around 10, or what the regs are out on 149, is certainly going to not be very, you know, bright and knock you out or bother the traffic that’s going by. I think the issue is, is it going to be enough to be safe. MR. LEWIS-And that’s our only issue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So now we’re all on the same page, so we can try to put some closure on this. MR. LEWIS-We’re happy to go as low as. MR. MAC EWAN-I would encourage the Board to be cognizant of what the Zoning Ordinance says for that corridor and that zone. The lighting standards and the design for all these zones in the Town when we re-did the Ordinances a couple of years back for this very reason. If we were talking of developing a store in the Corinth Road, Bay Road area, I probably wouldn’t be as adamant in my position of lighting as I am with this location where it is in the Town. It’s one of the main objectives of that zone and that corridor up there, to keep the rural enhancement of that zone intact. Lighting pollution’s a big issue in this Town. We’ve heard comments from people from the public for a couple of years now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you’re right, Craig, but I think the applicant has no problem with the lighting issue. He’s going to comply with whatever we decide upon. MR. MAC EWAN-Read us off what they need to have in the zone right there for that, the foot candles. MR. HILTON-The Code breaks it down, it asks for averages based on different aspects of the site, building entrances, the average, for instance, is five. Building exteriors, the average, for instance, is one. Gas station pump island, the average is 10 foot candles. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. MAC EWAN-These aren’t numbers that are just pulled out of the air. I mean, there was a lot of research done on this based on national lighting standards and so on and so forth that helped compile these codes for us for the different zones in the Town. MR. VOLLARO-I think the Board is with me on that, Craig. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re all with you, Craig. MR. LEWIS-So is the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I ask you one more question while you’ve got the floor over there. Will you read us that letter from C.T. Male? MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m curious as to what the issues were. MR. HILTON-A letter dated October 20, 2003 to Craig Brown from James Houston. It says, “Dear Mr. Brown: We have received updated plans and a stormwater report dated September 2003 for the referenced project. A response letter did not accompany the revised information. The documents were prepared by Stewart’s Shops and stamped and signed by Larry Rutland, P.E. Based on our review of these updated documents, we offer the following comments regarding stormwater: One Addressed Two, this comment remains unresolved. However, it is a site pavement issue that the applicant may choose to address or not. Three Addressed Four, this comment was not addressed. However, the basin appears to have more than enough excess storage to account for some loss in volume due to re-grading. Number Five, it appears that the grading of the septic system and basin were not changed. Six, addressed. Seven, addressed. Miscellaneous Eight, the grease trap reference was removed. Nine, the drywell and its connection to the building were removed. Ten, this comment was not addressed. However, it is a septic system recommendation that the applicant may choose to adhere to or not. If you have any questions related to our comments, please feel free to call our office. Sincerely, James Houston” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, were we finished with you, or did I cut you off? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’m almost, I’m finished. What’s the date of that C.T. Male letter, George? MR. HILTON-October 20. th MR. STROUGH-No, I’m fine for now, with Bob. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’m going to go through my notes, so I can get through this pretty quickly, but in looking at past history on this, there are three separate submissions of S-2, Drawing S-2, which is entitled Miscellaneous Details. Okay, the 7/15/03 drawing was dated 2/18/03, and then on 8/19 another drawing came along, and that had revisions in it, adjust the canopy size, drywell detail, (lost words) filter detail, and an added detail for the distribution box. On 10/21 we got another, with this application we have another Drawing S-2, and it has a date of 2/18/03 on it which corresponds to the original date that was provided on July 15, with th no revision marks at all, showing none of the details, and all I have as a question is which of the S-2 drawings will be the drawing of record? MR. LEWIS-The most recent one, and, my apologies, we have someone new, which is ultimately my fault. We should not be doing stuff that amateur. MR. VOLLARO-The problem is when you review these, and you go back into the previous drawings and you see a lot of stuff is left off, and I’m reading Jim Houston’s letter and I can go 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) through, in taking a look at previous S-2’s, where some stuff should be on the latest drawing, and it’s not. If you took a look at the latest drawing that they supplied for. MR. MAC EWAN-So they omitted, from the second revision to the third revisions, they left things off. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Should we be inclined to move this thing tonight, as a condition of approval, we make sure that C.T. Male reviews those S-2’s for accuracy. That includes all the data that’s required. MR. LEWIS-That would be wonderful. MR. VOLLARO-See, I think if you take a look at Jim Houston’s comment, and I’ll give you a specific on this now, and this is on C-1, in his March 14 letter and in his August 14 letter he thth has the same comment, and that’s the grade elevation at the invert of the pipe up at the northwest corner of the building. If you look at the drawing he just gave us, after he had given us two comments, it’s still the same. The invert is still 95.75. It hasn’t been changed. So we have a drawing here that doesn’t correspond to C.T. Male’s comments at all, and that’s one spot, and there are a lot of other spots on here that I’ve picked up on, but that’s one that has not been corrected, and I think he talks about that invert at catch basin number one was lower than 95.06, to provide 12 inches of cover over the pipe. Yes, he calls that out again, and it’s on the drawing. So the drawing has got the wrong inverts on it. So all I’m saying is that this stuff should all hang together, and when I do my reviews, I expect to see all of this stuff locked together, especially after three submissions. So I would go for and ask for a complete signoff by C.T. Male, on all of the previous submitted comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Take that one step farther, should we go that route tonight, then I would ask that a copy of the minutes of tonight’s meeting be given to C.T. Male so they can see specifically what you’re talking about. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. I’d go along with that. Now, my next comment is, as a result of the ZBA variances, and I have no problem with them exceeding the 75 foot setbacks and the 50 foot setbacks and so on, but I go along 100% with Marilyn Ryba’s memorandum, because you are set quite close to the road as a result of these variances. So, the average of 10 foot candles under the canopy as opposed to 25 31 submitted, and also to maintain the 4 to 1 lighting ratio. So I think Marilyn did an excellent job in her memo. She did a very good job of putting that together. Now the luminar schedule, I think it was mentioned by Mr. Strough, there’s, the schedule does not account for seven of the two hundred and fifty watt high powered sodium soffit lights that are shown on S-1. The luminar schedule doesn’t even talk to those, if you take a look at your schedule on the bottom of your luminar schedule, and then you go to your. MR. LEWIS-I thought that was their accepted. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you go to your S-1 Drawing, go to S-1, and take a look at the seven lights that are under the canopy, and they’re. MR. LEWIS-I don’t think there are seven lights under the canopy. There’s seven soffit lights. MR. VOLLARO-There’s seven soffit lights. MR. LEWIS-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now those soffit lights aren’t covered in the luminar schedule at all. You can’t make heads or tails of where they are covered in that luminar schedule. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. LEWIS-See, I think that’s Line B, there are nine of those, not seven, because behind the building there are two. Her comment how B and C were transposed is why, we caused the confusion, but they are on the schedule. I see the bottom, where it says C, that should be B. MR. VOLLARO-They’re talking 250 watt high power sodium soffit lights, Number is Seven. The luminar schedule doesn’t talk to that at all. MR. LEWIS-The soffits are 175. See on the very bottom it says A, B, C. MR. VOLLARO-If the soffits are 175, then the drawing on S-1 is wrong. Because they’re S-1 talks to soffit lights at 250 watts. Your stuff doesn’t hang together. MR. LEWIS-I see what you’re saying, and you’re right. MR. VOLLARO-The guys at the home base are doing sloppy work, in my opinion. MR. LEWIS-My opinion also. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LEWIS-We will have that discussion in the morning, but in the either case, we will agree to everything Male had asked for. We will have no difficulty and would be very happy to with having C.T. Male, that we need to address every one of their comments from Step One to the last step. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now the one thing that C.T. Male didn’t seem to cover is on Drawing S- 1, go to S-1, and take a look at the existing catch basin and pipe to be removed, you see that notation on S-1? It’s right below, all right, now, go to the latest drawing that you gave us, which was a detail drawing of that area, and you’ll see that that pipe is still in there. Do you recognize this piece here? Okay. If you get to your proposed Watershed Area Number Two, if you take a look at that catch basin, it’s still there and it’s still connected. Now, what I did is I looked at, this is a 40 to 1 scale, and I scaled this off at 35 feet, went to S-1 and scaled off 35 feet. It’s the same one. S-1 says it’s going to be removed, and your latest copy, dated 9/10, shows it installed. So, you know, all I want these things to do is to hang together, so when I review, it makes sense. MR. LEWIS-You are right. MR. MAC EWAN-How much more do you have? MR. VOLLARO-That’s about it, Mr. Chairman. Is that enough? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s about enough for me to convince me we’re going to table it. I don’t want to move it to a vote tonight, until we get all these things squared away. Too many loose ends. The conditions of approval would be lengthy at best. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, at best. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m particularly concerned about the lighting, the lamination plan not matching what is speced out from one drawing to another drawing. More importantly, I would like to see that lighting plan reflect what the Code says they can have in that zone. MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Has anybody else got any other issues here on the Board? MR. SANFORD-I just think we ought to give him a list. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to sit down and take a break and write up a rather lengthy list. Has Staff got anything? MR. HILTON-No. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s take five. Bob and John, will you pen a resolution to table and be specific about what needs to be done. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough, what have you got? MR. STROUGH-All right. This is what we have. The applicant will address the following: One, Marilyn Ryba’s letter dated October 14, 2003 concerning lighting review, and the applicant’s proposed lighting plan will meet Town Code. Two, the Town engineer’s concerns and comments in the March 14, 2003, August 14, 2003 and October 20, 2003 letter, the final ththth signoff will address all three letters. All plans will be updated accordingly and made accurate, also have C.T. Male refer to Planning Board minutes of October 21, 2003 for additional st Planning Board concerns. Three, the canopy fascia will be bronze metal fascia to match the roof fascia of the existing adjacent store, and in reference to the walkway between the store’s main entrance and the gas canopy area, the applicant will submit a pedestrian walkway proposal at the next Planning Board meeting. That’s what I have. That’s what we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody want to add anything? MR. SANFORD-That covers it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. Does somebody want to move it. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 35-1989 STEWART’S, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: The applicant will address the following: 1. Marilyn Ryba’s letter dated October 14, 2003 concerning lighting review, and the applicant’s proposed lighting plan will meet Town Code. 2. The Town Engineer’s concerns and comments in the March 14, 2003, August 14, 2003, and October 20, 2003 letters. The final signoff will address all three letters. All plans will be updated accordingly and made accurate. Have C.T. Male refer to Planning Board minutes of October 21, 2003, for additional Planning Board concerns. 3. The canopy fascia will be bronze metal fascia to match the roof fascia of the existing adjacent store, and in reference to the walkway between the store’s main entrance and the gas canopy area, the applicant will submit a pedestrian walkway proposal at the next Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 2003, by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-Do we have to table it to a certain date or anything? MR. MAC EWAN-No. We already missed the deadline, and he says he’s in no hurry. So we’ll probably be looking at getting on in December. November deadline’s already passed. Provided he gets his submissions in by the deadline of November 15. Do you understand th that? MR. LEWIS-Yes, sir. Not a problem. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. MAC EWAN-You get your submissions in, and then you’ll be advised as to what meeting agenda you’ll be on, what night. The third Tuesday or fourth Tuesday. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’ll get there the next meeting. MR. LEWIS-I think you’re right. NEW BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 45-2003 SEQR TYPE II ANTHONY KOENIG AGENT: JOE ROULIER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 60 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STORY SCREENED-IN PORCH ON SOUTH SIDE OF EXISTING COTTAGE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 73-2003 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-46 LOT SIZE: 0.07 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-2003, Anthony Koenig, Meeting Date: October 21, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 45-2003 APPLICANT: Anthony Koenig is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 176 sq. ft. screened in porch attached to an existing cottage. Planning Board approval is required for this expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 60 Rockhurst Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a Type II SEQRA action. No further Planning Board action is required. PARCEL HISTORY: Area Variance 73-2003 granting setback relief for the proposed screened porch was approved by the ZBA on August 27, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The plans submitted by the applicant indicate a 22 ‘ by 8’ screened in porch to be constructed on the south side of an existing cottage. The proposed addition is shown as being 13 ft. in height. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The applicant’s proposal appears to be a minor addition, however Staff recommends that some form of stormwater management should be included as part of the site plan in order to intercept and infiltrate water flowing off the proposed addition.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-As mentioned, the applicant proposes to construct a screened-in porch, 176 square foot screened-in porch, to be attached to an existing building. This application received an Area Variance from the Zoning Board on August 27 to grant the setback relief for this th proposal. The applicant has requested waivers from the requirements of stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan and landscaping plan and landscaping plan. Although the proposal appears minor, and the applicant has requested a stormwater management plan waiver, I guess Staff’s comment is that some sort of stormwater management should be incorporated, and could be something as simple as a depression to intercept the water flowing off this addition before it hits the lake, and provided that’s added, we would accept a conditional approval that that be included on a final plan and we have no other comments at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Roulier. Long time no see. MR. ROULIER-Good evening. Joe Roulier. I’ll try to make this brief, and I’ve tried to make it as simple as possible, I think the most important thing on the total application, including the zoning application, was that I was actually under the floor area ratio. Probably since that’s been instituted, that’s the first time that’s ever happened, at least for me. It’s a relatively simple addition, eight foot by twenty-two, 176 square feet. We have full approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and really what we intend to do is to keep it in the Adirondack style, motif of the little cottage that’s already been renovated at that location. By renovation I just mean new siding, new roof, etc. Basically, it’ll be a post and beam type of construction. Open ceiling with perhaps two by six roof members, and a green type of architectural shingle. The entrance will be on either the rear portion of the structure, either on the side or on the back of it. It depends on how the final grade of the property is determined, once the project is completed. I spoke earlier with George regarding his proposal, which is basically some type of a nominal, almost like a stone base at the bottom, so that the water is retained there before it makes its trail further on down to the lake, and I have no problem with that. We probably will be putting up a gutter, I would think, across the rear portion of the house, so we would be making some type of retention in the rear to correct any potential water problems. MR. MAC EWAN-French drain kind of thing, or are you talking just making it like a pit with stone? MR. ROULIER-I would think a pit with stone. It’s a relatively small roof area, and in that back portion of the house, to be honest with you, is where there is a small septic area, and I would prefer to keep any of the runoff from the roofs from entering that location. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. ROULIER-I’m here to, I’d be happy to answer any questions that any one of you may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Rich, we’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-Just a couple of questions, maybe to start off with, a question for Staff. This has been reviewed and approved by the Zoning Board. Could you please take a minute and sort of explain to me their role and why we’re getting it and what our role is. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. HILTON-The application, the applicant proposes a screened-in porch which does not meet the required shoreline and side line setbacks. The applicant was therefore required to go before the Zoning Board, for them to potentially, and which they did approve a variance allowing setbacks, which don’t conform, shoreline and side line setbacks. The variance stated that they were approving those setbacks that are shown on the site plan. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires site plan review. So as a result, this application’s in front of the Planning Board. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but don’t we sometimes approve or not approve certain setbacks at this Board level? No? MR. HILTON-Not that I know of, not in a variance situation. MR. MAC EWAN-You may be confusing it with like no cut zones, that sort of thing? That’s part of what we do. MR. SANFORD-Okay, because I don’t really have an issue, really, with the porch, except my issue is I’d rather not see a porch being built on this very, very small piece of property, where I think some people just have to recognize that they’re dealt a hand, and there’s limitations on what they can do, and I think adding this porch, which is going to be looking right in to another house, probably around 10 feet away, isn’t the best idea, but, apparently, what I’m hearing from you George, is the Zoning Board has already said that’s fine. MR. HILTON-Based on their approval, yes, they granted the setbacks shown on the plans. MR. ROULIER-Mr. Sanford, I have a copy of that approval in my hand here, and if you’d like, I’d give it to George so he could read it. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a copy of it in our packets. MR. SANFORD-I have a copy of it, too. MR. ROULIER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-I’m just trying to understand, I guess what our role really is, if the Zoning Board has approved this. I guess it begs the other issues that you mentioned, whether we’re happy with the drainage or, if that’s the extent of it, I don’t have a whole heck of a lot, really, to add at this point, but I would like to know if the neighbor to the south of the property was notified of this, and the address of where you notified them. Because this is sort of after season, perhaps, the notification, and if he is back home, presumably, in New Jersey, or New York City, he or she might not have been able to really address the issue. I’m just curious on that. MR. HILTON-I mean, we have quite a lengthy list of people that we identified. MR. MAC EWAN-Those lot sizes, 500 feet can stretch a long ways. MR. HILTON-Yes. I mean, some of them are local. Some of them are Massachusetts, Connecticut. MR. SANFORD-The cottage completely south of, right south of the cottage. MR. HILTON-Well, it’s difficult to. MR. MAC EWAN-He probably doesn’t have that information in front of him, but he does have the entire list, which I can see there, that it was mailed to. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But did people send letters? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. HILTON-We sent a letter notifying them the date and time of the hearing and what the action is. Did anyone send a letter? No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No letters back. MR. ROULIER-Can I address that? MR. SANFORD-Sure. MR. ROULIER-It’s my understanding that anything that goes in front of the ZBA, that people, neighbors within 500 feet of that property have to be notified. I’d stand corrected, but that’s my understanding of it. MR. HILTON-For the variance as well, yes, they were notified. MR. ROULIER-Okay. So since it’s a relatively small area, there were several homeowners, both north, south, and to the west, that would have received that notification. There were no negative responses from any of the homeowners when this went in front of the ZBA, and I don’t believe even post ZBA time that the Planning Board has received any letters. I’m not totally sure, but I almost thought that there was one letter in support of it, but I would stand corrected on that. All right. MR. SANFORD-My only point was seasonal people are typically up here in June, July, and August and not so often in October. I know the ZBA was before that. MR. ROULIER-But the notification wouldn’t go to just the seasonal residents. It does go to their permanent residence. So there would be adequate notification period. MR. SANFORD-Right. Okay. I have no further questions. MR. SCHACHNER-Let’s be careful there, just so the Board’s understanding. It’s not the Town’s responsibility to track down where the people actually are. The notifications go to whatever the address is that is officially on file with the Town for all other purposes as well, like tax records and what not. So, you know, again, I don’t think the applicant meant to steer anybody wrong here, but it’s not the case that, necessarily, that things go to permanent addresses. It’s wherever the official address is. MR. SANFORD-Fine. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I had a couple of questions, regarding the waivers that were requested, I don’t really have a problem with them except for there was already some discussion about some sort of gutters and drainage system to keep any storm runoff from the house from going in to the lake, and that’s something we pretty much require of any property that’s on any of the, you know, waterfront locations in the Town. MR. ROULIER-Right. As I said, I spoke to George earlier, and his recommendation is that we have as simple as a stone bed in the back portion of the house that would slow up the process of water infiltrating towards the lake. I’m adding to that comment saying that because of the septic system in the rear portion, our intent is not to inundate the septic system with the water, but to actually draw the water away from there, into more of a stone type of retention area. MR. HUNSINGER-So, you would try to direct any flow from the roof of the house towards the front of the house? MR. ROULIER-Towards, laterally. Yes. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ROULIER-But that is a concern, also, of mine, I mean, because, you know, with fertilizers and things like that that people do use all around the lake, we’re trying to make that process of infiltration as slow as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-In reading through the ZBA minutes, I really didn’t understand the point that they were making, well, this is just a screened-in porch, and I guess in my mind I can’t differentiate between a screened-in porch and an addition to the house. I mean, you’re putting a permanent structure up with a roof and everything else, what was the, sort of the gist of that discussion, you know, I mean, because they approved it with the condition that it only be a screened-in porch, and that, you know, no storm windows or other type of material be added on, and I just really don’t understand the context that those comments were made. MR. ROULIER-That’s right. I want to say this, to reiterate a point that I said earlier. This project falls within the floor area ratio. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ROULIER-That was the first consideration, and it’s a principal consideration in front of the ZBA. We are working in a relatively small area, and I’ve represented several people in the course of the last 15 years or so who have come in for additions, whether laterally or second story additions to their house going up, where it is a major encroachment on the property and also a situation where we are exceeding the floor area ratio, and I think one of the principal reasons that the ZBA passed this was because we are slightly less than the floor area ratio. We’re not going up with a second story, which would create visibility problems both from adjoining neighbor’s property to the lake, or just looking at it, and they felt as though, out of all the scenarios that could possibly be presented in front of the Boards, a screened in porch is the least offensive of anything that we could put up there and still fall within the floor area ratio, and I think, for that reason, is why they approved it. I hope that answers your question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and no. I mean, one of the comments in the minutes is, this is a screened-in porch and not an addition to the home. I mean, I would argue, it’s an addition to the home. To me, whether or not it’s screened-in or walled in, I just don’t understand that relevance and the context in which that discussion was held. MR. ROULIER-I think it’s simply one interpretation versus another interpretation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They’re saying that it’s really more outside living space rather than, you know, floor space, I guess. MR. ROULIER-And I believe that that’s their interpretation. I mean, an addition to a house generally consists of enclosed walls, windows, and more of a solid, blocking type of structure. This, yes, I would not disagree that this is an addition. We do have a roof and we do have supporting beams, but the flow of air, the flow of site through this is not as obstructive as “an addition” to a piece of property. MR. HUNSINGER-Will you be adding electrical outlets and lighting, things like that? MR. ROULIER-Yes, there’ll be random outlets placed on the porch. This, in all honesty, is just a screened-in porch. We will be putting outlets out there. I did, the reason I wanted for the lighting waiver is that, you know, they’re going to have probably a couple of lamps out there. It should not be a big issue I would think, either with the residents up there or with this Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess my question, then, of Staff, would be, the ZBA passed with the condition that it forever be a screened-in porch, how enforceable is that? I mean, if the applicant went down to Lowe’s and bought some, you know, triple track storm windows and screwed them up to the side, how would you know? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, a building permit will be required. We’ll look at the building. MR. HUNSINGER-To put windows on? MR. HILTON-Well, for the addition itself. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m thinking five years down the road kind of thing. MR. HILTON-Yes, and I guess, you know, we’ll look at it as the plans come in, but anything they do down the line, it’s just like anything else, it’s only as enforceable as someone bringing it to our attention, or someone seeing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I mean, if you wanted to enclose the screened-in porch with, you know, storm windows or something like that, we’d only find out about it if someone brought it to our attention, or Staff drove by. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. ROULIER-If that were the intention, at this junction, I would be referring to a three-season porch. Whereas, the situation that you just proposed, that’s how it would be addressed, but at this particular time, with this particular owner, this is what he wants. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I understand that, but, you know, he’s not going to own that home forever. Something could happen. He could sell the house, or he could change his mind, three years down the road, and I’m just asking Staff the question, how enforceable is that condition? My suspicion is that it’s probably not really enforceable. MR. ROULIER-I can go over to the Pines of Queensbury or any one of the developments, Stonehurst or whatever, and I see screened-in porches randomly built on houses there, and what is to prevent those people from all of a sudden doing exactly what you’ve said, taking storm panel windows and enclosing them? MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing. I don’t think you would even require a building permit. MR. MAC EWAN-But the difference in those is what’s going on in Stonehurst and the Pines doesn’t require a variance from the ZBA. MR. ROULIER-That’s true. MR. HUNSINGER-And the variance was conditioned on that. That’s the only reason I ask the question is because the variance was conditioned on that. MR. ROULIER-But anyone, if they want to, the difference between Stonehurst and Rockhurst, okay, is that anyone in Stonehurst could go and do that as long as they met the setback requirements. In Rockhurst and in environmentally sensitive areas, that is an issue, but you also have a lot of neighborhood people that say, hey, look it, he’s putting an addition on his house, where’s the permit, where’s the? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, you are under the microscope a little more, absolutely. MR. ROULIER-Absolutely, continually, and I think that’s, that itself is a deterrent from anyone just randomly going in there and doing exactly what you’ve said. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. METIVIER-I know the answer to this, but can you give me the dimensions, again, on the house, or the porch? MR. ROULIER-Eight by twenty-two. MR. METIVIER-Okay. When you opened up you said eighteen by twenty-two, and I did my math, and it was all screwed up. MR. ROULIER-Excuse me. No, it’s 176 square feet. MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s all, which eight by twenty-two is. MR. ROULIER-Yes. Thank you. I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I don’t have so much of a problem with this application. It’s not, you know, an extra bedroom. It is a building addition, as Chris points out, but it’s a screened-in porch. So I don’t think it’s going to add more people to the burden on this property, but, well, I don’t have a strong negatively feeling about the porch, and the ZBA’s approved it, but, you know, every chance we get to improve the stormwater situation, we like doing that. MR. ROULIER-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-And I see the way that this is structured, it really, the house is going to need a drain on the roadside and an eaves drain on the lake side. MR. ROULIER-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-I mean, that’s the way the roof appears in the plans. MR. ROULIER-The roof runs parallel to the lake. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and parallel to the road. MR. ROULIER-Correct. MR. STROUGH-So, and the screened in porch is just merely adding on to the roof, as it is. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-No change in. So, you really need a gutter along the roadside, and on the front, and that would take care of the roof drainage. Right? MR. ROULIER-I would just like to clarify one issue. I don’t disagree with that, with one exception. The reason why I’m proposing it in the back is that I don’t want to create a problem with the septic system. So by drawing the water off laterally. MR. STROUGH-When you say back, you mean? MR. ROULIER-The roadside. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Some people could interpret roadside as being the front. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. I know. That depends on where you live, to make that assumption. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes. So we’re talking roadside, and that’s where the filtration bed is? MR. ROULIER-That’s where the septic system is. So I feel as though it’s better to put the gutter up in that portion, and draw it off to the south corner of the house, the water. Because you can put some type of a retention system in at that point. When you’re talking about the front, however, if you were to put a gutter in, and draw it off to the south side of the house, now you’re taking all of the roof water and essentially pooling it over in one corner of the house, and I think that would have a greater tendency to flow more rapidly towards the lake than if it just comes off at that side of the house naturally. MR. STROUGH-Right. I agree with you. You don’t want to put some kind of a stormwater control device near your infiltration bed. As a matter of fact, it should be 20 some odd feet away from it, okay, to get what they recommend, but right, it conflicts, and may hamper the way that the infiltration bed works. MR. ROULIER-Correct. MR. STROUGH-But you can still take the eaves drainage and pipe it to your storm control device which you’re going to put in anyway, now, and it keeps it right away from the infiltration bed. MR. ROULIER-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-And you can control the stormwater of all your roof flow that way, and in the past what we’ve seen for stormwater devices are basically pretty simple, two by two by two with filter fabric lining and rock or crushed stone filled, bingo, done. So, is it possible that we could direct the drainage and put gutters on the roof and direct the drainage to an appropriately placed stormwater device away from the infiltration bed. MR. ROULIER-Absolutely. I’d be happy to do that for you. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and I don’t think that would be hard, but that would be one step in the right direction of making it a little bit better for the lake, because the stormwater flow goes over the lawn, and they fertilizer their lawn and they put pesticides and herbicides and that eventually makes its way into the lake. So if we can reduce some of that stormwater flow every chance we get, it makes it a little bit better each time. MR. ROULIER-I agree with what you’re saying, but I would also agree, as part of this, that it could be incorporated into the approval. MR. ROULIER-Well, I have no problem with that, and I’m glad to see that, you know, you’re willing to do that. MR. STROUGH-And that’s it. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I have no comment on this application, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have a question. That area where the porch is supposed to go, was that ever used for an extra place to park a vehicle? MR. ROULIER-When Mr. Koenig, let’s see, last year, I’m trying to think, we put that fence up about two years ago, and occasionally, a vehicle has been parked in there. I’m trying to think if the first year that he left for Florida, if he put a vehicle there, and I can’t say positively if he did. Most of the time the vehicles are parked behind it or on the roadside of the property. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? MR. ROULIER-No. If there’s anymore questions, I’d certainly be happy to answer them. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. I don’t mean to interrupt, but we think it’s a Type II Action. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it says Type II, yes. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-From now on, every Type II I see on the agenda, I’m going to say that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And being in a CEA? MR. HILTON-Square footage, single family residence in the, it’s on square footage. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any way we can get the State to go back to the old SEQRA law, when life was simple? The one we had about five years ago. You knew what it was. You knew what you had to do. You know what the deal was. I don’t like the new SEQRA law. I don’t like it at all. MR. SCHACHNER-Which aspect did you find simpler? I mean, how did you find it, I mean, there’s only like five changes, which don’t you like? Seriously. MR. MAC EWAN-Type II actions, stuff along the lake. You would think it would be more important to do a SEQRA when you’re in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s one of the few changes. You’re right. MR. MAC EWAN-It was a dumb one at best. One person’s opinion. MR. STROUGH-Are we ready for a motion? MR. VOLLARO-He’s penning one up down there at the other end. MR. HUNSINGER-The only condition would be that the applicant would construct some sort of stormwater retention system, and what we have drafted is that the applicant will construct a stormwater retention system consisting of eaves gutters to two by two by two detention basin on the southeast corner of the house. MR. MAC EWAN-Stone filled? MR. HUNSINGER-Stone filled. MR. STROUGH-East and west roofs? Both halves of the roof. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. STROUGH-And we talked about, and be guttered or piped? MR. HUNSINGER-He’s saying guttered. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, you might have to pipe the west side. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STROUGH-To your stormwater device, which is located on the east side. MR. ROULIER-I probably will do two. MR. STROUGH-So it won’t conflict with the infiltration bed. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Well, if this motion covers that, I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Granting three waivers, grading, lighting, and landscaping? I don’t know that we’re saying that we’re going to grant a waiver to stormwater management plan when we asked him to do a stormwater management plan for the aspect that he’s doing to the gutters and to the detention drain, basin, whatever you want to call it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. What’s that? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re just going to grant the waivers for grading, lighting, and landscaping. Stormwater we didn’t because we’re making him do stormwater mitigation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anything else? MR. MAC EWAN-No. That sounds good. Go with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2003 ANTHONY KOENIG, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan 45-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Anthony Koenig SEQR Type II Agent: Joe Roulier Zone: WR-1A Location: 60 Rockhurst Road Applicant proposes construction of a single story screened-in porch on south side of existing cottage. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires site plan approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 73-2003 APA, CEA Warren Co. Planning: 10/8/03 Tax Map No. 15-1-46 Lot size: 0.07 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: October 21, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 10/17/03, and 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) 10/21 Staff Notes 10/14 Notice of Public Hearing sent 10/8 Warren Co. Planning: NCI 9/29 Meeting Notice sent w/project ID marker 9/22 Application referral to APA 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 October 21, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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 construct a stormwater retention system consisting of a gutter or a pipe to a two by two by two detention basin that is stone filled on the southeast corner of the house. 2. The waivers are granted for grading, lighting and landscaping. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 2003, by the following vote: MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m going to vote, no. I think that that piece of property is maxed out. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Joe. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED GEORGE HAGERTY AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 287 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 50’ X 80’ BUILDING ADDITION WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK CONSISTING OF 1600 SF OF DISPLAY AREA AND A 4000 SF WAREHOUSE CROSS REFERENCE: 92-1529 (WALL SIGN), 92-434 (CO ONLY) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-5 LOT SIZE: 1.12 ACRES SECTION: 179-4- 020 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) TOM CENTER & CRAIG BURROWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a public hearing. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 48-2003, George Hagerty, Meeting Date: October 21, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 48-2003 APPLICANT: George Hagerty is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a warehouse/display area addition as well as associated parking and landscaping. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 287 Dix Avenue. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive. SEQRA STATUS: This application is an Unlisted SEQRA action. The applicant has included a short form EAF. PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no previous Planning Board actions relating to this property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The site plan indicates a 50’ x 80’ building addition to be constructed behind the existing building at this site. Seven additional parking spaces are shown east of the existing building. The plan also indicates some landscaping to be planted in the southwest corner of the property. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report along with the site plan application. STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan indicates a wall-mounted light to be relocated to the new building addition. The lighting levels from this wall-mounted light appear to be consistent with Town of Queensbury lighting standards. Is this fixture a downward facing wall-mounted light? As this property is directly adjacent to a sanitary sewer district, has the applicant contacted the Wastewater Department about possibly connecting to the sanitary sewer? Any comments from CT Male regarding stormwater should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes a 50 by 80 foot building addition to be constructed at this site. Additional parking, landscaping. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report with this site plan application, and in fact C.T. Male issued a signoff today. A couple of questions. The site plan indicates a wall mounted light to be relocated to the new addition. Lighting levels appear consistent with the Code. However, the question is, is this fixture a downward facing wall mounted light. As the property is directly adjacent to a sanitary sewer district, the question is, has the applicant contacted the Wastewater Department about possibly connecting to a sanitary sewer system, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering representing the applicant. MR. BURROWS-I’m Craig Burrows with Glens Falls Tile and Supplies. I’m actually here on behalf of George Hagerty. I’ll be purchasing this property from George Hagerty. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. CENTER-Like we stated, the application is for a 50’ by 80’ foot building addition with 1600 square feet of display and sales area, and 4,000 square feet of warehouse. The changes to the drawing, based on C.T. Male’s comments, we rearranged some of the draining to the parking area to the southeast, providing a berm to protect the existing septic system and shortened the infiltration trench and changed some grading in front of the overhead door, and lowered the building elevation. We will be adding seven parking spaces to the existing four, which will provide a, be within the limits of the Town parking Code. The roof drainage will be infiltrated into the eaves trenches. The new parking area, again, like I said before, will be in to an infiltration trench to the east of the new parking. The existing septic system formerly served five employees when Mr. Hagerty was operating Hagerty Technologies, and the new occupant would only have three employees. So there was no need to change the existing septic system, and then the landscape plan that was provided, we provided some additional landscaping along the road frontage, to brighten up the entrance, and there is a note for a sign. There’s currently a sign base there that’s not in use, but at a future date the applicant may apply for a sign application, and go through that process, but right now there is no plans for a sign. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. CENTER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-What is the intended use of this building? MR. CENTER-The intended use will be for a, Glens Falls Tile is going to move down from their current location, in the Boomer McCloud complex, in that building, to the Hagerty Technologies. It’ll allow them some additional warehouse space, and move the entrance away from the main entrance to the, or the truck entrance to the K-Mart building. MR. METIVIER-So it will have a showroom then? MR. CENTER-Yes, 1600 square feet of the existing building in the floor plan, I think that was provided, sales/display area. MR. METIVIER-What type of foot traffic do you usually get on a regular basis? MR. BURROWS-Are you wondering about the number of people per day? MR. METIVIER-Yes, I mean, on a busy day. MR. BURROWS-On a busy day I might have three cars out there on a busy day. There could be two people per car, usually husband and wife. It’s not uncommon to have four people there at once. Once in a while you’d have six. Other than that, that’s about it. MR. METIVIER-The most important question I have for you. Why is it that Glens Falls Tile is in Queensbury and Queensbury Tile is in Glens Falls? MR. BURROWS-That’s a good story. That’s a real good story. MR. METIVIER-I don’t get it. MR. BURROWS-Well, let me put it to you this way, it works. MR. METIVIER-It does work? MR. BURROWS-It does work. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. METIVIER-You guys have been doing a lot of advertising lately. MR. BURROWS-I do a ton of advertising. MR. METIVIER-I’ve noticed that, which got me thinking the other day, why that Glens Falls? MR. BURROWS-I had an advertising budget set together this year and I blew it. So I’ve done a lot. MR. METIVIER-So is that part of the reason why you’re moving, or is it a lot of things? MR. BURROWS-Well, Number One I’m leasing the space I’m in now, and I’m up to renew that, and I don’t, I’d rather not do that. I think it makes a whole lot more sense to own. George is making it well worth my while to do that. The larger warehouse space is going to prove to be a safer place than the way we’re operating now, and that’s probably one of the major concerns. MR. METIVIER-So you’re under contract to purchase the building, or you have purchased? MR. BURROWS-This is kind of contingent on all the approvals. MR. METIVIER-Right, which makes sense. So the building now is vacant, then? MR. BURROWS-George, I believe, has just left the property. I don’t know if it’s considered semi-retirement. He’s still got some things in there, but I don’t know if he’s conducting any business in there or not. MR. CENTER-What he’s told me is he’s currently working out of an office in his house, and he sold a portion of the business, and he’s doing other things that don’t require him to have a building or a laboratory facilities or equipment that he was handling previously. MR. METIVIER-One thing we noticed about that building the other day we were at site reviews is how incredibly meticulous the outside of the building currently is. I mean, it is spotless. MR. BURROWS-The building is like a new building. Inside is just the same. MR. METIVIER-Really, there’s like one ladder outside, and that was it. I mean, besides that, the place was swept clean. MR. BURROWS-That’s another reason why I’m very interested in the property and what we’re doing there. MR. METIVIER-What about landscaping? MR. CENTER-We do have a landscaping plan that was included, that included some landscaping along the front, the road frontage, and curved around to the side, and then there’s some existing brush, not brush, but. MR. METIVIER-I guess my question with that is, what’s your intent, spring or now? MR. BURROWS-Well, at this point I believe that’s going to be the case. We’re getting into winter here, and putting in a foundation now for this addition, I’m not so sure makes a whole lot of sense. More along the lines of this spring. I would think so. MR. METIVIER-All right. Well, good luck. MR. BURROWS-Thank you. MR. METIVIER-Is that it? John? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. STROUGH-The only question I’ve got, where’s the holding tanks for the septic fields? MR. CENTER-The existing tank, the best we could locate it, is right in this area, and the field is in this area. The existing septic tank is over in this area, and the field is somewhere in here. That information was provided by Mr. Hagerty, to the best of their knowledge, trying to go out, and it’s currently they’ve had no problems with their existing septic at all. MR. STROUGH-No, but every three years or so you’re supposed to get the tank pumped out. MR. CENTER-Yes, he hasn’t needed to pump it out. He hasn’t had a problem. I didn’t ask him that question, but I went out and sounded it, and I was able to locate it in this area. MR. STROUGH-So it’s accessible? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-That was my only concern. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-As long as we’re on the septic, are we going to be contacting Mike Shaw at all for attachment to the municipal sewer? MR. CENTER-Yes. I faxed a letter over today to George. I had contacted Mike, after the pre- application meeting, and we are not in the sewer district, and our use is so small we’re not required to connect. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, if you’re not in the district, you’re not in the district. MR. CENTER-Exactly, but I did speak with him, and there’s a Staff (lost words) that’s dated today that I addressed those comments. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How old is that septic system that you’ve got in there now? Do you know what, it probably hasn’t had a lot of use, I wouldn’t think, over the years. MR. CENTER-No. Like, Mr. Hagerty had five employees at the most, and before that it was a glass shop, and maybe had three employees. So it really hasn’t had a lot of use, but the person that built it passed away, so we weren’t able to gather any information on the existing system. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Did you do any perc tests in there just to take a look? MR. CENTER-Yes, I did. We did a perc test, and I believe it shows on the drawing underneath the calculations, the percolation test was 20 seconds, in that corner, and that was for the eaves trenches in the back. That’s where I did the perc test. So it’s got very good perc rate, and I wet it down with the hose and filled it up and tried to, you know, really make sure I pre-soaked it to extend it out, but that’s what it was. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the parking lot itself, is there any need to put some additional lighting back there at all? MR. CENTER-At this time, we have the security lighting. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not going to be used by, probably by customers. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. CENTER-That area will probably be employee parking only in the back there. He’s only open until seven o’clock on one evening, and that lighting should be sufficient in that area, plus the front of the lot gets a ton of light spillage from the road and K-mart, in that area, and at this time they didn’t see a need to add a light, but if he does need one, I’m sure we’ll have to come back and address that issue. MR. VOLLARO-Probably not. I just asked the question. C.T. Male’s got some significant questions, I guess, in here. Did we get a response back on the C.T. Male letter of October 15? th MR. CENTER-Yes, sir. MR. HILTON-We actually have a signoff. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got a signoff on that? Okay. That takes care of it for me, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. I think it’s a great spot to have a business. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-My only question was where we stand with the C.T. Male signoff. MR. CENTER-We received it. It was dated yesterday. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I missed that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Anything you wanted to add? MR. BURROWS-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 48-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GEORGE HAGERTY, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2003, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Any conditions? MR. VOLLARO-The only condition I can think of is that the applicant is not in the sewer district and therefore comment by Staff of contacting the Wastewater Department is. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t need to make it a condition. MR. VOLLARO-No. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2003 GEORGE HAGERTY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan 48-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: George Hagerty SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Nace Engineering Zone: HC-Int. Location: 287 Dix Avenue Applicant proposes construction of a 50’ x 80’ building addition w/associated site work consisting of 1600 sf of display area and a 4000 sf warehouse. Cross Reference: 92-1529 (wall sign), 92-434 (CO only) Warren Co. Planning: 10/8/03 Tax Map No. 303.15-1-5 Lot size: 1.12 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: October 21, 2003 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 10/17/03, and 10/21 Staff Notes 10/14 Notice of Public Hearing 10/8 Warren Co. Planning: Approved 9/29 Meeting Notice 9/23 Wastewater comment 9/22 Application referral to CT Male, Water, Wastewater 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 October 21, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. BURROWS-Thank you. MIKE WILD MR. WILD-My name is Mike Wild. I’m a resident of Queensbury. I’m considering developing a piece of property, and I’m looking for some education to understand what I need to do to present a plan to the Board. I’ve never done this before. I do have the tax map. I’d like to think about subdividing some property and I’m wondering if I can get maybe a few minutes of your time. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. MAC EWAN-The best direction that I could possibly give you, this Board could give you, is contact that gentleman right there and he’ll walk you through the entire process before you spend a nickel. MR. WILD-Is there any opportunity to get a preliminary indication of whether the Board would consider rezoning? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. WILD-No. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Not without making a formal application, we’d have to have a public hearing and take comment. MR. WILD-Okay, and then the timing with the schedules of the meeting, it would be December before that could be reviewed? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. The deadline for each month to get on next month’s agenda is the 15. th MR. SCHACHNER-Wait, that’s not true of re-zonings, though, remember. MR. HILTON-Re-zonings have a different schedule. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, re-zoning’s Town Board. MR. MAC EWAN-He wants to get a recommendation from this Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but re-zoning applications, you may recall, are now being phased at certain intervals. I can’t remember what. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right, too. They’re done quarterly. MR. HILTON-I don’t have the deadline schedule in front of me, but it may be as far out as two or three months, for a re-zoning, that is. MR. MAC EWAN-The best place to honestly start would be meeting with George, and he can guide you through what you need to do to make an application. If you’re looking to rezone a parcel that you own, the first step you would come to this Planning Board for a recommendation. In this case we’re only an advisory Board to the Town Board. MR. WILD-I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Then you go to the Town Board and they literally are the ones who are empowered to make the zone change. MR. WILD-Could you give me an idea on timing, about how long something like that might take, the process? If I have my paperwork in order. MR. MAC EWAN-If you have all your paperwork in order for us to do a recommendation for a zone change, we can do it in one meeting. MR. WILD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Then it’s a matter of getting on the Town Board’s agenda which could be a couple of months out. MR. WILD-Okay. So it could be four or five months out before any type of approval is done? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/03) MR. MAC EWAN-It could be, yes, I mean, depending on time, typically with a zone change recommendation, this Board does it in one night. I can’t recall too often, unless it’s a site plan related issue, like what we’ve had with some big box stores and stuff that we’re looking, so we kind of looked at the whole thing as a big picture, but if you’re talking like a subdivision. Is that what you’re? MR. WILD-A small subdivision, maybe six parcels. It’s twelve acres now. There are some one acre parcels included in there. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, is it going to be residential zoning? MR. WILD-Residential zoning. It’s in an RR-3 zone. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in an RR-3 zone, and you want to bring it down to SR-1A, SR-1? MR. WILD-No, a combination. There are one acre lots on it that are already pre-approved. MR. MAC EWAN-It would be a good opportunity to talk with George, because maybe you might not have to do that. Maybe you could get into some clustering provisions that would alleviate having to do zone changes. MR. WILD-Excellent. Excellent. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a lot of ideas that they could focus you on. MR. WILD-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 54