The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-02-27 QUEENSBURY PLf:\Nt)tING BOARP~ETI~G SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY I ::?7,r1 1 ~,~~. ,'¡ J ::11(. '., INDEX , ,.) I ,{ :i'1 ',!Ai:,!. Site Plan No. 3-96 Tax Map No. 153-1-9 Site Plan No. 64-95 Tax Map No. 10-1-6 Subdivision No. 11-1995 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 2-96 Tax Map No. 61-1-37.3 ,¡, ! ,: Herbert Heineman, Jr. j' ',,' f '\' (~1," ,;{; ¡: ~« (q,>'l.} t,j, ¡ ,., "':¡.;:, Peter & Cheryl,F.Ji a~~r, Joseph & Debra Gross Tax Map No. 144-1-40.1 Perry Noun Associates ',~3t ' , 1 í:( ~ ..1 ':,~~J¡v'; 1 . 5. 7. 12. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS ,~I"'L<,:¡q.Rf>q:-Þ,tR i~,\ ¡rt:;Eir"I\)FO~40WING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES .,! {ii, !v;, , ¡ ~ ", , :1 I"î, .: ;.; 1/1" -¡} 'I( . ", 'i (.1, ' . j-:i ,; . ,¡;~ , ¡. . ;"! . i I' , ~,' ,', ", ," I, '! 'J) '/1 11 v~ ., I.~· ¡,.c-' '( "I " '-1' ¡j\' , " , ,ft! ,"1 II ~-3' ;) J/ ¡ r ," ' ~: I ' .. . l' :1(..1 ,"I; lH'¡ I "'J ::T ~\/(""I -~ ¡t'::, ,<,I' 1" ·L:,·'¡>-n·~ .: j . j' I , ; 'il i í ' 'H,J __HI; ','~ I, r I'H-', I. " v! f j 1 (._h.J ~ :.;' ,":, ';,::d I' I" i :.11.1 ' ; : !. \ ~¡ ',::1' "J':l.:'i f,.¡ - . , .. ' ',~' 1 j tq·t"'-·¡,,:I I ! (, ~'" ¡ . . n, '! ¡ 'I ...... ' f:,)' ;~, 'II i ,. ¡ '¡'I : ¡ " ; I' ,,~ :h:1', :1-:, ~ ¡ ..¡ t .~ ;:~¡ ~! I· 'd i' ¡ ~ - ~ ~ , " ' . , i (~. '"--,, ,/ ---./' (Queensbury Pllåhr1Ï frgB'Òärd Mée~t.'i ng' 212:71<:J6) , II· ~ . QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING~ SECOND REGULAR MEETING '¡(Hi FEBRUARY 27, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK JAMES OBERMAYER CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER ROGER RUEL CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER....JOHN GORALSKI PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 19, 1995: NONE December 28, 1995: NONE January 16, 1996: NONE January 23, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 19TH & 28TH AND J~NUARY 16TH & 23RD, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 3-96 TYPE II HERBERT HEINEMAN, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 20 MAYFLOWER LANE PROPOSAL IS TO ADD A 14' X 23' ADDITION TO HOUSE. PER SECTION 179-79 SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR ANY EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A c.E.A. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1381 SP 29-92 AV 1- 1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING - 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 153-1-9 LOT SIZE: .66 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MRS. LABOMBARD-And this has been tabled, but we are going to have a public hearing this evening, and we are planning to keep the public hearing open. MR. PALING-Right. So if there's anyone here, the public hearing is open , and it will stay open, after tonight's meeting, if there is anymore to be said at coming meetings, also, but this item ~ tabled, but we'll hear anyone that would like to talk - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) about this tonight. PUBLIC HEARING'OPENED JOAN ROSETTI MRS. ROSETTI-I put a letter together for the Planning Board. I will read the letter to you. I'm Joan Rosetti. I live, at to the Heinemans on Mayflower Lane. "I would like to register an objection to the proposed variance" based on' thè/ifollowing concerns: 1. The addition will result in over development on a parcel already over developed. The addition doesn'ot coT\form with present zoning laws. The property is only .66 acres which is a substandard exi$ti~g lot. ,2. There is a garage o~ the property for which a variance was previously giv$iTl. ThisgJarage is also on the south side of the property and is approximately 2- 3 ft. from the line. The Heinemans store all undèsirables adong side of this garage causing an unsightly appearance with much of it on theline'oT even on our slide. It is a burde,n to us to have this garage so close to our line. Please see photo #1 attached. '3. Any addition to the prøperty, on the south side of the ex,isting building will result in blocking our view of the lake to the North. Please see photo #2 attached. 4.' Please sée ,that the property is extended to thé limit on the North side.. Please see photo,#4 attached. We ask the planning board to keep our concerns in mind and also look to presenìl,ing Lake George with no further over development. Therefore, we ,ask that, the variance be denied. Sincerely, Richard & Joan Rose,tti» MR. PALING-Now, we don't deal with the var iance as suc,h. MRS. ROSETTI-Right. MR. PALING-But maybe 'John or George ¢ould clarify this. I believe that was covered by the Zoni~g Board of Appeals, and turned down. Am 1 correct? MR. HILTON-No. Actually, the var'iance has been tabled at the last meeting, for 60 days"," in order to allow the, applicant an opportunity to design or develop a plan more in compliance,with the Ordinance." However, the public hearing for the site plan was published. Therefore, we're having the pubil'ic hear i ng'rthis evening. MR. PALING-Right. ZBA? Now, what about the publici hearing for the MR. HILTON-I believe it's still open, and will resume wh&n the item comes back in 60 days. MR. PALING-You might want to appear at either one, or both, in this situation. MRS. ROSETTI-Right~ MR. STARK-You live on the south side? MRS. ROSETTI-Yes. MR. STARK-Where the addition would be'?, MRS. ROSETTI-Exactly. There's a garage on that south side that extends quit,e'a ways ,back, whil¢h originally a variance had been given for that, and then Carol Ducey, who is now Mrs. Heineman, went for a vàriance to extend, that garage. We did not oppose that. We just went along with it, but at this point, anything more on that south side is definitely a burden to us. - 2 .... , ------ --.../ (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96 ) MR. STARK-You're aware that he's going to be 11 feet off your, you know, say it went through as he had it planned, 11 feet from your side property line is where the edge ;,of tha,t new'¡room ,would be. MRS. ROSETTI-Exactly, and what is the requirement? MR. STARK-What is the requirement? It's 20, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-A minimum of 20. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MRS. ROSETTI-So they're nine foot over the 20 foot, which is nonconforming. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. PALING-Have you talked to Mr. Heineman directly about it? MRS. ROSETTI...,.I have a letter from MFG. Heineman, telling me that she wanted to do this in order to have more bedroomsw another bathroom, to have her extended family up at the lake. These people have a parking space out front of their garage which is for two cars. !.'d like to know, also, on this property, where does Mrs. Heinéman intend to park more caTS for this company that she's putting the room on for? That's another question. They back out of that driveway. They have to back into our driveway to go down to Mayflower Lane. More bedrooms and another bathroom, more people. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR.' MACEWAN-Do you plan on going to the ZBA meeting when they have this, and voice those same opinions.to them as well. MRS. ROSETTI-Right. I couldn't come up last week, but I had sent a letter up so that,they'were aware that we objected to it. I'm sure I sent the ,letter up the Friday before, and I'm sure they had it. MR,., PALING-Oka~. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would care to talk about this matter? All right, if not, the public hearing, however, remains open, and will be until our next meeting. MR. OBERMAYER-If the variance is granted, they still have to come amongst us, right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-For a site plan. Yes. Okay. MRS. ROSETTI-If the variance is granted, what is my next step? What can I do? MR. PALING-Then they come to us for a site plan review, and our public hearing is still open. MRS. ROSETTI-I have no right to object to the variance? What can I do? MR. PALING-I'll refer that to Mark, our legal counsel. MR,. SCHACHNER-We don't necessarily encourage this, but I mean there are certain legal remedies you can resort to. I think you mentioned you had an attorney already. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) MRS. ROSETTI-Yes., MR. SCHACHNER-I'm sure your attorney could advice you about steps you could take if you object to the variance. MRS. ROSETTI-Right, because that's exactly what we intend to do. MR. ROSETTI-But they will let us know when they have the zoning cha nge? ' , MR. GORALSKI-We will notify YO\J when the 'Zoning Beard meeting is. MR. ROSETTI-Okay. Thank yoU very much. f, "'<'¡";',, :M., MA01!JWAN-Befl(þl't:e we. ,e'1d>sè.oUit. ot.!t.tnls'. ,"{¡h&'f.'e doei$..,thisi stand T1I'OW? ·Ish.t.his just k'l nd ,tÒ't,', i J1I :, 1 ill'ftbo u!.J1fuilf l'90es ,totJrne ZB~,_",then he's gói r.tg t.ô have ìtto' coWtatbàC: k i ß}1ið.>m(t'pay bhefléè)( ~ga i nl,a¡rtê! be placeld bèÞ:::: k>.oh tihe 'ðgérrda~'i or å,ý'e: ìiIté'~'Qst.!ìhlbH:H rM;) héa;rê¡ i h 'llimbo here for us? ' " J ", k ) ..:3>-1JI, ': ! I ,,' I" MR. GORALSKI-Right now, you can't consider complete because they don't have a variance and conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. thi. application they're not in :: ;! j " MR. MACEWAN-Has this application in front of the Planning Board been withdrawn by the applicant, or has it, just been tabled? MR. GORALSKI~No, just tabled. MR. MACEWAN-Okay.' I requested, t,wo weeks a~0; that the applicant submit an elevation of that proposed addition. I never saw anything that came to me, and based on what ,these people are sa,y i ng tonight, I would also ask tmat if we could pessibly get an elevation looking east, to see how it compares with that neighboring property, hew much it's either gòingto. be. obtrusive or not"or whatever the case may be, and thirdly, looking at this sketch, if this thing is drawn to. scale, whi¢h it claims it is on here, it, doesn't meet, because if you look at the existing garage, ,and just l<Dok at the distance, it sets off the p,·operty li ne, at 10 feet, ,and look at the 11 feet that it sets off the property line from that addition is a considerably difference. MR. OBERMAYER-,Seven feet ten. MR. MACEWAN-What's seven feet ten? MR. OB.ERMAYER-The garage. MR. PALING-The garage. ".., MR. MACEWAN-My pardon. directions. 1 though~' that was an arrow pointing the I :1 MR. GORALSKI-Would you like elevations? MR. MACEWAN-I would like,an,elevati.on. I wðnt to see how it's going to attach to the back of the house. MR. GORALSKI-All right. elevations. Why don't we ask fer all three MR. MACEWAN",:"That's fine.' I think that's reasonable to ask for. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I do, too, because when they see it, they might not have as much against it. MR. HILTON.¡.I believe we do have elevations. but they're in with the Zoning Board information, since this item was tabled. - 4 - "---- ----' (Queensbury Planning Board Me.eting 2/27/96) MR. MACEWAN-When this comes back, will we get a new packet? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-We'll definitely send you the elevations. 1 would hold· on to that application, but we'll send you any additional information. , , MR. PALING-I think we probably should put it on our next site visit. I'd like to re-visit this one, too, before the next. All right. Then we can just. leave that tabled and proceed. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 64-95 PETER & CHERYL FRASER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: OFFICE SPACE, AT RT. 9L AND CLEVERDALE ROAD . ADJACENT TG CLEViERDALE CGliINTRY STORE. REQUEST IS FOR MODIFICATION, OF THE APPROV'ED SITE PLAN REVIEW. TAX MAP NO. 10-1- 6 LOT SIZE: 4.148 ACRES SECTION: 179-25 PETER 'FRASER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site, Plan No. 64-95, Peter & Cheryl Fraser, Mee.ting Date: February 27, 1996 "On November 28, 1995 the applicant received site plan review to construct a 16' x 20' addition to the existing real estate office on this 4.1 acre site. The present application is also for an addition of the same size. The only difference from the previously approved site plan,is a second level for a portion of the proposed new addition. This . would br i ngthe height of the bui ldi ng to approximately 25 feet which' is under the maximum height . requirement of 30 feet for the NC-10 zoning district. This addlt,ion would be built in the same bui ldi ng footpr i nt as approved with the pr'evious site plan. The following are the staff motes which were prepared for the initial site plan review òn November 28, 1995. These notes are a.ppl icable to this pTIoject. 1. The location, size and general site compatibility appear to be appropriate as it relates to the neighborhood and to the purpose of the neighborhood commercial zone. 2. This proposal will have no impact on the adequacy and arrangement of the existing vehicular circulation patterns no~ on the sufficiency of parking facilities. 3. The large lot compared to the size of the addition as well as the significant amount of permeable area on the site makes the impact on stormwater facilities insignificant. 4. The existing building is not serviced by sewage disposal facilities. The installation of a new sewage disposal system that is in conformance with all applicable regulations is a positive aspect of this proposal. Unless any unforeseen issuesarise asa result of the public comments I woµld recommend approval of this proposal." MR. FRASER-I'm Peter Fraser) the owner of the property. MR. PALING-Just to confirm that the new sewage disposal system is part of this whole new? MR. FRASER-That's right. MR. PALING-All right. We're okay there. and we did SEQRA, I guess. Yes. Okay. any questions, comments? We had a public hearing All right. Are there MR. STARK-When we were up there, Mr. Fraser " we noticed that the existing building, the joists were held up with just like concrete blocks. ATe they piersigoing down or just right on the ground? - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) MR. FRASER-No. The piers go into the ground. MR. STARK-Below the ,frost line? MR. FRASER-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay, because I know your plans for the new ones are going to have concrete going down. Okay. ,;'MRS. LABOMSAfÐ-+But{ ,ther&~s'not, ;ai,llik~¡ 81 Jfoo:t1.enn a.! 1, ,U\e way a,round? ,,; i 1;' , ;'")Lj, "1'1{;,, 'J 'i~":ì,,'!' ~:(,(",'k' ~," ,', i' -H It: . P'I ·)1 j'~:tv:_.J: .!\ rIll ",'i.:, !) r.: ì/h_)} i .\ MR. FRASER-No. ¡ ;i¡ . f..'i 1 ¡ .) t'.> {"¡ ~ .;,; :.'~,'. , ¡iN H, J ,f ì· -¡ I.:~ ';. '. " f ,/ ',.-j 1 : I ! ' concrete blocks, MR. PALING-But you've got one under any of the it's go tap i ling be 1 ow 'i t . MR. FRASER-Yes. ; !<!Vi l MR. OBERMAY,ER-You plan on just leavi ngthe footings in? : You don't plan on putting in a regular foundatión around ,it? MR. FRASER-No, we don't. We're goi ng to i nsulat&i a;round where the water line come$ up for the bathroom. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's' whàt 1 was just. 90i ng. t'o ask you, how you're ,going to make sure that the bathroom doesn't freeze up, and all of that. MR. FRASER-Yes. We're going to insula,te a little cubicle where the line's go in and out. ·MR. OBERMAYER-So the floor's aren't going to be itl$ul.ated? MR. FRASER-It's insulated from underneath. mobile home effect, where you put a skirt that. It's kind of like a around it and insulate MR. OBERMAYER-I see. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other questions, comments? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. What's the overall height going to be? MR. FRASER-twenty-five feet. MR. OBERMAYER-Twenty-fiNe?·, Okay. I didn't see that. , , MR. PALING-Okay. Then I thi nk we can go dir,ectly to a motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, if you make a motion, or if you intend to pass a motion t.o approve,.! would only enc.6urage you add to that motion that you don't see any material modification, in terms of env i ronmental impact, warr anti ng ,any addi t'ional SEQRA review, as you do with any modifications of a site plan approval. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MOTION TO, APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SIT:: PLAN, NO.· 64-~5 PETER & CHERYL FRASER, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: ! ; As covered in prints that we have submitted, that have been submitted to the Planning Office, and it should be noted that nothing was brought up that would have any effect on the previous SEQRA approval. So we're going to go ahead without redoing it. Duly adopted this'27th day of February,' 1996 f by the followi ng - 6 - '---' ./ ---.../ (Queensbury Planning Board Me,eti ng 2/27/96 ) vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 11~199$ FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, SR-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY RD./PALMER DR. PROPOSAL IS FOR FINAL APPROVAL FOR PHASE I - 8 LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 144-1-40.1 LOT SIZE: 30.88 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1995, Joseph & Debra Gross, Meeting Date: February 27, 1995 "This application is for an 8 lot residential subdivision on Big Bay Road on the north shore of the Hudson River. The property is currently zoned WR-1A. All of the proposed lots conform to the dimènsional requirements of the existing zoning district. A preliminary subdivision application was approved on September 26, 1995,by the Planning Board. Staff would offer the following comments regarding the Final phase of this subdivision. Any dedication of land in lieu of Recreation fees should be agreed upon prior to approval of this final phase. A condition of approval of this subdivision should be that the applicant connect to the Town water supply within the 180 day time frame outlined in Section 183-13E2. Any comments from Rist- Frost and the Health Department should be addressed prior to the recording of this subdivision at the Warren County Register of Deeds '. " MR. PALING-Bill, do you want to cover your letter? BILL MACNAMARA MR. MACNAMARA-Sure~ Actually our letter we just sent out yesterday is a subsequent review to the letter of the 13th, and it essentially indicates probably half of the notes of t'he 13th, and since then Matt has added, they were all basically notation comments, in terms of meeting particular subdivision notes and regs, and he just dropped off drawings tonight that indicates he had addressed these outstanding comments, and if he has, it'll take me a few minutes to look the drawings over, and I believe there's no problem. I'm sure there isn't. We went over them a number of times. So I think we were on the same page. MR. PALING-All right. Just explain to me, the to,do with the 290 foot level~ I think it is, that's goi ng to be done, or what is thait? elevation having is that something MR. MACNAMARA-Are you speaking of the lot that's over closest to the river? Ib1R'¡"PALING~,'(es~;!aft';dis that going to be gnáded.i!to t,hat. heightl, or what are we talking about? , : !" MR. MACNAMARA-I think you're going to be bringing it up. MR. STEVES-That's correot~ MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STEVES-I'm Matt Steves with VanDusen and steves. - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Me.eting 2/27/96) MR. PALING-Okay, and that is going to be done? You're going to put dirt there to accomplish that. ¡; MR. STEVES-What we're going to do is that, FEMA has established a flood elevat.ion of 290 in this, area, ~dong the 10 ive.r, ,aind what we're stating is that any f i nished,¡ f 100rwi 11 be. above that"' The only lot where we have a 290 is on lot: one, and we have a finished floor of 294 on that lot. MR. PALING-Okay. So that the finished floor will be above. the 290? jl MR. STEVES-That's correct. There will be some fill, as outlined on the detail d'tlap fer ,lot one, just basically the foundation would be filled in and around, so you will not have a pocket of 290 on that Lot. MR. OBERMAYER-That's going to be a slab, right? MR. STEVES-Not necessarily, no. You're going ,to. have a full foundation. We have (lost word) tests in ,the area t.hat prove there's no highwater table. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but don't you. have you're goi.ng to have a full basement. buoyancy above that floodplain? to design it? I mean, Aren~t you worried about MR. STEVES-Floodplain a17ld the design of the basement I don't think" has anything to do with one another. You can confer with your engineer, but I don't believe so. MR. MACNAMARA-To that point, that's one of the notes we had repeated, in a couple of our comment letters, is that that particular lot may actually require, I think Queensbury calls it a: flood hazard development permit" or something., I think it's part of the building inspecting phase, and at that point, there's some pr,etty clear steps that the zoning regs require you to. do, in terms of flood proofing. MR. OBE:RMAYER-Right, and it 'requires special insurance, too. I mean, doesn't the homeowner require speciál in$Ul"ance? MR. MACNAMARA-I think we'r,e gèttingthe Zones Kind of, possibly, confused, as to whether it's actually in the floodplain or floodway. There's some semantics that are, quite honestly, I always have ,to read before I speak to th$lTl, and I didn't read them this evening becAuse I believed we'd taken care of it, but in any event, this is in sor't of the, farthest away. zone that's in issue to FEMA, but it is still considered a minor issue, so the Town has to do this flood hazard development, ¡perm! t, and it doesn't, require anything nearly as involved, as if it were in the floodway, for instance. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Okay. MR. PALING-And there's erosion control on that, ,and you're in compliance with what's on your own print with erosion control, too. There's no problem there. Okay. Now lets discuss, if we can, the land in lieu of rec fees. MR. GORALSKI-Over the past several weeks,' I 've bee,n dealing ,with Department of Transportation, because the,~own Board was hesitant to recommèndaccepting this parcel unless we knew that we would be able to get a permit from New York State DOT to construct a bike trail underneath the Hudson River bridge of 1-87, to get to the Hudson River Park. As of this afternoon, I have a draft permit from New York State DOT, and the Town Board has. ,basically given their blessing, and would recommend that we,ðccept this - 8 - -- ,./ -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96 ) land in lieu of the recréation fee. We've also got a letter in the file from the Recreation Commission, stating that they also recommend that we accept this land in lieu of the recreation fee. MR.OBERMAYER-That draft permit,· is that binding, though? Is that a binding letter? I mean, could we hold our hat on it, or is that just a letter of intent? MR. GORALSKI-It's a letter of intent, that's what it is. They intend to issue the permit. The reason they don"t want to issue the permit right now is because they are going to be reconstructing the bridge over the Hudson River that's going out to bid, 1 bel ie.ve this spr i ng, . for construction throughout 1997. So they don't want to issue any permits because the permit ~ouldn't be acted upon until probably the summer of, ,or spring or 1998 would be when they would actually allow us to do the construction. MR. PALING-Well, this whole thing would go forward, however, on a letter of intent basis, and it seems that all parties, assuming that the applicant is part of that, are agre,eable to this. MR. GORALSKI-Right. The applicant agrees to giving the land. The Town Board has agreed that it's appropriate. The Recreation Commission has agreed it's appropriate, and DOT has given their letter of intent that they will issue a permit. Actually, it's not a letter of intent. It's a draft permit is what it is, that as soon as they've got everything settled with their reconstrue,tion of the br idge, that they wi II issue a permit. MR. PALING-Now that seems like that'll turn out fine. MR. OBERMAYER-How do you know? MR. PALING-Well" \ should we make provision for this in the motion? MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing 1 wanted to clarify, Bob; is when you say the whole thing will be going forward on a letter of intent basis, as 1 see it, or as I understand it from the applicant's standpoint, the donation of the land would not be a letter of intent. That would actually occur. MR. ·GORALSKI-No, that's going to occur, before they file their plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, that would be part of the approval. I want to make sure the Board realizes that that part of it would not really be only intent. That would actually have to happen. MR. PALING-Well, do we have to enter into it, then_ If they're 90ing,to donate the land and the Town accepts it, then we say, yes, too. Do we have to make any special provisions in a motion or something for this? MR. GORALSKI-In your motion to approve the final phase, you would also be approving that 40 foot strip of land as dedication in lieu of rec fees. MR. PALING-Yes, but we don't have to go beyond that? MR. SCHACHNER-No, but that would be part of your motion. mean the rest of this about the permits from the State that, no. I think John is correctly bringing that attention for your comfort, but that's not part of your or your motion. If you and all to your approval MR. PALING,-Okay.: All right. What o,ther questions, comments, do we have from the Board? - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Me;$ting 2/27/96) MR. MACEWAN-Didn't we already grant the waivers to! the two foot contours? Didn't we do it at prel imi nary? MR. GORALSKI-You did it at preliminary, but that's also required at final. So you should just put that in your motion. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STEVES-The only thing I'll say is, regarding'some ot the notes we had from the Planning Staff and from the engineer" that we do have a letter of intent which I believ;e you have in front of you, that the intent of our client, Mr. Gross, is to sell lots only. However, the strip along the Northway may·be dedicated to the Town in lieu of recreation fees, and then'wealso have a letter asking for a waiver for the stormwater management and eTosion control, and also for the contours along the 60 foot strip that's going to be conveyed. MR. PALING-Why in the letter of February 14th does he say "may be"? Wouldn't that be better if it will be? MR. STEVES-Well, he will be, because', at the 14th, it was still a ma y be. MR. GORALSKI-And it's actually up to the Planhing Board to make that decision, not the applicant. MR. PALING-All right. That'll be will be. I think we're making that decision right now. MR. STEVES-And as far as the water connection to the Town water service, we've supplied Tom Flaherty with a report on proposed Big Bay Road, Big Boom Road water district extension., He has not come back to me with any comments. He. did note that he would have gotten back to me before the meeting, so then I will take that that he is going to accept it, and we also have the description that we've given to him for the district extension. MR. PALING-All right. closed. The public hearing on this I think was MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that's correct. MR. PALING-And the SEQRA is done. So' we can go again~ we can go directly to a motion for final approval on this. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. putting on this, exactly? What are the restrictions' that we're MR. PALING-Lets see. 1 don't think that, well, the only thing pending might be the waterconnection~:but that'sJ we could put that in if we want to, but everything else, there's nothing pending. Do we make that same statement about SEQRA, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think it's necessary here, because this is still the same project. This is just the final stage. ,I t: ¡': '!, ¡ "·1 '. ¡ {: ~ :. " .1 ¡ ì MR. PALING-Okay. j'."¡ ¡ ;:".-::¡>--}.-f MR. STEVES-One question 1 wanted to ask. The 180 water connection, when does the, time clock start the approval date or from the signature? days for the on that, from MRS. LABOMBARD-It says 180 day time frame outlined in Section 18313E2. - 10 - --' '-" --..-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96 ) MR. MACEWAN-If there's not enough time, you'd , have to come back and ask for an extension. MR. STEVES-Just so, my client is out of town on vacation. MR. MACEWAN-Just mark your calendar to come in before the clock ticks out. MR. GORALSKI-It's 180 days from the day of the resolution. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think John or Mark, I'm not clear wai veT, because it says here, "It is. not clear if a required regarding the omission of contours extending off the site", and you said one of the restrictions you~d have to have a waiver for two foot contour, mentioned that. about the waiver is 100 feet would be, somebody MR. GORALSKI-They asked for a wa.iver of the contours on the 60 foot wide strip adjacent to the Northway. Now, what note are YOU talking about? Is there a note in Rist-Frost's letter? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, this is the one from, Bill, yes. the first page. It's on MR. GORALSKI.,-Oka.y,. I believe what that is, is the subdivision Reg's say that you have to provide two foot contours from 100 feet beyond the property line, and apparently that hasn't been provided. So, if you don't feel that's required, I don't see why it would be. MRS. LABOMBARD-Required or necessary? MR. GORALSKI-If you don't feel that that's necessary, then you oan grant that waiver, also. ,MR. PALING~That'spretty flat land. MR. STEVES-We took elevations out here, 100 feet beyond, but what we're talking is this strip here, which is basically about 350 foot removed the development. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. say. PALING-I can go along without it, Does everybody fee,l that way? the way it is, I should MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, I think so. Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Ithink they're going to sell 'pretty fast up there, you know that, these lots. MR. PALING-All right. this? Does somebody want to make a motion on MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1995 JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Proposal is for final approval of Phase I - 8 lots, with the following stipulations. That the water is hooked in to the Town water supply within 180 days from this evening. That the 40 foot strip of land be dedicated to the Town in lieu of recreation fees. We grant a waiver for contour lines for the 40 foot strip of land, and stormwater management and erosion control. - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) Dul y adopted this 27th day of February" 1996, by the followi ng vote: AYES: Mr. stark. Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombàrd, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: ,Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel ;, SITE PLAN NO. 2.,.96 TYPe:: UNLISTED PER~V NOUN ASSOCIATES OWNER: WOODBURY DEV. GROUP, INC. ZONE: HC-'1A, MR-S LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ,A 70 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX WITH ASSOCIATED ROADS AND ESSENTIAL UTILITIES. ALL LAND USES IN HC AND MR-5 ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN ,REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCES: AV 76-1995 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 2/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: ,2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-37.3 LOT SIZE: +/- 4.05 ACRES SECTION: ,179-23, 179-18 PERRY NOUN, PRESENT; IVAN ZDRAHAL, PRESENT; 'BILL HERBERT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And the publ ic ,heari ng which was or igi na II y scheduled for February 20th has· been ,tabled until .tonight.. MR. PALING-Okay. George or John, the engineering comments from Zdrahal Associates, how do they fit with th& normal way we have these? Will we be hearing from Bill or what on this? MR. HIL TON"\'" We have a lette:r here that was faKed over f:rom ,Bill yesterday, and I'm goi ng to have him 'read, it j ntò, ,the record, his additional comments. MR. PALING"\"'Al1 right. Why don't you èover your comments, first, though, George. MR. HILTON-Well, as far a.s PlamtJÍng ,Staff is concerned, our cOmments stand from the.last meeting. Mr. Zdrahal has sent us a letter stati ng that most of the P lanrÜ ng·, Staff ,'s concer'ns would be discussed this evening. So, I guess my feeling is we'll just discuss them. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Well, that's wha~, his letter said, so we'll proceed on that basis and see what we can do. Do you want to read this letter into the m'¡ nutes, then? Is that what, you want to do? MR. MACNAMARA!'""I think you~re getting 'the 1etters confused. You may want to read Ivan's l'etter, Ivan Zdrahal's letter. I can address my own notes. MR. PALING..,.And then you, have an answer to this, , or comments? MR. MACNAMARA-Just the stuff that has t.o do with Rist-Frost, not all their own. MR. PALING-:-Right. into the minutes? Is it necessary we read the Zdrahal letter MR. HILTON-I wouldn't think so. " MR. PAL ING-A 11 right, because we have, ita nd we've read it. MR. HILTON-You all "have'ii t" and the iS$ues that are outstanding we're going to be discussing this evening. ; MR. PALING-Oka,y. Then, Bill', why don~t you go ahead. MR. MACNAMARA~I'11 try and be brief, the condensed version as - 12 - -' "-- '--"'"' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) much as possible, but essentially our first letter went out a couple of weeks back and addressed a number of items of which Ivan and myself have spoken to a couple of times the past week. In his letter that ',George referred to, he addressed them all in a qualitative fashion and a verbiage fashion, but he hasn't changed any drawings yet, and I understand he's waiting to see what fleshes out this evening before he changes any drawings, but the long and short of it is, whatever concerns we had regarding water, sewer, gas service, some step signs, some inverts for some sanitary manholes, I think there was another note on the back "page 'about,'i¡som'é'>'¡1'erosioh ain'd sediment control 'noiLes. He's '" i hdiccit&d Ì!n Ui\eillet tè!r' that lGeor~e- has.ré·f.erred :t.o that they will al11. b:eitakoen càr'él of ,and, e,ither': C'.()rrec't'éd or. "noted, or embetli,shed ~I if you: wi 11, oh wfiatever. dY''ðwbilg that he's ~oi Jig to '-"Oè prepar i ng ai'ff,té'r tónJi,ght'8 meét,i'r..g. ~., J·~,-U..\L- ! ~ (, ~ ! --j! ¡ r "I-J "MR. :PALING-Well,· I can' acclept"thâ,t when they make' ¡ ,the statement that, an elevator for the s.e<::ond, floor will ,be. provided; but then when they say a lighting plan will be submitted for review, I can't accept it unless;I see the plan~ MR~ MACNAMARA-Okay. Those weren't really our comments. I guess you're going to have to work that through with George. In terms of the engineering issues, the only one that had any subsequent notes had to do with the turning radiuses and some vehicle maneuvers around the property; around,the site, and we'd sent down the same vehicle turning template, if you will, that the Fire Marshal had given us to check the drawing to make sure it ,would fit. ~nitial1y, it was going to be pretty tight in a few spots. I sent ,the template down to Ivan, and he has just; this evening, brought it over and said that he's worked it out so it's all going to fit, and of course it would all have to be shown on the final drawing, but that's where Q.YL issues stand. MR. PALING-Yes. This has got to be on paper eventually. Okay. All right. Well, then perhaps the thing to do is to go to the applicant and ask them to go ahead down by the numbers and tell us what's going to ·be. Does that sound satisfactory to everybody? Would you come up please and identify yourself for the record. MR. NOUN-Perry Noun. I'm the developer. MR. ZDRAHAL-Ivan, Zdr-ahal, Ivan Zdrahal Associates. eng i neer . I'm the MR. OBERMAYER-It would be nice comments, to address them on the do tell a thousand words, details. that, as you do have these drawing, too, because pictures MR. PALING-Do you want to use your letter as a guide and just go right down? I think that's the best way to do it. We can all follow it better that way. MR. ZDRAHAL-Basically, we have received all of the comments from the Town,agencies and the Town engineer, and the purpose of the letter was basically to outline how we're going to deal with the various issues, and hopefully the Board would find this acceptable. I will start with the letter ·from the Town of Queensbury Planning Department, and the issue of the elevator was identified. It's recognized that an elevator is needed. That's basically a building issue, and by Code an elevator must be provided. (Lost words) on Drawing Number One (lost words) identified certain specifications and criteria for the proposed lighting, just a general note, it says "Proposed pole mounted lighting as shown on ~he utility plan is shown fot planning purposes only. Prior to final site plan approval, a lighting plan shall be prepared by a lighting vendor in accordance with - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board M&eting 2/27/96) the following criteria: Pole mounted lighti¡ng shall not create a glare or light trespass on adjoining properties. Pole mounted light source,sha11 not source shall ,not be visible from adjoining residential properties. II So our intention would be to add a limit of light, or limit of",i11umi,natio,n for the site, as H:, will be proposed for this project, and then we will specify the type of lighting which will be used to achieve that. MR. PALING-Ok.ay. When you were, you were reading from another paper that was getting into a little bit more detail than the lighting. Have I got that? MRS. LABOMBARD-He was readi ng from the plan, Number, 12 on Page 1 of the plan. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to have any lights on the building? MR. ZDRAHAL-No. MR. HERBERT-My name is Bi II Herbert,. I'm the al"chi tect f,orPerry Noun on this project, ,and in answer ,to the guestio,n about lighti ng on the bui ldi ng itself, othèr tha," some soffit I ighti ng at the entranceways, which would not be directed away from the building, there is no surface mounted lighting for the building, for that express purpose, that wewouldn~t ,have :spillageover onto the neighboring properties. Everything pole mounted is, obviously, going to have cutoffs aswell"so that the: light won't shine anywhere toward the south. MR. OBERMAYER-So in the back here, ,you're not goi ng t,o' have: any exits with lighting on it or anything? MR. HERBERT-Theré would be security: lights, in terms of soffit lighting, ceiling type lighting, in the recess of the building itself. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. PALING-All right. Go ahead. MR. ZDRAHAL-The letter from the Planning Department regar,di ng fencing ,and in spea,ki n9 to, George Hi::lton about it, he suggested perhaps, if any fencing is needed or is it (lost words). MR. PALING-Did you want to tell us what you had in mind for fencing, George. MR. HILTON-In looking at the plan, first of a'11, proposed fencing, and I just felt that the Board want :to see some femci ng ,on the, back side of this the Westwóod HOffiecSwners to maybe separate development from those homeowners. I can't see any may require, or proJect, toward or screen the MR. MACEWAN-What did you have in mind, a, wooden fence, something like we did at Wal-Mart? MR. HILTON-Well, I didn't have any specifications. I was going to leave it up to the Board to detide whether or not they felt it was necessary and what kind of fencing they wished to see. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I don't feel it's necessary. I, personally, think that fencing would detract from the style of the building, and, I mean, we're not putting, I don't think he's proposing to put up something that's unappealing. I think fencing itself would make it ,unappealing. Maybe we could do some shrubs or 'some natural type of screening. MR. PALING.;.Wa,sn't the¢oncer n there the passag.eway throÜgh, that - 14 - --' "----" --.-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96 ) there would be limited access iÆ there was some kind of, I'll use the, word "barrier" for lack of a better word right now. It woul,dn't have to be a fence. It could'be bushes or something, but wasn't the concern about access between the two properties? Isn't that where tl:'tis all came from? MR. MACEWAN-For what reason? MR. PALING-Just walking through, just going, no reason, really, just, it, would be ,accessible as a shortcut, between the two developments. That might not have been the issue, forget it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Just throw, it out, forget it. MR. OBERMAYER-Why is the building cocked? MR. NOUN-There are really two reasons. The first reason is because we addressed ourselves to some of the concerns of Westwood, regarding how close the building was going to be and ,how much of the building was going to be to the property line, and we tilted it s(!) that only a small portion of the building will be exposed, and I think it went out as far as 200 feet, and we only needed to have. MRS. LABOMBARD-We have 140. MR. NOUN-So we extended that line by tilting the building, but there's a better reason, and not to say that the Westwood reason wasn't important, but there's a better reason, because when we tilt the building, that means that every unit will have sunshine at some time during the day., That's a better reason. MR. PALING.,..Okay. All right. Then lets let the fencing go. MR. MACEWAN-I think we got off the track, where we left off with this lighting plan. MR. OBERMAYER-We didn't leave that off. They just kind of ended the conversation. MR. ZDRAHAL.,..The lighting on the side wouldn't, be any trespass of light to and there won't be any source of properties from the actual fixtures. would be such that there the adjoining properties, light to the adjoining MR. MACEWAN-But in order for you to get an approval, when would ~ see it? I mean, do you plan on coming back again, or wanting to come back again? MRS.. LABOMBARD-But he said that the 1 ighti ng was goi ng to be under the soffits and situated that there wouldn't be any. MR. OBERMAYER-No, that's not the exterior lighting, no. are pole mounted lights. These MR. MACEWAN-It's a lot more than just that. MR. OBERMAYER-It would be nice to see a lighting plan, I think. MR. MACEWAN-It's required of any other application we've ever looked at. MR. OBERMAYER-Just to show the location. MRS. LABOMBARD-But we saw the lights. They were on here, where they're going to be. 'MR. OBERMAYER-No, there's no lights. They just mention it. - 15 - (Queensbury P lanni ng Board Meet i ng, 2/2,7/96) MR. STARK-Bob, we'll come back. to that one. MR. PALING-Yes~ okay. We'll have to finalize the .lighting pl:an. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm thinking there's something else. I'm confusing the lights with something else. MR. PALING-Now~ is there anything else on fencing that we wish to discuss? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, we've got to know where the lights are. MR. PALING-Okay. There ought to be a lighting plan. Is there anythi ng else in the fenci ng anyone wants to talk about? MR. OBER,MAYER-Has there been a landscapi ng plan submitted to the Beautification Committee? MR. NOUN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Done and approved. Did· they mention anything in their conversations to you about putting a natural buffer between the two properties, between there a,m:d, Westwood? 'Did they ,have any suggestions to that? MR. NOUN-No. 1 think they felt that the plan submitted was acceptable. In fact, they complimented us on things,,~ following the plan and the plantings, but in our discussions with Westwood, we are going to include some additional evergreens or pines to the rear of the property, because there is an opening between what appears to be a hedgerow of trees, but i.t's a little sparse, and so that's been addressed. MR. MACEWAN-Do you have a set plan, idea what you want to put in here, what kind, how big, how far apart? MR. OBERMAYER-There's a landscaping plan. \ 'I; MR. MACEWAN-But on top of that landscaping plan, he's talking about planting mQre along that property line'. MR. NOUN-Well, Mr. Young asked us to address that issue, not officially, because we did get the, apprroval',¡ but we,~ve given him our commitment that we will have additional plantingsthere, and Ivan did speak with Mr. Young and the Westwood Group before. ~, . MR. MACEWAN-Okay. What ~ kind of looking for is some specifics so that if we., grant you an approval, we can put it right in;our resolution. 1,1 MR. NOUN-I think the planting scheme is on the Beautificátion Committee's report. MR. OBERMAYER.,..Yes,there'$ one right here. MR. MACEWAN-I'm confused here. You said that Beautification it was great, but they sug,ge¡st'ed, staff sU9gested and neighbor's were requesting more of a planting than Beautification Committee, is that not correct? said ,the the MR. NOUN-They've requested this. MR. MACEWAN-And you've agreed to tlhe neighbors, that you said that you would put in more than what the Beautification Committee recommended. That's what I'm looking fdr, what more, how many more, what are you pl.nning on putting in? MR. ZDRAHAL-Well, the residents' of the Westwood Homeowners (lost - 16 - ------ "'---' ",-,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) words) having four evergre,ens, adjacent to that property. MRS. LABOMBARD-Could you point those out. I think it would just make matters a little more comfortable. MR. ZDRAHAL-Basically, there's an existing tree row, which is deciduous trees, and what we agreed to do is to add four evergreens in this area here, two on this side of the t re'e row and two on this side, and that would be specifically evergreen trees. MR. PALING-And that's the extent of the additional? MR. ZDRAHAL-The additional plantings would be added to the plan. ,MR. OBfERHAYER-To the,south part, that that existing? MR. ZDRAHAL-That's existing. MR. OBERMAYER~What is that? MR. ·ZDRAHAL - It's a deciduous type tree. nice green hedgerow, is MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. ·MRS. LABOMBARD":,,,And the residents of Westwood were satisfied with? I, thought that's what you sa,id, when you presented that plan to them, they thought that was acceptable. MR. OBERMAYER-The basin here. is that going to be used! for stormwater? Is that what it's going to be used for? MR. ZDRAHAL-This one here? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. ZDRAHAL-Correct. MR. OBERMAYER-And you have a little concrete building here, what's that used for? MR. ZDRAHAL-I found Oll1t it's abuilding owned by the New York Telephone. It's a utility building. MR. MACEWAN-And that's in the middle of your retention basin? MR. ZDRAHAL-No. It's right adjacent to the property. MR. PALING-We're following this under the what we're doing; the way I'm following Maybe I'm in the wrong on that, but. issue of fencing, is your letter. Okay. MR. ZDRAHAL-Well, it was a question of, what is that building over there. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. 1 asked him. MR. PALING-No. George was suggesting that we stick by the agenda, not wander. Okay. We've talked about fencing. We've talked about additional plantings. I've got note of the lighting plan and the addition to landscape plan. All right. Why don't you go ahéad, proceed with your letter. ,MR. ZDRAHAL - I tal ked to Geor ge, a nd he i nd i cated t ha t t her e is a requirement in your Code that access drive for such a facility should have a barrier island or (lost word). He suggested that I discuss this with the Board. It's complex, and it's a very long - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) type traffic generator, and ,I'd like t<D have your; :opinior.J on this. MR. OBERMAYER-The onl y issue 1 see with an island is' if you have a bus or something like that trying to make a turn in there. It might make it a little more difficult. MR. MACe:,WAN-You're talking a small island, right".just lik'ë' an entranceway, like we did Mount Royal Plaza, something 10 feet long? MR. HILTON-Right.. MR. GORALSKI-That·s in there, unless they want Zoning, Ordinance says. the ZorlÌ ng to get a Ordinance. variance. That,has to be That's what the , ~ ! -": MR. PALING-Does it get down to the dimensions it has. . to be, or what does it say you have to do? MR. GORALSKI-George is looking it up right now. MR. OBERMAYER-How wide is that driveway? MR. ZDRAHAL-Twenty-four feet. MR. OBERMAYER-Twenty-·four feet. Is the par- ki n-g area 9<Di ng to be curbed? Is the roadway, will the parking area be curbed? MR. ZDRAHAL-There will be some curbing. MR. OBERMAYER-W-hat kind of curbing, wood, asphalt, cÒlncrete? MR. ZDRAHAL-It would be asphalt. just,something (lost words) by snowplows, and the walkways, concrete. thiat cannot be there wi 11 be a MR. PALING-The Town is probably about to enact an Ordinance that says that it's going to be either granite OJ concrete. No wood, no asphalt. Can you go along with that? MR. ZDRAHAL-As far as the asphal t, (lost we,rds) wi ng type,· two feet wide, (lost words). It's an integral part of ,the pavement, but not something you can't. MR. MACEWAN-And it's the same style they're talking about the new criteria they're talki,ng about ,making roads and subdivisions the Town uses. MR. OBERMAYER-Actually, your detailishows:pr-e-cast concrete, an asphalt wing. Where does thecl.wb fit into it, then? You're showing three different details'of the drawing. MR. ZDRAHAL-The concrete curb will be basically adjacent to the concrete walkway. The asphalt curb is proposed in this area here. MR. PALING-Where else is the asphalt curb beside that one area? MR. ZDRAHAL-This part won't have any curbing. MR. PALING-Won't have any. That·s asphalt in the corner of the building. MR. ZDRAHAL-The main purpose of this curb 'here is to d1vert surface water from the asphalt. MR. PALING-And where are your concrete or granite curbings? - 18 - .....-" '--' "-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) MR.· OBERMAYER-Onl y right in the, front of the bui ldi ng, right there. MR. ZDRAHAL-The concrete is here MR. PALING-Concrete, okay_ MR. OBERHAYER-Is that,what the detail shows there? That shows it as, the concrete curbing actually is your little dotted line? Maybe you forgot to continue the little slashes. It shows you right here, just here, if you look at the legend. See, it shows concrete curbing. It looks like it ends right here. MR. STARK-You want it up to he,re. MR. ZDRAHAL-Right. It should continue all the way around. MR. 08ERMAYER-All the way to where? MR. ZDRAHAL-All the way to here. MR. OBERMAYER-AlI the way to here? MR. ZDRAHAL-One thing is, the site, in 1980, there was an office complex approved on the property, and a lot of the sidewalk' was already completed. They prepared, basically, a site for the building, and we don't have a really good inventory of what was actually done, how much curbing was installed. This was all existing. MR. OBERMAYER-I see you have all the existing curbing here. All right.. Where's your sidewalks? I don't even see your sidewalks. MR.ZDRAHAL-The sidewalk is here. MR. OBERMAYER-There it is, right there. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-We just have him correct those next time around, so when,he comes back in, he has his drawings up to date. MR. PALING-Yes, modify this print here. haven't settled anything on the island yet. guidance on that? All right, but we Can you give us some MR. HILTON-Yes, 1 can. I guess I should have worded it different1y in the Staff notes. It is a zoning. requirement. It's not a recommendation. It'sa requirement, and I will read for you the Section of the Town Code. It says, "There shall be a minimum of one access point egresslingress from parking areas for industrial and comme!rc,ial uses. There shall be a .physical barrier séparating the in9ress and egress area of the access point." It goes onto say "a maximum of two lanes shall be permitted for each. Each lane shall be a maximum of 20 feet wide. Access points shall be separated from adjoining access points by at least 150 feet. II MR. MACEWAN-Each lane shall be 20 feet wide, maximum. MR. PALING-Maximum of 20, yes. MR. OBERMAYER-So that's 40 feet. MR. PALING-Well, it's max. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Right. MR. MACEWAN-You have a 24 foot wide driveway going in and out, right? - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Bòard Meeting 2/27/96) MR. ZDRAHAl-What we would have constructed, and so we would feet wide. to do is" this dr iveway lis to be have to incorporate an island, 30 MR. OBERMAYER-I see. It's already existing, right? Yes. I see. MR. PALING-You mean make the road wider? You're going to leave the 24 feet? MR. ZDRAHAL-We would. have to make it wider because of the island. MR. PALING-Yes. That's what I'm saying. MR. MACNAMARA-If 1 could just note one thing I just mentioned to George. You might want to, I believe there's an existing curb cut permit already in place for the Bay, Road for the County. I'm just throwing out a possibility that they end up altering their entranceway, there may be some curb cut issues ! that maybe the County's got to look at again, or something. I don't know. I'm just throwing that possibility out. MR. OBERMAYER-But if there's already a curb cut~ wouldn't it be pre-existing? Why would,they need,a variance, then? Why can't they just use the existing curb cut? MR. GORALSKI-Because this is a new proposal. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, that, again, is going to have to be looked at, and there'll have to be a final plan on it. MR. ZDRAHAL-That's a good point. curb cut, (lost words). There is already an existing MR. PALING-Okay. Well then a variance would come in. can avoid that. 1 hope we MR. OBERMAYER-Why? It's up to them. MR. PALING-If of the island easier way to of the narrow they're say i,ng they can widen, the. 'road at 'the point and put the island in, that would seem to be an go about it thanget,ting a variance there~ because width of the road. MR. OBERMAYER-Easier for who? MR. PALING-Well, I thi nk easier for everybody" if they widen the road a little bit and put an island in there. MR. GORALSKI.,.If, I could, I don't know why, this is not a big deal. You can put in, if there's no minimum diMension of it, you put a small divider in, two feet wide, in the center of the thing for 18 feet or $0 just to create that physical separation, and you're done with it. You don't have to change your road cut. You don't have to widen your road or anything. MR. MACEWAN-It seems like every time one of these meetings come up, it's a long discussion about a very simple thing to do. MRS. LABOMBARD-Then lets go by John's suggestion. MR. PALING-Okay. Then you~,re endi ng up with about 10 foot on either side of the island, right? MR. GORALSKI-Eleven feet. MR. PALING-Eleven. Is that wide enough for all safety and vehicle, that's okay? - 20 - ---' '--~ ---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96 :> MR. GORALSKI-DOT regulations are eight foot maximum width for a vehicle. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-So a bus wouldn't have a problem getting in there? MR. GORALSKI-It shouldn't. MR. MACNAMARA,-Particular I y if they used that small, K-Mart sty Ie, I don't know if anybody's been to the new Super K-Mart where the curb is about this high that separates their ingress. The truth is it gets plowed over and run over because nobody ever sees those. I mean, 1 can't speak for anybody but. MR. ZDRAHAL-It could create a hazard. Someone might hit it. MR. PALING-Well, okay. You've got to us in line per the Ordinance, just make, sure we don't go astray of that. MR. MACNAMARA-I would suggest that if they are going to put some kind of median in there, that it be put on there, and that he puts the fire vehicle tur ni ng radius on there, just to confirm that it's going to fit, without having to go over the lawn and things of that nature. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, what good is the median if you run over it all the time? MRS. LABOMBARD-Good question. MR. PALING-Well, we'll have to rely on the Ordinance, I think, to tell us what we can and can't, what we should be saying. MR. MACEWAN-Lets move on. MR. PALING-All right. I've got note of that. MR. OBERMAYER-How many stories is the building going to be? MR. ZDRAHAL-A three story building. MR. PALING-Jim, lets go by this, and then come back to general questioning. MR. OBERMAYER-All right. MR. PALING-Okay. How about the accessory building use function will be addressed at the February 27th meeting. Is that the Qne we just talked about before? and Okay. MR. HILTON-It's the pre-existing Nynex building. MR. PALING-Nynex, AT & T, whatever. Yes. Okay. The site plan will be updated with Rist Frost comments. Okay. So far, the direction tha,t 1 see 'we're headed is that in the area of a lighting plan, additions to the landscape plan, the details on the ingress/egress island, and a final curbing plan are all going to have to be submitted. MR. ZDRAHAL-Clearly, some elevations have to be added to the plans. So we know the plans have to be updated. MR. PALING-Okay, but that's the direction we're headed. Okay. All right. Then we can go back to the letter, and we're on, what, sewer service. MR. ZDRAHAL-There was a letter from the Queensbury Department of - 21 - ~ (Queensbury P Ianni ng Boàrd Me:eti ng 2/2·7/96) Wastewater,,, and 1 have discussed the issue of the sewer connection. There is a connection for this complex. What we have to do is do actual field exploration t,o see, to 'find the location, where to construct it, and then we will provide the documentation. I don't see any problem. MR. MACEWAN-Didn't Mike Shaw's Department say that there wasn't a lateral, one was never constructed? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That's what I read, too. MR. ZDRAHAL-The sewer, in 1988, the sewer was just under construction. (Lost words) they have a record of that, but they don't have a record that actually the lateral was extended into the site. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. street. So there's a place to tie in out in-the MR. ZDRAHAL-Basically, but what they want to see, you know, to verify if it's there. If it isn't there, we. have to provide a detailed drawing, how big the line is goingto:be, slope and so on. That's all, and,we will document it. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. So you don't know what size lateral it is. Is that what you're saying? MR. ZDRAHAL-It will be a s1)( inch. :1, MR. PALING-All right. MR. ZDRAHAL-C is the Town of Quee:nsbury Water Department. ,There was a confusion, because, again, ba~kiti'88, the project was approved, this line extending from the rest-of the Townhouses to the property. At that time, these properties were owned by one developer. Apparently, they haven't secured the use of the line, the bylaws of the Homeowners Association, so ,c,onsequentl y, this is a private line. We can't tie into it. So we will interrupt the connection here physically, and we :will c,onnec.t to the existing water main on Bay Road. 1 talk$d to Tom Flaherty about the location, and the methods will all be reviewed with him. Also we will have to discuss it with the County. MR. OBERMAYER-That water line in Westwood, :does the Town màintain that? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. OBERMAYER....Okay~ They pay for the water though, right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. ZDRAHAL-The Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal wrote a letter February 15th. The comment was that the parking has to accommodate the largest fire engine. We have, toha.ve 'some (lost word) Town Engi nee,-, and he received a dimension of that truck, and from that, we made up a template, and we will document that the par ki ng is adequat,e to, accept this truck, and it will be shown on the plan how it will be adequate. The adequacy of (lost word). The existing main on Bay, Road is 12 inch si,ze~ ,Theíe's pressure between 80 and 90 PSI. So in talking with the Water DepartmeRt and talking with the Fire Marshal (lost words) adequate volume of water available to put' a l,i ne for ,this project. What we're waitiflg.fo)i is>the sprinkler designer has to establish the recommended requirements, and the fire department wants to look at ,those requirements and compare. what they're going to see, what they're going to éee in addition from the hydrant which will be located on the property. The existing - 22 - '- ''"---' '-------' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96 ) water main which is on the property will be partially utilized, and we will have~ as directed by the Fire Marshal, we will have two hydrants, one in the rear of the complex and one in the front of the complex. I discussed this with the Fire Marshal, and when we have the necessary information from the sprinkler people, we'll get together and determine what. MR. OBERMAYER-Do they need a separate line of one potable water and one the fire water line, going into the site? MR. ZDRAHAL-No. MR. OBERMAYER-They're fed out the same service? MR. ZDRAHAL-There's a back door preventer. MR. OBERMAYER~Yes. You have to put a back door preventer on the line. Okay. Are you going to have hose connections on the building, fire hose connections? MR.ZDRAHAL-Fire hose connections. Item E. in our comments is Rist Frost comment letter. We'll first deal with the adequacy for the turning movements for the fire truck. We will provide that. We'll install a stop sign at intersection with Bay Road. No other traffic circulation controls are proposed on ,the property. Gas service, in the front of the property, the gas line serving the building will be shown. The sanitary sewer service was brought up in connection with the ,comments from the Wastewater Department. That will be shown. The grease trap, again, that was covered with the Wastewater Department., The size will comply with the New York State DEC standa,"ds. Water service will provided from a 12" watermain. The erosion and siltation controls will be added for the grading plan, and basically our intent will be to provide (lost word) storm sewer connection which has already been constructed to Bay Road. I have a couple of items heTe added, as a response to the comments of the Westwood Townhouses Homeowners Group. MR. MACNAMARA-Ivan, you might just want to talk to the retention basin. I know the staff had questions about the retention basin out in front. MR. ZDRAHAL-This drainage system consists of underground drainage system which is discharging into the existing system in Bay Road sewer and retention. This site has a fairly high groundwater, and by excavating the (lost word) retention basin, we will be right near the ground water level. (lost words) the water level and create like a small pond. That's one of the concerns. The issue, that I was directed to discuss is apparèntly that, in view of some other retention facilities in town, (lost words) we can do it either way, ponding of water, two to three feet, or it could be just retention basins down to the groundwater level. It~s only this one here. MR. OBERMAYER-What about the roof drains. Is that a pitched roof or is it a flat nDof? d! MR,. ZDRAHAL-I believe the roof line will be, you know, we have several bastns around the building, and -it will be collected by downspouts and subsurface. connections. MR. HERBERT-It, is ,a pi tchedroof . There's storm elements on the perforated door that are designed to take water, off the roo,f and channe.l it by subsurface, stormwater. MR. OBERMAYER-I basins. Okay. .didn't see Right here. the roof drains. I saw the catch - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) MR. ZDRAHAL -This one, this one, this one,' at-.d¡this one. So ther e is enough connections. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you is that what it is? certain level, and system in the road? plan on overflowing the water to That basin would be used to then you'll overflow it to the I guess I don't know. that.,storm, mai n-tai n a stormwater MRS. LABOMBARD-He didn't say. MR. ZDRAHAL-There was an , existing system, but the event, would not be able the would (lost words). idea that it .would overflow into the size of the overflow, very largest01'm to take all the water~ so consequently MRS. LABOMBARD-Is this the one on the east side or on the west side? That one, and that's definitely the way you're going to, that's the way you're going to do them? Is that what w&'re going to decide tonight? Why don't we make· a closure on that and then move on to something else, because I am getting totally, you're losing me. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe 1 can clear this upa little.' The issue is that the way the,gradi.ng plan is shown right now, there will be approximately two feet of standing water in that area at all times. Okay. The issue that we raised, or I believe George raised in the notes was tha·t if you're going to have. standing water there, would you like to see some type of fencing around it or something, some type of safety provision, so that people aren't wandering into two foot deep pond of water. MR. PALING-Ok.ay. You've got that situation; but they're 'proposing an alternative to this~ right?, MR. ZDRAHAL-If yot.! de.¢ide you want f.encing, you're going to have standing water there. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, how would you get rid of it? What's your alternative? I.¡ MR. ZDRAHAL-We would just underground pipe. excavate to the· elevation of MR. MACNAMARA-Maybe I can add. They don't need that extra two and a half feet of water below they're inlet pipe. and· their outlet pipe.·Theykind of had it there for sort of an aesthetic kind of an application. It. doesn't play any role in the stormwater management plan whatsoever. MR. MACEWAN~It would just be a nice entrance imto the facility. MR. MACNAMARA-And the point was made, it's going to be a couple of feet below what's been recorded as groundwater level, so you'll have some level of groundwater in th'é-re...I" I.t:¡WOl'\.¡'t "Yjust percolate out unless there's a season where the ground is more dry than normal, and then there wouldn't be any water in there, of course, unless it rained. That was a question they raised, if you want to have standing water there. MR. PALING-Well, as is w~at they've got need a fence.'? the gentleman said, it',stheir own wetland, there., if you do it that way. Then do we MR. OBERMAYER-I think . i twould be kind of nice Just ,to have picnic tables, you kno~. MR. PALING-A picnic table and maybe put some fi$h in there~ - 24 - "- '---- ---..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96 ) MRS. LABOMBARD.;.What do you think would be the best for you? MR. NOUN-If it's possible, we'd prefer not to have a fence. I think ,that, aesthetically, we would make sure that it would be a nice protected area. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I think that would be better. MR. MACEWAN-From a liability standpoint, aren't you worried? MR. NOUN-You always have to be concerned about any liability, whether it's walking on the sidewalk and there's ice on the sidewal k or almost any.thi ng could happen. MR. MACEWAN-But if you have an opportunity to minimize your liability, wouldn't you want to take those steps. MR. NOUN-Yes. people, and 1 four or five about that. ,However, water has a pléasing affect on most think that we can do it. If you told me it was f.eet,I think we would have some great concerns MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, we see retention basins allover the place without,. look at the one on Quaker Road by Albany International. I mean, that's a huge one. There's no fence around it. MR. PALING-Okay. without a fence.. I have no objection. I can' see it going MR. MACNAMARA-I've got to ask one quick thing here. Something that I'm just noticing now, by looking at where the parking spots are arranged, right at the top of that bank right there. Arw you guys thinking about maybe a couple of bollards or some kind of a device that would let people know, hey, we better stop, otherwise we're going to go down in the drain, kind of thing? MR. ZDRAHAL-There's at least 10 feet of (lost words) in the back. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone else on the Board have anything? Okay. Now this was all tabled wasn't it? Yes. Do you have any other comments you'd want to make? I think after this we should go to a public hearing. MR. ZDRAHAL-The only two comments here, the Westwood Homeowners Group, we already discussed that, about the actual pine trees, and the water distribution, the water supply for the complex. It's not coming from there at all. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. All right. hearing, and thèn we'll come back to comments to be had. The public hearing care to comment about this? Lets go to the public see if there's any more is open. Would someone PUBLIC HEARING OPEN HOWARD KRANTZ MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz, I represent the Westwood Homeowners Association, Inc., and my client has three concerns which are screening, lighting. and drainage, and 1 could address.the last one first. If you look at the plan, the northwest .come,r, one of the plans that we saw before the meeting shows the contours, and there's drainage now naturally flowing from the north, actually from a good portion of the site northward, toward that northwest boundary, onto the Westwood Association property, and then essentially gets into the Westwood drainage system, and as what's explained by the architect and engineer for the developer, by creating and developing somewhat more of the western end of the - 25 - ----- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) property with additional plantings and there~s ge>ing. to be at least a berm at one portion of the western end of the property, as I understand it, like in the southwest section, 'that instead of more water flowing along the contours, it will be abbreviated. It will be stopped, more, or less at the end of ,the parking lot, and that all that on site surface water will go within their own system. Is that correct? MR. ZDRAHAL-Correct. That directional flow which was mentioned would be (lost words). MR. PALING-It won't go in the direction ,of the Westwood. Yes. Right. Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, that's the way it shows. MR. KRANTZ-I just wanted to take this opportunity toa'sk the Town staff if that make sense. It looks like it does on the plans. , , MR. MACNAMARA.".Yes, the grades alL work. ',I MR. KRANTZ-,The second concer n was the 1 ighti ng which has been addressed, and again, we've met with the developer's professionals before the meeting, and 1 used the term "shielded" that the lights that would be on ,site would be shielded in such a way that no light would spillover onto the Westwood property. They used a'clifferent term. I would also,ask that the heignt of these poles, we were told that they were proposed at 16 feet high. . We wer'e hopi ng for a's low as possible, but I understand when you get to'· a certain, you drG>p the height to a certain point you might hav'etoadd an extra pole or two. So IJlm not sure what we'd be to gain. MR. PALING-Well, they've got to submit, a final lighting plan. So we'll know, because that can answer th(J)se,qui6stions ex-ac,tly. MR. KRANTZ~Would Westwood be notified $0 that they can ,have an opportunity to look at that lightihg plan? MR. PALING-Yes. We're going'to keep,the public hearing open. MR. KRANTZ-And the last item was the screening, and while Westwood appreciates the concern and good intentions of Town ,staff, they don't want a fence at alL Theyagre:e with the Planning Board and the dev&loper that tha·t· would be, less desirable than the existing trees. We did, discuss the additional plantings, in addition to the plan that was approved. My clients weren't aware of the Beautification meeting. So they didn't have an opportunity to participate in that, but the developer indicated that he would be adding I think at leastfou-r conifers or evergreens along the northwesterly part of the proper,ty, some of which would be to the west of what appears to be a tree line, but in reality it's not quite a treé line. It:'s sparsert.han that, and maybe one or two on the east of what appears to be a tree line. MR. PALING-Okay. tree line. I thought he said two on either, ,side of that MRS. LABOMBARD-Right., MR. MACEWAN-Yes. develòpment side. Two on the Westwood side. Two on the MR. KRANTZ-Correct. We would just ask if wé could :get some agreement as to a minimum height. We didn't di.scuss tfuat before. We'd like them as tall as possible,dto'start with. ' - 26 - '-- "---' --/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96 ) MR. ZDRAHAL-We proposed six feet. MR., PALING-Six feet. MR. KRANTZ-Just for those four, having, them eight feet, to start with. MR. ZDRAHAL-Yes, that's acceptable. MR. PALING-Okay. Good. MR. KRANTZ-other than that, Mr. Young" President of the Westwood Homeowners Association. MR. PALING-Okay. TED YOUNG MR. YOUNG-I'm Ted Young, President of the Homeowners Association. The appearance on the plant.ing.drawings, and I'm sure you people are being cooperative. It kind of indicates that there is a solid hedge herein, the drawing. There are no dimensions shown. This is the planting plan.. MR. PALING-Along the west side there? MR. YOUNG-Yes, on the west side. They're talking about putting four trees here. They just discussed that. I'm not quite sure that these will be adequate. We were ,thinking of havi ngsome evergreens i ntersp'ersed . What is shown appears to be a sol id tree line here. It's actually a well gr,own hedgerow of maples, and on one end there, there's at least a 25 or 30 foot gap between trees. It's not a solid line, and some of those trees, and of course they're all deciduous. So there's nothing there at the moment. So we. w-ere , looking to get some pines or evergreens or some kind to kind of fill the gaps in between these trees and kind of lessen the impact of this area. Like 1 said, it is not a solid hedgerow at the moment. MRS. LABOMBARD-What you're saying is you think that the four, eight foot deciduous trees are not going to do the job, or I mean thee.vergreens? MR. YOUNG-Evergreens. It depends on how they are placed, and as i ndi¿at.ed on the plan, you know, a couple ,on one side toward us, on the west side of the tree line, and two on the other side, and, you know, I,think we needmore detail so we can see what it would look like. MR. PALING-Were they being placed in that strip he's talking about, the 25 to 30 foot strip? MR. YOUNG-Well, yes, probably one of them would fall in there, at least, or maybe two. MR. PALING-Okay. That we'll have to ask them. All right. Okay. We can bringt.hem back uP. MR. YOUNG-I'm not sure it's there, but, because there's trees are. necessary to have a bit of a natural the big heights berm where those MR. PALING-Okay. All right. We can have them cover that. MR. MACEWAN-They're going to revise this planting plan anyway to show where they are. So you have a real .good handle where they're going to place them. - 27 - --- (Queensbury Planning Board Me.eting 2/27/96) MR. YOUNG-Yes. Well, it's not indicated on this particular plan. MR. MACEWAN-It wouldn't be. It will be when they come back in aga in. MR. KRANTZ-And we would like to take this opportunity to ~hank the developer. It's a major changed from what he originally proposed, as far as, moving the building more eastward as well as ro,tating it so that it wasn'tàs massive a,structure facing the easterly boundary of the property, and by the way, you weren't going too crazy on that question of the access. That came up in a passing, comment in the very first meeting by Mr. Noun talking about a barrier of fence along there. He suggested, no, we're going to create a nice park area/picnic area. If people from Westwood want to come, you cou I d is i t, ' down. MR. PALING~Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. Would the applicant come back up please. Answer the one question. You can place those trees, I thi nk, that would be acc,eptable to the comments just made regarding that 25 to 30 foot strip? MR. NOUN-Wherever, they want them. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. That'll be part of the plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm just foot gap, I don't know if How would we know that? concerned that, if, th&re's really a 30 four trees are going to be sufficient. MR. OBERMAYER-Why don't we wait~ until, you se.;the plan? MRS. LABOMBARD-But sometimes you ,can't tell because what I'm saying is, there's that littLe hedgerow that is there that looks fuller than in So I'm just saying that. from the plan, bit of the maple actuali ty it is. MR. STARK-Cath, I think you're nitpicking. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I'm not nitpicking. You know why I don't feel I'm nitpicking, because I expected ,this gentl-eman here, the President of Westwood , to come up with a whole list of ,t hi ngs and objections and; you know, some unrèåsonable requests, and I thought this was very lenient, and I'm just saying, if he wants a few more trees, that would be very insignificant and minor, compared to the whole Overwhelming project that isi'n þ.roposal. MR. ZDRAHAL-Can I suggest stakes, and they can look location is? something? at it, and Why don't I just if they feel that put the MR. MACEWAN-That's .an excellent idea. MR. OBERMAYER-That's a great idea. MR. PALING-That's a good idea. plans, too. We'll have a final look at the MRS. LABOMBARD-That's excellent. Great. MR. PALING-All right. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this? Okay. If not, the public hearing will stay open. MR. NOUN-I would also like tOipublically thank Westwood. I think that the issues that they brought up at the Zoning Board meetings and the early meetings were appropriate, and I think:it caused us to be a little more creative with the design of the building, and also the landscaping would seem to be working out, and we hope - 28 - ',,-, ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96 ) that they come over to the facility and enjoy the facility in the evenings themselves. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's nice. Thanks. MR. PALING-A lot more gets settled when people outside of the Board get together, the applicant and the neighbors. You can settle it better than we can, when there's reasonable people involved, and that's what we have here. So that's great on both plans. . MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Good. It sounds like a real win/win. I, MR. PALING-Okay. So we!re to the point, now, if I understand this, that we would continue to have this tabled, and the applicant is going to bring back final plans to us, and we'll go over them at that time. We'll leave the public hearing.open. MR. STARK-Bob, lets reiterate to the applicant exactly what we want. MR. PALING-Okay. Am I on the right track with everyone? Do you have more comments, John? MR. GORALSKI-I have a list that I took down as you were going through your discussion, if y.ou want me to read them? <! j MR. PALING-Go ahead, and I'll check to my list that I've made. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. A final lighting plan, with details of the height and type of fixtures to be used; addition evergreens on the western boundary; ingress and egress divider; final curbing plan; location of the sewer service; location of the water service. MR. PALING-And detail, isn't there more detail required on the sewer service, too? MR. GORALSKI-And details of the sewer service; location of the water. connection and detai Is, i ncludi n9 hydrant locations; adjustment of the'parking to accommodate the fire department's tower truck, and then there are all of the comments listed in the Rist Frost letter. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I would add to that that sprinkler system, as I understood it, has got to be okayed by the fire department. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-And 1 think they've consented to two hydrants, as requested from before, and they've addressed the Rist Frost comments. MR. GORALSKI-Well, 1 don't think they have yet. have to. I think they MR. PALING-Well, something for me. ,berm? they The1'e wi II , and the other, okay. Clar i fy is an existing berm, or there will be a MR. GORALSKI-Both. MR. PALING-Both, on the westlside of the property, is it? MR. ZDRAHAL-Yes. berm. ,That would. be a new berm. This area has no - 29 - (Queensbury P lanni ng Board Meeti ng 2/27/96) ¡. MR. STARK-Bob, Jim and I, also, we asked for the elevation of the bu i .l ding. MR. PALING-Yes. The elevation of the building, a sketch of that. MR. OBERMAYER-It would be nice to see what it's going to look like. MR. PALING-Okay. Anything else? MR. MACEWAN-Nothi ng. ' MR. PALING-,Okay. then I guess all we do then is to jU$t let this. MR. GORALSKI-Did you ever iron out the issue of the detention pond, as far as having standi~g water in it? MR. PALING-Well, I thought we agreed. no fence. It's going to be about 'two feet deep at most, and that would o.e 'just. left that way, but they are going to do something to make it look nice, make it look attractive. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm sure they will. MR. PALING-All r i'Qht . . Now this would put you into next month, doing it this way. Are you going to be able to live with that? MR. NOUN-Well, I know that there are a -lot of iss~ues we have to address, and if there's a timeframe where we could get it done sooner than that. MR. GORALSKI-I n fai rneS$ to B,ill and George, whoever's reviewi ng the project, we need some lead time to' review these plans. So, tomorrow 'sthe deadline for ,March, so, obviously, they're not going to meet that. If you':re expecting to see this on March's meeting, I'd recommend that we set up some type of a deadline for receiving the plans. So that everyone has time to review them. MR. PALING-We have the alternative of calling a special meeting, too, if it's really necessary, but the critical thing, I think, before we do that, is to what John is s.s.yi ng, to get all the details, the new prints, to them, and then we'll just try to set up the fastest schedule we can, after you people have had a chance to review them. MR. NOUN--Well , if we satisfactor ily address the issues that have been brought up this evening, to everyone's satisfaction, why couldn't we be on the MaT~h? MR. OBERMAYER-You cèn. MR. GORALSKI-You can. It's just a matter of, ,what I'm sa)'i ng is, we can't get the plans the ~y before the meeting and expect to have them reviewed for the mee:ti ng. We're goi ng to need a week or ten days of lead time in order to review the plans and make sure that everything's been addressed. MR. STARK-Mr. Noun, could you have the plans done two weeks from today? MR. NOUN-Yes. MR. STARK-Bob, why don't we say that, then, for Mr. Noun? I just asked John, he said, if they were two weeks from today, in his off ice, he wou-ld have ,adequate time to review them. MR. PALING";'And be on March. - 30 - '--- "- --./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96 ) MR. STARK-And be on March. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that okay with you gUYs? MR. MACEWAN-The second meeting in March. MR. OBERMAYER-The problem is, these guys need time to review your comments. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, you know, maybe the just leave it to the applicant to sit it, see how much work they've got in office and say, I can have them to you a meeting? best way to do this is to there and take ~ look at front of them, call the by this date. Can I make MR. ZDRAHAL-We will try for two weeks. MR. PALING-When could you tell have the set of plans to them? two? the Planning office when you'll Could you do that within a day or MR. MACEWAN-It seems like you're burdening them to come up with a response. MR. PALING-No. All I'm trying to do is so we can set our sights, and we can respond as quickly as possible. MR. MACEWAN-Let them do it. They're going ,to come back t'o us and say, we can have it done by this date, then we can or we can't. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, 1 have a recommendation. How does this sound? The earliest, we need ,one week to review the plans from the day you submit them to us. What I'm saying is, if you get them to us a week before the March, if you get it to ,us by March 12th, you can be on the March 19th meeting. If yoU get it to us by March 19th , we can get you on the 26th meeti ng. Is that okay with the Board? MR. STARK-It's fine. MR., PALING-Okay. Then when do ~ see it, if you get it the 12th? MR. GORALSKI-We'd get it to you the same day ~ get it. distribute it. We'll MR. PALING-Then we have some days to review it. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Why don't we do this. Mark just reminded me, there's a continuing public hearing, here, and we're going to have to notify the neighbors. Why don't we put it on for the 26th. We'll put it on the 26th's agenda, with the understanding that we would receive the revised plans by the 19th. If we don't receive the revised plans by the 19th, we won't have time to review them, and then the Board won't be able to review it on the 26th. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. GORALSKI-It's that simple. MR. STARK-Is that okay with you? MR. ZDRAHAL'- Tha t ' $ fine. MR. PALING-Okay. Now we'll have to complet,é the public hearing, and then have a SEQRA on this. Does the applicant understand what part, I don't think they've filled anything out yet. - :31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Me,eting 2/27/96) MR. GORALSKI-There's a j I think there's a Short Form. . MR. PALING-Short Form, and that's all that's required here. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, there's a Short Form. MR. PALING-All right. do. So that's all set, and that's what ,we'll MR. GORALSKI-As long as the Board feels that's adequate. MR. PALING-Yes. I think so. All right. Then we'll just leave it this way. It~ll stay tabled. The public hearing stays open, and we hope we'll see YOU on the 26th. MR. OBERMAYER-Do we have to make a motion to table? MR. PALING-No. It's already tabled. MR. SCHACHNER-You usually do. MR. PALING-All right. Make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE. PLAN NO. Introduced by James Obermayer seconded by George Stark: 2-96 PERRY · NOUN: ASSOCIATES , who moved for its adoption, Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE '", ABSTAINED: Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-John Goralski has some words of wisdom for ùs. MR. GORALSKI-Leemilt's came in. They had gotten a Use Variance. One of the conditions of their Use Variance is that some kind of physical barrier be put up behind the building, so tMt there was no through traffic. The plan that ¡ reviewed and r~commended that you approve showed one way traffic going through there, which doesn't meet the requirements of the Use Variance.' Okay. In speaking with the tenants, the Gsrafolos, they would rather see an actwal barrier. People come in off of Aviat.ion Road, park, and back out and go back out on Aviation Road. People would come in from Dixon Road, park, turn around and go back out onto Dixon. We worked out a sketch, the Garàfolos and!, of how it would layout. One of the issues the Board discussed was defining the drivew.:ày. So they a!;H'eed ,that 'u,hey would build planters to define the driveways. This is Aviation Road. This is Dixon Road. Then what they'd like to do is build a planter across here, so that cars couldn't drive back and forth through. They woulcrl provide the seven parking spscesthat we had discussed, and this is the guardrail that we talked about them installing. They would still install that. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. They haven't done that yet. MR. STARK-How do they get rid of the snow in, there? MR. GORALSKI....Right now ,what they do is they pile the snow up, and when they get a big enough pile, they. MRS. LABOMBARD-Haul it off. - 32 - --~ ~~ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) MR. STARK-How could you plow that, the new one? bac k pu II it. You'd have to MR. GORALSKI-Back pull it. MR. OBERMAYER-I saw, the other day when it snowed, I saw them shoveling the place. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-If you're parked here, and it's full of cars. MR. GORALSKI-Well" there would only be two on this side, and four on this side. MR. PALING-Yes, but you've got a barrier in cars. That isn't going to be the easiest way. MR. GORALSKI-You're right, it's not. MR. PALING-I don't like it. backing out here. I'm afraid they're going to be MR..OBERMAYE-R-rWhatwas the matt'ei'(1 w.ith parking like this? MR. GORALSKI-They have a problem with people cutting through. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, 1 know they do. MR. GORALSKI-And they feel that even if they put up one way signs here, people are 'still going to be driving through, and they're just going to continue to have their problem. MR. PALING-What problem does that create for them? MR. GORALSKI-Well, it's like having a roadway in your parking lot. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-It's kind of like how Kentucky Fried Chicken feels. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. be, remember? It's kind of like the way McDonalds used to MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-But there's no limitation now, and no real strong indication that you shouldn't. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-You've just got a space back there with some parking stripes. I like that idea better. If ~hey make it obvious that yoU shouldn't go in, 1 think most people won~t. They're going to go ,by the one way traffic, and this thing here, I don't see how you're going to have any reasonable shot at go.od parking practice in getting out, backing up here and backing up here. I think it's going to be too difficult. MR. OBERMAYER-A disaster. MR. GORALSKI-I'm just trying to solve a problem. That's all. If that's the way you feel, that's fine. What I'll tell them is that, you know, the Planning Board wants to stick with the plan that was previously approved. MR. MACEWAN-That means he's got to go back in front of the ZBA. - 3:3 - "' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Well, I'll be perfectly' honest with you. don't think he will ever do the plan that was approved by Planning Board, which, at this point, I'm going to have to him to court. I the take MR. OBERMAYER-He can't do it because of the traffic, is that,what it is? MR. GORALSKI-He insists. That's what he,insists. MR. PALING-How wide are these, John? MR. GORALSKI-Nine feet. MR. OBERMAYER-It's a terrible location. People cut through there all the time. MR. GORALSKI-This is the plan that the Planning Board approved. MR. OBERMAYER-Why can't he go by that one? MR. GORALSKI-He doesn't like having this access. MR. MACEWAN-Does that new alternative plan present a problem for emergency access? MR. GORALSKI-I talked to the Fire Marshal about access to this rear door. They don't necessarily to drive through here, but they do need access to That's why the planter was pulled up a little" so directly in front of it. it. They need need to be ,able that rear door. it wasn't right MR. MACEWAN-Let me ask a stupid question. Isn't there some sort of fire, isn't there a code that says you've got to have certain circumference around the building for a fire length? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That's what I thought, too. MR. GORALSKI-No. There are codes, but that's based on the size of the building, distance from fire hydr,ants, that type of thing. MR. PALING-John, are you saying he needs to get a fire truck up to this building? MR. GORALSKI-No. He needs to get, physically get men, firemen through the door, that's all. MR. OBERMAYER-Sokol's is right here, too, you know. real close to that. Sokol's is MRS. LABOMBARD-To me, I don't see anything wrong with changing what's up there. I mean, I don't think what is 'up there is the best in the world, either, and if this guy, and this has been, it compl ies with code·, and the owner feels happier with it. Maybe it'll be better. I,mean, what's up, there ,isn't the best in the world, and who ,says this isn't going to be. MR. OBERMAYER-I'll tell you what. How about this? How about if you were to have, to put an island here and have parking in this direction, this way, and then have parking in this direction this way? And then they'd back out and go out like that, and back out and here and go out like that. MR. STARK-How many people are going to be in there at once? If he has two people, it's going to be full. MR. GORALSKI-I agree. - 34 - '-- "----'-----' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) MR. STARK-Cut flowers and trains isn't exactly a high volume busi ness . MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I think he ought to just leave it like that, and I think there's a lot to be said without having through traffic in there, because I'll tell you. I worry about the kids on bikes in the summer time that go in and out through there with the vehicles that are going, and it's blind, and there's kids that walk through there. MR. OBERMAYER-This is exactly what they do. They go like this, and then they go along here, to Sokol's, and go like that. I think this ought to be a curb, too. MR. GORALSKI-If Sokol's ever comes in for a site plan review, I'll certainly recommend that. ,MR. PALING-That whole parking in that whole shopping center is a nightmare. MR. STARK-What do you want to do with this, leave it like it is? MRS. LABOMBARD-I say let the gUY have his plan. MR. GORALSKI-All right. So what I'm saying is, put this in, and then have them park in this way. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, what about that? 'MRS. LABOMBARD-What's the difference. MR. PALING-No. 1 want to go back to what we said before. MRS. LABOMBARD-But that won't have the through traffic. Why don't you just leave it alone? What do you say, George, leave it like that? MR. STARK-I'd say leave it the way it was. MRS. LABOMBARD-You want it original. his new plan. What does Craig feel? I say let the guy go with MR. MACEWAN-I'm abstaining from it, because I wasn't involved in the first one. MRS. LABOMBARD-But that doesn't mean anything. You go up there. You know what it's like. MR. MACEWAN-I don't go down that end of town. I stay down in the west end of town. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I like the west end better. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going tell Mr. Garafolo that the Planning Board, based on the people who were here tonight. did not want to change their motion. It's going to be up to him to decide what he wants ,to do. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's good. MR. PALING-John, did you tell me ZBA has re-Iooked at this? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. PALING-No, they haven't had a chance to yet. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/27/96) MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-But regardless of what the ZBA, whether they change their resolution or not, he doesn't want to do what was approved by the Planning Board. MR. PALING-Then he ought to come back before the Board, and we'll. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. He needs to come back before us and ask for a modification to his site plan and explain to us why. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Very good. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 36 -