The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-12-16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 16, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT GEORGE STARK, ACTING CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MAC EWAN LARRY RINGER MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT PALING ROGER RUEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -JOHN GORALSKI PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1997 PRELIMINARY STG. FINAL STG. TYPE: UNLISTED STANLEY RYMKEWICZ, JR. OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD, MILE NORTH OF RIDGE ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 74.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES AND 69 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7 LOT SIZE: 74.3 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS STANLEY RYMKEWICZ, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 12-1997 Preliminary and Final Stage Review, Stanley Rymkewicz, Jr., Meeting Date: December 16, 1997 “The applicant proposes to subdivide 24.17 acre parcel into two lots of approximately 5 acres and 19.17 acres. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary and Final Stage Subdivision application with a survey drawing. Staff spoke with the applicant in regards to the application. The applicant would like to request waivers from the following: Scale of 1”= 50’, a grading and drainage plan, and existing and proposed contours showing elevations at two foot contour line intervals and extending at least one hundred feet off site. The applicant does not anticipate any clearing, in fact, there will be no construction on the subdivided parcel for about two years. When construction does take place it will meet all Town Code Requirements. The applicant provided some additional information in regards to the application. A small portion of the subdivided parcel contains an airport easement. The applicant indicated that there are some stone walls on the land, and attempts will be made to preserve them.” MS. NOWICKI-I also have some additional notes in regard to his application. The applicant has indicated that 75% of the five acre parcel is 15% or greater slopes. You don’t have a copy of this. This information is found in the Long Environmental Assessment Form. The surveyor was called, which is Rourke is the surveyor, and we’ve asked them to write a sketch using the USGS Maps of 20 foot contours to demonstrate that a house, septic, water could be provided on both lots. The surveyor indicated that the sketch would have to be done with permission from the applicant, and my understanding is that the applicant and the surveyor haven’t had that communication yet. Staff would recommend that no further subdivision will be allowed on either lot because of the severe slopes. MR. BREWER-And what lot would that be? MS. NOWICKI-Both lots. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. STARK-Is anybody here from the applicant? MR. RYMKEWICZ-Stan Rymkewicz, Jr. I do have pictures showing the slope of the land. MR. STARK-Okay. Did you hear the comments from Staff? MR. RYMKEWICZ-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you want to answer them? MR. RYMKEWICZ-Other than, there’s no stone walls in the front. They’ve been deleted, but there is a stone wall going east to west on the north end, and I’m planning on keeping that, keeping the main trees, other than cutting down brush. We’re not going to be doing any for two years, probably setting back the house about 250 feet from the road. MR. STARK-Tim, do you have any comments? MR. BREWER-Just one to Staff. It says on your Staff notes, if construction does take place, it will meet all the Town Code requirements. What Code requirements doesn’t it meet now? MS. NOWICKI-It meets all of them. It was a comment because there was no two foot contour map drawing in there. MR. BREWER-Okay. Understood. MR. STARK-Okay. Larry? MR. RINGER-No. MR. STARK-Cathy? Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff asking for these contours to be shown on the Preliminary subdivision plat? MR. GORALSKI-I’m not sure that we need the contours. What we’re looking for is a sketch showing that the flat area that’s up near the road is large enough to accommodate, you know, a single family dwelling and a septic system. MR. MAC EWAN-Sketch from a surveyor? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I think if we measured, it was about 200 feet back before the steep slopes start. If they could just show on the plan a standard house and septic system, that’s all we’re really looking for. MR. MAC EWAN-If we made it part of the approval that a surveyor’s stamped sketch be submitted at the time the final plat gets signed? MR. GORALSKI-I would say that a typical house and septic system be added to the mylar or the approved plan, prior. MR. BREWER-What do you consider typical, though, John? I mean, if he shows a 1200 square foot house and then he builds a 2,000 square foot house. MR. GORALSKI-Well, when he comes in to apply for a building permit, we’re going to check all the setbacks and everything else. What we want to be sure is that there is definitely room to build a house. We’re not saying he’s going to be able to build a 5,000 square foot house there, but at least it can accommodate a typical reasonable sized house. MR. BREWER-That’s fine with me. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you have any other comments? Okay. I’d like to open up the public hearing now, if anybody would like to come forward to speak for or against this project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) HELEN & CLARENCE RANDOLPH MRS. RANDOLPH-Helen Randolph, and my husband. MR. RANDOLPH-Clarence Randolph. MRS. RANDOLPH-We were here at the last meeting, and I just have a couple of concerns and questions. The 19 acre subdivision. Did I just understand Mr. Rymkewicz to say that that is not going to be developed into houses? I’m a little confused. I understand that the five acre one is going to be a single family dwelling, but how about the 19 acre? MR. STARK-Okay. Go on. MRS. RANDOLPH-And if it is, when we were here last time, this matter of what kind of houses could be built on this property came up, and it became clear that there were no particular deed restrictions on what kind of residence could be erected on the land, and I guess we just still have concerns about the possibility of townhouse clusters and condominiums going in, as we’ve seen them popping up almost everywhere in the Town of Queensbury, and as a long time resident of the Chestnut Ridge area, I feel that this would not be advantageous to the area. MR. STARK-Okay. Sure thing, I’ll find out. MRS. RANDOLPH-Okay. MR. BREWER-Didn’t we discuss last time that condominiums weren’t allowed in this zone, SR- 1A? Are condominiums allowed? MR. MAC EWAN-There are some things that are allowed in this zone, but it takes site plan approval to do it. MR. GORALSKI-Multifamily residential is allowed with site plan review. So if they were going to build anything except a single family dwelling, there would be another hearing in front of this Board. MR. RANDOLPH-You’d have to have another hearing. Is it necessary to have another hearing if it’s already zoned, what is it, zoned? MR. STARK-For him to build a house on that one parcel, no, he doesn’t need another hearing. MR. RANDOLPH-Yes, I understand that. MRS. RANDOLPH-But if he were to build a condominium. MR. STARK-If he wants to subdivide to something else, then he would be back. MR. RANDOLPH-Okay. MRS. RANDOLPH-Okay. MR. RANDOLPH-Thank you. MR. STARK-Okay. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this project, for or against? Okay. In that case, I’ll close the public hearing and ask the applicant to please come back up. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Okay. You heard the comments. What did you plan on doing with the 19 acres? MR. RYMKEWICZ-The lot is sold. It’s going to be a residential home. MR. STARK-The five acre? MR. RYMKEWICZ-The five acre, the colonial or cape cod. We’re not sure yet. As far as the 19 acres, the 19 acres is for sale. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. STARK-It is. So that possibly if a developer buys it, he could possibly subdivide it even further, then? MR. RYMKEWICZ-It’s possible. It’s for sale. MR. STARK-Okay. This calls for a Short Form, right, Laura? MS. NOWICKI-No, a Long Form. Your Preliminary. MR. GORALSKI-You usually do a Long Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-1997 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STANLEY RYMKEWICZ, JR. , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1997 STANLEY RYMKEWICZ, JR. , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling MR. STARK-Do you want to make it, Craig, with that stipulation. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1997 STANLEY RYMKEWICZ, JR. , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With one condition, that the final mylar show a typical single family house and septic system on each lot, to demonstrate that the lots can be developed for single family use. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-You’re all set. MR. SCHACHNER-George, unless I missed something, did you skip over the waivers that they requested? MR. MAC EWAN-Was there a waiver for the contours? MR. GORALSKI-At Preliminary, there was. MR. MAC EWAN-Back up and modify that Final approval to grant waiver to the 20 foot contours. MR. SCHACHNER-Why don’t you do that, I think that would be more appropriate at Preliminary. So whoever made the motion at Preliminary. The easiest thing to do would be whoever made the motion for Preliminary, move to amend the motion for Preliminary approval, to add whatever waivers, if you want to grant them. MOTION TO AMEND PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1997 STANLEY RYMKEWICZ, JR. , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To grant all requested waivers. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-That’s it. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1997 PRELIMINARY STG. FINAL STG. TYPE: UNLISTED PHYLLIS HOLTZ OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A, CEA LOCATION: SOUTHEAST SIDE OF WEST MT. RD., APPROXIMATELY 0.4 MI. SOUTH OF GURNEY LN. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 51.7 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 1 ACRE AND 50.7 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 74-1-37.1 LOT SIZE: 51.7 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CHARLES NACEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-1997 Preliminary and Final Stage Review, Meeting Date: December 16, 1997 “The applicant proposes to subdivide 51.7 acres into two parcels, one parcel at one acre and the remaining parcel at 50.7 acres. The applicant requests waivers from the following: Two foot contours for the mapping area outside of the one acre lot proposed for development, construction details, landscape plan, and a drainage report. The applicant will adhere to Section A183-30 Tree Cutting and Planting, Section A183-25 Grading and Section A183-26 Erosion Control as defined in New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control of the Town Code. The 50.7 acre parcel that is being subdivided is within the Rush Pond Critical Environmental Area and is located near DEC wetlands. Staff has provided a map with information concerning the wetland and the CEA. The one acre piece is not within the CEA. Both parcels are required to have a shared driveway per Town Code. Planning Staff recommends to the Planning Board: both parcels are to be used for single family dwellings, that any further land use on the adjacent parcel there be no clearing or grading within the CEA, and (50.7 acre) requires Planning Board approval. ” MR. STARK-Okay. Is anyone here for the applicant? MR. NACEY-Good evening. My name is Charles Nacey. I’m here with and on behalf of Phyllis Holtz, the applicant. I think that the Staff has already touched upon a number of the issues involved here. Miss Holtz is proposing to create this one acre lot on the east side of West Mountain Road being a portion of the remaining lot or road frontage that she currently has on West Mountain Road. The proposed one acre lot will utilize an existing access point which currently has a culvert and a driveway entrance. There is a reservation north of the proposed one acre lot of an 82 foot wide strip, and if, at such time in the future, the applicant decides to improve the access point into that 82 foot wide strip, then the driveway access to the proposed one acre lot now would be required to be from the improved access. In other words, there will only be on access point. There is one now. There will continue to be just one access point, currently one in the future. There will be some site clearing required when the residential construction takes place. The soils are typical deep Queensbury sands, with a percolation rate of five minutes or less. The water supply would be from the existing Queensbury water main out in front. MR. BREWER-Don’t these lots have road frontage? MR. GORALSKI-Both of the lots have road frontage, but because the one acre lot does not have double the lot width on an arterial, it’s required to have joint access with the other lot. MR. BREWER-It’s required to have double? MR. GORALSKI-Right. If you have, there’s a requirement in the Ordinance that it has to have double the lot width. However, there is an exception to that, if you have a shared driveway. So in order for this lot to be created, it needs to have a shared driveway. In order for the one acre lot to be created, it needs to have a shared driveway with the larger lot. MR. BREWER-Is this the 40 foot on the left side of the drawing, the road frontage? It’s hard for me to tell. MR. GORALSKI-The one acre lot has 114.92 feet of frontage, and the larger lot has 89.44 feet. MR. BREWER-All right, but they’re just used, both using the 89? MR. NACEY-Yes. (Discussion Ensued) MRS. LABOMBARD-So, right now, they only want one acre out of that? MR. STARK-Yes, that’s all. They want to build a house on that one acre. MRS. LABOMBARD-It’s nothing serious. You had all that land, why only one acre. MR. NACEY-There are some other considerations with regard to the parcel, in addition to the access. MR. STARK-Okay. If there’s no further questions, I’m going to open the public hearing. If anybody would like to speak for or against this project, please come forward. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED LENORE GAY MS. GAY-Hi. My name is Lenore Gay. I also live within the property area. My main concern is that they will remain single family. It looks as if they may be trying to expand it to possibly apartments or townhouses, and being recently moved into that area, and it’s quiet. It’s very family. I’d like to keep it that way. MR. STARK-Where do you live in relationship to the applicant? MS. GAY-I live approximately 150, 200 feet. MR. RINGER-To the left, George. MRS. LABOMBARD-Three lots over, 37.82. Yes, three lots north. MS. GAY-I do have two young children that are going to be growing up there. MR. STARK-You want to make sure there’s no apartments going in or townhouses? MS. GAY-Right, and in the future it looks like something might be possible down the road. MR. STARK-Okay. I’ll find out. Anything else? MS. GAY-That’s it. MR. STARK-Okay. Are there any other comments for or against this project? Okay. I’d like to close the public hearing now and ask the applicant to please come back up. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-You heard the comment. Would you care to address it? MR. NACEY-I’d kind of echo what the first project was, that the remainder of the property is for sale. There are no current plans the applicant has for any further development of that large acreage. We can’t rule out anything, but obviously, any further involvement would have to come under the auspices of this Planning Board. MR. STARK-It would be pretty hard to develop that land down there. It’s in the DEC wetlands. MR. NACEY-There are some definite restrictions on it, yes. MR. STARK-Okay, and the one acre lot that you’re creating, that is just going to have a single family house on it? MR. NACEY-Just a single family, a typical building lot, yes. MR. STARK-Okay. That’s in the process? MR. NACEY-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. John, this is another Long Form? MS. NOWICKI-This is a Long Form again. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-1997 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PHYLLIS HOLTZ , and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Now make the motion. MR. STARK-Yes. Now, Laura, they asked some waivers. We want to grant them at this point. MS. NOWICKI-At the Preliminary, yes. MR. STARK-Do you want to make that, with the granting of all the waivers asked. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1997 PHYLLIS HOLTZ , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: With a granting of all the recommended waivers. The waivers from the following, two foot contours for the mapping area outside of the one acre lot proposed for development, construction details, landscape plan, and a drainage report. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Do you want to make the Final. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1997 PHYLLIS HOLTZ , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With fact that both parcels are to be used for single family dwellings, that there be no clearing or grading within the CEA, and any further land use on the adjacent parcel, which is 50.7 acres, will require Planning Board approval. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. NACEY-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1997 PRELIMINARY STG. FINAL STG. TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL SUNDBERG OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 204 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 46-2-9.1 LOT SIZE: 7.47 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL SUNDBERG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1997 Preliminary Stage and Final Stage, Michael Sundberg, Meeting Date: December 16, 1997 “The applicant proposes to subdivide 7.47 acres into two parcels, one parcel being one acre and the second being 6.47 acres. The application was seen for sketch plan where the Board indicated the following waivers could be requested, elevations at two foot contours, utility construction details, erosion control plan, and drainage report. The Applicant has submitted a new drawing indicating the subdivision. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. STARK-Okay. Would the applicant like to come up. Really, you don’t have too much to say. It’s been addressed. Do you have anything to add? MR. SUNDBERG-No, nothing to add. MR. STARK-Okay. I’d like to open a public hearing for this subdivision, if anybody wishes to come up to either speak for or against it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Cathy, do you want to do the Long Form. MR. BREWER-How come all these subdivisions are Long Forms? MR. GORALSKI-Let me explain that to you. Historically, we have always required a Long Form for subdivisions. It’s an Unlisted Action. If you’d like to review the Short Form, you can do that. If the Long Form was submitted, then you should review the Long Form. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I have no problem with that. MR. BREWER-No, I don’t, either. I was just curious as to why. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. GORALSKI-It’s just that historically we’ve required the Long Form for subdivisions. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Here we go. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-1997 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MICHAEL SUNDBERG , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Okay. If you make it for the Preliminary, don’t forget to add the waivers. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1997 MICHAEL SUNDBERG , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: rd With the following waivers requested as stated in his letter of December 3, Michael Sundberg’s letter. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. STARK-Do you want to make the Final. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1997 MICHAEL SUNDBERG , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 53-97 TYPE: UNLISTED NEWTON’S AUTO SALES OWNER: O. BOYCHUK, C/O ROBERT SEARS ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE EXISTING BUILDING FOR SALES OF USED AUTOS. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/10/97 TAX MAP NO. 109-1-7 LOT SIZE: +1 ACRE SECTION: 179-23 MICHAEL MULLER & ALBERT ZITO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 53-97, Newton’s Auto Sales, Meeting Date: December 16, 1997 “The applicant proposes to use an existing lot with building for used Auto Sales. All uses in HC- 1A are subject to site plan approval. The applicant has submitted a letter to the Board addressing concerns that were brought up for the previous site plan. Staff had additional concerns with parking, car washing, and landscaping. Staff recommended to the applicant that he show all parking spaces to be used for employees, customers and auto display. The applicant has indicated that the spaces will not be lined because the surface is graveled. In addition, the applicant will not be placing any autos on the NIMO property, all used auto display will be done on parcel 109-1-7. The applicant has indicated that cars (display cars) will be washed outside year round. The applicant has been made aware that if cars are washed inside an appropriate drainage system needs to be put in as per Town Code. The applicant submitted a landscape plan to the Beautification Committee. The Beautification Committee approved the landscape plan with conditions.” MS. NOWICKI-I also have additional notes that you don’t have a copy of. Staff feels that the applicant has not adequately addressed the concerns of parking, Letter K or Letter P on Site Plan Review checklist. Staff is concerned that the site cannot accommodate 25 to 30 cars. Staff would request that the applicant submit a parking plan. Do you want me to read the Beautification Committee notes? MR. STARK-Yes, would you please. MS. NOWICKI-“Site Plan 53-97 Newton’s Auto Sales, Al Zito; represented by Michael J. Muller, Esq; corner of Ridge Road & Quaker Road; Agree with proposed planting plans drawing up by Mead’s Nursery, with one additional raised flower bed on Ridge Road next to power pole, containing a perennial variety. Mrs. Wetherbee made motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Lorenz.” MR. STARK-Okay. Yes, Mr. Muller. MR. MULLER-My name is Michael Muller. Seated to my left is Albert Zito. We are here this evening on behalf of Newton’s Auto Sales, Inc., a corporation. Mr. Stark, I’d ask if we could have read into the record the letter that was made part of the applicant’s application. MR. STARK-From you? MR. MULLER-It’s from Mr. Zito. MR. STARK-Okay. We’ll read it in. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-“To the Queensbury Town Planning Board Dear Sirs: I am writing this along with our application for review of the property located at the corner of Quaker and Ridge roads for use as an Auto dealership. We appeared in front of the Board in April and in May of 1997. On both occasions there seemed to be a lack of communication and too much emotion over the issues. Probably because I have no skill in public speaking and I find it difficult to get up in front of a group and present these issues. Getting to the Issues: 1. Lighting - We are not putting in parking lot lighting that is bright and glaring, the security lighting which is on the building now is sufficient. There will be no change in outside lighting. 2. Banners - Queensbury ordinance restricts the use of banners and balloons and we will abide by that rule and follow the proper guidelines. 3. Green area - We are attaching a drawing showing that there will be sufficient green area and doing more than the Beautification Committee wanted. Also we will complete the cleaning and clearing of the rear of the building, remove the shed and debris, but the painting will now have to wait until Spring. 4. Display Area - We have reduced the amount of vehicles to 25- 30 and the primary inventory should remain at approximately 25 vehicles. 5. Auto Repairs - We do not now or plan to in the future do repairs for the public. However under Article 417 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, as a dealer we must check and certify that the vehicles are road worthy to render reasonable use. Our repairs would consist of removing wheels, checking brakes and replacing if required, check steering parts, tires, lights, seatbelts, and all safety equipment. We contract with Northway Car Care for transmissions, Streeters for major engine repair, Meineke for all exhaust. We do no more in repairs than many of you and the area residents may have done in their own driveways. We have no lifts or major equipment and we do not do body work or painting. We clean our own vehicles. 6. Signs - Due to circumstances beyond my control the copy from the recycled signs we were using was not completely removed before they were viewed. Our copy on that sign will be only our name, auto sales and phone number. On the smaller sign it will read financing. There will be no signs stating auto repair. 7. Hazardous Chemicals - We do not require the use of hazardous chemicals. We have motor oil and antifreeze which are stored in drums and the quantity of this is 30 gallons at a time. Removal of used product is done by United Oil Recovery and they are a bonded waste management company. Our cleaning supplies such as soap, wax and compound are not hazardous. 8. Traffic - A Big issue. We can honestly say that there will not be more than an average of four test drives per day. According to the used car manager at Queensbury Motors, they get an average of 8-10 test drives per day and that includes both their new and used inventory which is well over 100 vehicles on their lot. According to the prior business owner of Conklins they had approximately 25 customers per day, so it would seem that we are reducing the hazard. Bob Sears from Prudential Realty contacted DOT on our behalf to get the current traffic count for Rt. 9L and Quaker Road. According to DOT, Quaker and Ridge have about 18,000 vehicles per day that pass that intersection. 9L Ridge from Quaker to Glens Falls City line has 9350 vehicles per day. 9L from Quaker to Rt. 149 has 4300 vehicles per day and just south of the intersection of Rt. 149 and 9L has 4150 per day. According to these figures our estimated four test drives per day would have no impact or propose no danger to this location. In comparison with inventory of only 25 vehicles we would not generate more than 15 sales per month which is far less than Queensbury Motors with 100+ units. There is also a school bus stop directly in front of Queensbury Motors on Quaker Rd. 9. School Bus Stop - Residents are concerned about the school bus stop on the corner of Ridge and Meadow Lane. The morning pickups of 6:47, 7:30 and 8:18 pose no threat because we do not open until 9:00. The drop off times of 11:50, 2:18, 2:55 and 3:45 will also pose no threat to the children because we will instruct our two sales people not to test drive with customers on Ridge at all. They will be told to use Quaker Rd. We are also willing to put a sign in the driveway stating “Do Not Drive onto Meadow Lane due to Children at Play”. Since we have children and grandchildren of our own we understand your concerns. I would like to apologize to the members of the Planning Board if they feel I insulted them or their integrity by beginning renovation before the site plan review. This was not done with any malice. We checked zoning , applied for permits and were told that there shouldn’t be any problem. The Spring market is the best for auto sales and we were only trying to get as much of the market as possible. We wanted to make the property look good and show a different image right away. We got excited and over enthusiastic never expecting opposition. Albert Zito” MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay, Mr. Muller, anything else? MR. MULLER-Yes, Mr. Stark. I’d like the Board to draw its attention to the fact that what we have proposed here is a different plan. That is that what we thought the comments from the public the last time we were here, that they seemed to find offensive, was that we had proposed lighting on the premises, and it was basically security lighting. It was not advertising lighting, but we have deleted that from our project. If you recall the last time we also had 40 cars drawn there. We now have 25. I listened very intently to Staff Notes, and I wonder where Staff comes up with the 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) inadequacy of the space in terms of 25 cars, because we are not, and should not, be held to a requirement that we must park cars for inventory sale in a 10 by 20 foot parking space. That is that if we look at all the dealers that are up and down Quaker Road, they put them in fairly close, but obviously, not close enough so that they’re going to be damaging each car, but they don’t have a separate parking space, and we’ve done linear measurements, and these cars are going to be in about a seven foot wide space. There’s plenty of room to do 25 cars. Not all 25 cars are outside either. Some of them are inside the building. The other thing is that I heard Staff Notes indicate, unless I misheard it, that all uses in an HC zone are required for Site Plan Review. That’s not the case, that’s not true. That is that there are uses for this particular building, and in an HC zone, that are clearly permitted just by entry, get a business permit and go, and I think that if you, as Board members, pay attention, as we as applicants have paid attention to this thing, and I don’t know if the neighbors are, there are some many potential uses that I think that the neighbors would not find as amenable to their neighborhood as this type of use. We’ve got a limited use here, and when these issues were raised about the traffic, I was concerned about it. So I basically inquired of the County, and there at the County Planning Board level we were specifically told, without asking, okay. It was just they generated the answer at the meeting and said there is no negative traffic impact here, so long as you do not approach ingress and egress from Quaker Road. We not only assured the Board we didn’t intend to, we assure this Board that we don’t intend to, nor can we. We don’t own that property. This Highway Commercial property, you have to understand, and I think you do, is bounded by a State highway, and that State highway is in a Highway Commercial zone. So what consideration should we have with respect to Highway Commercial, and that may very well be the traffic impact, and that may very well be the issue that is raised by the neighbors about children alighting from the school bus, and when I inquired as to that, by asking some of the neighbors who are not opposed to this project, where do the children get on and get off? They get on right where Mr. Zito said in his letter, at those times. They get off up the other end of the project. That is that they don’t get off down at the lower end. That’s where the school bus is stopping. So we’re not even in that zone, and yet we’re willing to put up that sign and basically say, don’t turn in that direction. I think that the project is worthy of approval, even over the anticipated objections of the neighbors, because we have basically tried to take it all into account, as well as, we ask this Board to take into account that as a Highway Commercial use, it fits. It fits very, very well. What wouldn’t fit, things that can go right in, a retail use, a restaurant. You can just pack right in there. You’ll never be before the site plan committee. I don’t think those neighbors are going to be happy with those hours of operation, those types of lighting, those types of occupancies. So I think that we’ve gone more than half way and are willing and continue to go even more than half way, but, you know, what we do ask this evening is fairness with respect to this hearing. MR. STARK-Okay. John, do you have something? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I just want to clear up an issue that Mr. Muller brought up. Section 179- 23D(1)b is basically part of the Highway Commercial zone in the Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance says, “Uses described below which do not require expansion of new parking areas by more than 10% of the size of the existing parking area or five (5) spaces, whichever is greater, do not require site plan review.” So there is a list of 18 uses there that if they were not expanding the building or expanding the parking area, would be allowed to go there without site plan review. So he’s correcting in stating that. MR. STARK-Fine. Okay. I’d like to open the public hearing, please. If anybody cares to speak for or against this project, I’d invite you to come on up, identify yourself, and state your questions to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HYACINTH JOHNSON WHITE MRS. JOHNSON WHITE-My name is Hyacinth Johnson White, and I’m also a resident of the State of New York. I have opposed this project, due to the fact that I’m a State certified home care provider for the State of New York with four handicap men with my residence of 16 years just directly across from this project for the used auto dealer, and the reason is, my men, 74, 65, 54, and 49. They’re disoriented. They are unable to speak, three of them. One has very limited hearing ability and vision ability is very poor with two of my clients. In the summer time I do have to use my property lawn and outdoor facilities to entertain my clients, and I think with the pollution that we’re having right now, it’s bad enough, and with extra activity, with this dealership, it would still create more hazards. For example, just three weeks ago, there was an auto emergency right on the same property of this individual who is planning to open up this business. A car caught fire, 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) and my whole house was enflamed with the smoke, actually, all surrounding areas around my home was very badly involved. I even had the fire department come into my home to administer oxygen to me and one of my clients. That’s how bad the fumes were, and I think with this property coming into our area, would cause even a lot more of the pollution. It may be that they might be doing most of the indoor work, but there’s still chemicals and other hazard forms of pollution which would affect me and my family. I really would like some consideration to be done to this because I’m very concerned about our health and extra traffic. My men take the bus right at the very site. They’re very disoriented. We have to be there on the ball with them all the time. Three of them get off the bus. One has a tendency to wander. With extra traffic in the area, we never know what can happen, and I’m very, very concerned because of the safety of my men. The State stated that they’re entitled to their rights, and also to live in the community as any other individuals, and I agree with this, and I am looking out for the interests of my health and my clients. This is my statement. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak for or against this project? MARJORIE JOHNSON MRS. JOHNSON-I’m Marjorie Johnson, and I live at 385 Ridge Road, Queensbury, and I’d like to present the letters and petitions that I presented before, plus new ones, against a car dealership going in. MR. STARK-Okay. They all say roughly the same? MRS. JOHNSON-About that. There’s some from Rolling Ridge and on down. There’s quite a few. So I don’t know if you want to read them or? MR. STARK-John, do we have to read each one, or if one says roughly? MR. GORALSKI-You don’t have to read any of them. They’re presented to the Board. I mean, you don’t have to read them into the record, but certainly what you might want to do is pass them around the Board so that you get an idea of what they say. MR. BREWER-Why don’t we read them. MR. STARK-Okay. Why don’t you go ahead and read them in. MR. BREWER-Just tell us how many names are on them. MRS. JOHNSON-There’s quite a few. Would you rather just glance at them, and the petition. So, okay. MR. BREWER-My suggestion would be just to read the petition, and then tell us how many names are on it, not necessarily read every name. MRS. JOHNSON-Okay. “We, the undersigned, residents of the Town of Queensbury, oppose the approval of a used car lot business to be located at the former Conklin Plumbing location on Ridge Road near Quaker Road. We feel that a used car lot business is not comparable with the existing residential environment.” That’s the gist of it, okay, and there’s 54 names. MR. STARK-Okay. Now where do the majority of these people live? MRS. JOHNSON-Right in the area of Meadow Drive, Meadow Lane, Meadowview Road. I’m on Ridge. Bonnie Glendenning’s on Ridge. Moorwood Drive, Lynfield Drive, Old Mill Lane, 2 Crestwood Drive, Willow Road, Hidden Hills, Montray Road. They’re from all over. They’re residents of Queensbury, in the area of Queensbury. Okay. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you have some more letters, then? MRS. JOHNSON-The letters are quite long and if I could just pass them around and you could see who signed them, okay. MR. STARK-Sure. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MRS. JOHNSON-Those are copies of before, but these are all new. MR. STARK-Okay. MRS. JOHNSON-And also I really am totally opposed, because this is not on Quaker. This is not a car dealership on Quaker. It’s off Ridge, they’re going to be. It’s Ridge Road. Not Quaker Road, and Quaker Road does have a lot of car dealerships, but Ridge doesn’t, and I’m totally opposed to it, and I thank you again. MR. STARK-Thank you. PATRICIA FIRTH MRS. FIRTH-My name is Patricia Firth. MR. MAC EWAN-John, what section in the Ordinances were you referring to and Mr. Muller made comment to about parking space requirements? MR. GORALSKI-Parking space requirements? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Well, I can’t find it. MR. GORALSKI-If you look in the Supplementary Regulations, there are requirements for parking spaces, 179-66. MR. RINGER-It’s on 78, also. MR. GORALSKI-I’m sorry, 78, you’re right. MR. MAC EWAN-179-78? MR. GORALSKI-Right. It’s parking requirements. Now there are parking requirements, there’s no parking requirement listed for Used Auto Sales. What you should consider here is that the parking requirement for the 9 by 20 spaces is a requirement for employee parking spaces and customer parking spaces. It would be my interpretation that Mr. Muller is correct, that parking spaces for display vehicles do not have to meet that requirement. It’s simply a display of merchandise. It’s not actual parking area. However, I think it’s appropriate for the Board to know where that merchandise is going to be displayed, where customers would be parking, and where employees will be parking. MR. STARK-Are you satisfied with that answer, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. Go ahead, yes, ma’am. MRS. FIRTH-Thank you. I’m Patricia Firth. I live on Meadow Drive, two houses, I’m the second house in from the Ridge Road, and I’ve lived there for 31 years. It’s a nice, peaceful, pretty, private little area. The first road off Ridge, as you come in from Quaker is right there. It’s Meadow Lane. The next one, not to far by, is Meadow Drive. The next one after that is Cronin Road. There will be a lot of inconveniences. They’re certainly not going to test cars on Quaker Road, probably Ridge Road and in and out our area because it’s nice and quiet, lends itself nicely to turning and practicing and brakes and all the rest of it. It isn’t what I consider desirable. Also, I understand that they’ve applied, I understand, I’m not sure about this, that they’ve applied for an easement from Niagara Mohawk so that later on they can expand and park more cars. This wouldn’t be feasible. I’m familiar with the Earltown Development that was proposed by Oliver Laakso from Kamyr in years gone by. They’ve wouldn’t allow him in there because of the wetland situation, which you probably know about, and the other side of this building, around the back where Conklin had his workshop and everything. There’s a wetland back there, and there’s one across the street from them, too, and all the down side of that Quaker Road. Furthermore, I wonder why they did not come around and canvas the neighborhood and find out the attitude of the residents before they did this. I also understand they’ve been refused at least two times, and probably three times, on other appeals, and have been refused, and I guess this is a last ditch stand. I don’t know. Queensbury Motors has been cited as an example of what they would like to have or what they think they’re going to have. They can’t compare with that. The residential area up there 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) is entirely different. Then the next thing they said about people repair their cars in their driveways. I’ve never seen anybody in Ridge Meadows repair anything in their driveways. Wash their cars, that’s about it. I’m very much opposed to this. The privacy will be taken away. The children will be very much inconvenienced, and have a lot of worried parents. I’m not one of them worrying about young children, but my neighbors are. I have just had a family move in on my right side, with a six month old baby and have a growing family, and it is something to worry about. It doesn’t seem like a desirable business to be put where they’re looking for. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you, ma’am. Okay. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak for or against this project? GEORGE THURSTON MR. THURSTON-My name is George Thurston, and I live on Meadowview Road. This is the road connecting Pat Firth’s road and the road directly opposite the proposed business. I’m concerned because I think it will change the character of the neighborhood. As Pat just said, we have a very quiet neighborhood, and everyone knows everyone else. I think there may be a tendency for some people trying out a car to cut through our neighborhood, and that would be a disadvantage. I know the gentleman spoke and said that they only expect about four people to try cars out a day. I’m not sure, I think that’s what it was. MR. STARK-Yes. MR. THURSTON-That’s a very low number, I think, but lets assume that’s what it is. While try outs are very low in number, people going in and kicking tires, as it’s called, will be in a much larger number. I’m also concerned about night visitors. If you’re aware of how lots operate at night, they usually shut down and such like, but people drive through them all hours of the night looking at cars and such like. So that also bothers me, and the gentleman stated, I think, that they would park cars in a seven foot wide space, well that might be good if you’ve got your car already straightened out to drive into it, but any parking arrangement that I would envision would mean you’d have to come in off of Ridge and turn very sharply. You’re going to need some more width than that for swinging into a spot. So my primary concern is the appearance that this will have on our neighborhood and the change in character of the neighborhood, and when I have visitors coming in from the east on Quaker Road, I tell them to turn opposite the Cumberland Farms store, and now I’d probably have to tell them, turn at the used car lot. It’s just sort of a degrading feature for our neighborhood. There are many other reasons, but I’m principally concerned about the character of the neighborhood, and to some degree the safety. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? JEAN MOON MRS. MOON-Jean Moon from 52 Meadow Lane. I’m the one right opposite what used to be Conklin Plumbing, and I totally agree with George Thurston and everything that Pat Firth said, and I just think that it will change the character of our neighborhood. It’s a very nice neighborhood. It is residential, and it really seems ashame to bring it to commercial. I know that Mr. Muller spoke of Quaker Road. We’re not Quaker Road. It is Ridge Road, and Queensbury Motors is on Ridge Road. There’s a big difference between Ridge Road and Quaker Road, and I have the same concerns that everyone else in our neighborhood does. That’s all I have to say. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. Is there anyone else? MARY GALLO MRS. GALLO-My name’s Mary Gallo. I’m at 46 Meadow Lane. I mean, everybody’s been saying the same thing. I have small children in the neighborhood, and there’s already traffic that cuts through our road on Meadow Lane going much faster than they should. Next to us is another State residence where they also have a bus loading and unloading a lot of handicap people. I mean, I don’t know about, a lot of places where you test drive, a lot of times you do go by yourself. I don’t know this whole thing about keeping people out of our neighborhood, if that’s really going to be an accurate thing, because making a left out of that, to go toward Quaker, which they said they would instruct people to do, is difficult. Ridge is busy right there. There’s that light, people are coming left off of Quaker or they’re going in over, maybe trying to go across, and it’s a busy little spot right there at Meadow Lane coming in, and I think most people’s instinct is not to make a left when there’s a lot of traffic when you’re in a car you don’t own. So I, once again, think they’re 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) going to be going down Ridge or our road to try out the cars, and I just find that, I have small children and I find it a very dangerous things, and there are more children coming into our neighborhood, and it will, I think, ruin the character of the neighborhood. It is a nice neighborhood. It’s been there, apparently, a lot of years, and I think it would be kind of ashame to put a car dealership. MR. STARK-Thank you. Is there anyone else? BONNIE GLENDENNING MRS. GLENDENNING-I’m Bonnie Glendenning. I live at 395 Ridge Road, which is directly up the street from the proposed car dealership. A lot of issues have been brought to the fore regarding the situation. I think we, as residents, are stuck in a situation that has developed because when the Zoning Board initially zoned that, it was a piece of property that was zoned Highway Commercial, when really it was not on a highway. It was on Ridge Road which is a subsidiary road to the highway. There’s no ounce of that property that is on the highway. It is all on Ridge Road. So we have been forever plagued dealing with the murky problem that has been brought to us, inadvertently, a few years ago. I think the biggest thing is that in dealing with a car dealership, we’re going to have 25 cars there day and night. It is something that, yes, we can discuss the traffic and where it may go and where it might not go, and, you know, it would be very nice of Mr. Zito to put up a sign, but, nothing against him, but most signs are not obeyed in that regard. I mean, if they were, we’d have no policemen, etc. You can’t state what the impact is going to be on this neighborhood, other than we are a residential area. We would like to maintain a residential area, and that piece of property is on Ridge Road, and it has been residential all those years. The other businesses that are there fall into a facade of where you really don’t know unless you look directly, there’s signage which has been fairly appropriate, that it is a business. They all look like homes. I mean, this cannot look like a home unless it looks like a home that’s having a party 24 hours a day. So that we have that kind of an issue, and I think that that alone, compounded with all of the difficulties a dealership can present is where we end up with the issue of, this is not a business that can have an argument of just a sign or where you’re going to put a tree. We’re talking about 25 vehicles, at least, and my question to you is, how are we going to make sure that it isn’t more? Is this going to be something the neighborhood has to have a daily count of cars on the property? Is it (lost words)? What are the magnifications of if it goes over this, are we going to have a sale and have more, what assurances can our neighborhood be given to not lose the feeling that we would like to have? I mean, that, I think, is what everyone is very concerned about. We don’t want to be living in the center of Quaker Road. We’ve purchased property off of that, and would like to have it stay that way, and Quaker Road is getting a little dense, if you tried to go up and down it at least. So we’ve got that. We did meet with Mr. Zito last spring, I think. In many ways, yes, I think he’s tried to comply with some of the feelings of the neighborhood, and I think that by his letter indicates some of the things that he would like to do. I still feel that it isn’t the type of enterprise that should be in a basically residential area because it cannot go away at night, and that’s what the very general concerns are, and he’s worried about, well there were 28 people that came from Conklin Plumbing. They weren’t all there all day. They might have been there on average, you know, he’s saying he may have four customers a day. I hope he’s working toward more than that, or maybe this whole meeting is a moot point and he won’t be there long to begin with, but it just is a thing of where nothing definitely regarding him, just the fact that that type of an enterprise, the discussion is because the zoning laws should have been looked at more closely when we started, and I think we’re all caught in a situation that is something that none of us really wanted, and I think that should be looked into greater. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? TOM LAURENT MR. LAURENT-My name is Tom Laurent. I live on Cronin Road, and I’m also employed by Mr. Zito, and I just wanted to take a second about the traffic part that everybody seems to be concerned with. I’ve been in the car business for over 20 years, and I assure you that when you get into a car to test drive it, you don’t want to go 10 miles an hour. You don’t want to go up little streets. You want to go on Quaker Road. You want to go on the Northway. You want to test the car out before you buy it. I doubt very sincerely anybody’s going to go up Ridge Road and through that little development to test out a car that they’re going to buy from anywhere from $6,000 to $11,000. They’re not going to go 15, 20 miles an hour in a residential area. They want to go, and that’s my experience, in over 20 years in the business. That’s all I wanted to say. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. Is there anyone else? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) KEN ELLIS MR. ELLIS-Good evening. My name is Ken Ellis, 385 Ridge Road. I’d basically like to reiterate pretty much what everyone else has said here, and also tell you that our driveway is approximately 400 feet from the intersection, and often times I have to wait to go out that driveway to make a right hand turn and go south. Now with that in mind, I’ll tell you that most people are not going to try or wait to turn left coming out of that driveway because they’re going to be there, they’re going to pack a lunch. They just can’t do it. If the traffic backs up as much as 400 feet, how long do you think it’s going to take a vehicle to turn left to go maybe 40 feet to the intersection? They’re not going to wait for that whole line of traffic, I can tell you that right now. Secondly, they’ve been rather conciliatory. They’ve made several changes from what was proposed originally. Their track record clearly indicates how they intend to do business, how they did business with the Town Board previously. I think it’s indicative of the type of operation he’s going to have. Now as far as green space, they’ve already got the stone right up to the line with Niagara Mohawk. Green space, to me, means something that’s going to block vision. Clearly, they don’t want to block vision from Quaker Road because that’s where they’re directing their traffic to. That’s the very essence of their business being located where it is aimed directly at Quaker Road where they’re going to get the most exposure. To me, green space is going to be something like trees, not daisies. That doesn’t stop anything. It doesn’t stop noise. It doesn’t stop visual effects, nothing like that. I would expect nothing less than 20 foot trees, as far as green space, and clearly, that’s not going to be the case. Okay. I’d like to mention a couple of letters. I work out of town. There was a meeting in the Spring, with Mr. Zito. It was held at the residence of Mrs. Glendenning, and I was apprised of the conversation, and I was a bit appalled at the way this conversation took place and my interpretation of this conversation. It was placed in writing at my behest because I want clarification from Mr. Zito exactly what he said, and these are as close to a quote as these young ladies could put in writing. I’d like to read them to the Board, please. “A meeting was held at the home of Bonnie Glendenning to try to resolve differences about the car dealership. Present at this meeting were people from the neighborhood, Bonnie Glendenning, Jean Moon, Nancy Voorhis, and others, including Mr. Zito, and Mr. Sears. After the meeting, Mr. Zito said to me, do you know what would happen if you were from where I came from? We’d say, if you don’t like it, move. I took this statement to be in the form of a threat. I am not comfortable with a person like this in my neighborhood.”, and that’s signed by my wife, Marjorie Johnson. Here’s another letter. “I was at the meeting when I overheard Mr. Zito say to Marg Johnson, if you were from where I come from, we would tell you to pack your bags and move on”. That’s Jean Moon. I’d like Mr. Zito to explain those things to me right now. I’m concerned about that. MR. STARK-Okay. Well, he’ll explain it when he comes back up. Okay. MR. ELLIS-Thank you. MR. STARK-Okay. Anyone else? BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-My name is Bob Sears. I’m the Realtor involved in this project. I’ve done a lot of work on this project, and I’ve done a lot of work on the property. First of all, I’d like to commend the Town for re-zoning or zoning that property Highway Commercial. I think it’s exactly the right use for that property. That building that’s on the property is 30 feet in width and over 100 feet in long. The 30 feet in width faces Ridge Road. The 100 feet faces Quaker Road. The property lines on that property, there’s 121 feet of frontage on Ridge. There’s 225 feet of frontage on Quaker. Now, I’m saying the frontage is on Quaker Road because it is visible frontage. The only thing between Quaker Road and that property line is the easement for Niagara Mohawk. Anybody who is aware of that property looks at it from Quaker Road. They don’t look at it from Ridge. The front entrance is on Quaker Road. The parking fronts on the Quaker Road side, and so I think that’s why the Board decided to re-zone that, to zone that Highway Commercial when they zoned it Highway Commercial. There’s 18,000 cars daily on Quaker Road, and that’s one reason why this property, another reason why this property was zoned Highway Commercial. Now, relative to some of the other issues, as far as uses goes, there’s about, I forget, 18 uses that can be put in that without site plan review. A lot of those uses would impact the neighbors, in my opinion, a lot more than Al Zito’s project. What’s interesting is if you have a restaurant or if you have a retail business or any other ones listed, principally they’ll probably be, in my estimation, a lot more people, a lot more traffic, and a lot more cars going in and out of that property. I think, and this is one reason why I think Al Zito is back here tonight, that use for that property is a minimal use 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) based upon the ramifications of what could go in there without site plan review, and that’s about all I have to say. Thank you for your time. MR. STARK-Thank you very much. MARGIE CANALE MRS. CANALE-My name’s Margie Canale. I live on Meadow Drive. The gentleman on Cronin who said about test driving your car, now, I have driven millions of miles, but if I went in to buy a used car, I would not try to test drive it on Quaker Road. I would shoot right across to Meadow Lane, go right around Meadowview and up Meadow Drive. I don’t care what he says. The neighborhood is a lot of senior citizens in that neighborhood. I mean, we have a good showing tonight of the neighbors. One woman was supposed to come with me tonight, Mrs. Atkinson lives on Meadow Lane. She called. She has something wrong with her leg and she said it was acting up and she couldn’t come tonight. I have a neighbor directly across, Mrs. Averill, who is 85 years old, who walks with a walker, and she would have come tonight, if she felt it was necessary. So, I mean, there, besides people that are here tonight, there are two more residents of that area of Meadow Drive and Meadow Lane. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you very much. MRS. CANALE-Thank you. MR. STARK-Is there anyone else from the audience that wishes to speak? MRS. FIRTH-One more thing. Mr. Sears that just spoke and the two men that are involved in the purchase and the proposition of this car lot are of course in it for business. They don’t have anybody from our neighborhood or anybody close to it that has come to say they would like it. There should be somebody that would say, well, we think it’s all right, but there hasn’t been anybody like that. It’s completely opposed, and it has been turned down previously. Just a reminder. Thanks. MR. STARK-Thank you. HARRY GOLDSTEIN MR. GOLDSTEIN-My name’s Harry Goldstein, and I live on Meadow Drive. We bought the place because it’s quiet. It’s a beautiful neighborhood. I’ve noticed a little increase in traffic, people cutting through miss the lights on our property, and I think this car dealership will abuse the neighborhood. It’s the nature of the business. Thank you. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. ROGER BOOR MR. BOOR-Hello. My name is Roger Boor, and I certainly wouldn’t want a used car lot next to my house, but that’s certainly no reason for you to deny the applicant. My concern is that I see a lot of issues where we have Highway Commercial abutting residential, and there’s a history, as brief as I know it, with the Town Boards and Planning Boards that they don’t do their homework. They don’t think of all the possible scenarios, and then when something like The Great Escape decides to have extended hours, they go, geez, why didn’t we think of that. When you have like a go kart track that operates until all hours of the night, you go, geez, why didn’t we say something earlier, and it’s too late. You’ve granted them the permission to do this, and I’m just concerned, and not necessarily this project. I’m just concerned that we don’t really think of all the things that could possibly happen. I mean, they may run stereo systems in the parking lot and play schmooz music. We don’t know this, and you don’t restrict them. You don’t think of these things, and my only concern is that they’re not thought of, and that we should really consider all the possibilities. Granted, it is Highway Commercial, but there are appropriate Highway Commercial uses and possibly inappropriate, and they don’t necessarily go with car dealerships, restaurants, dentist’s offices. So hopefully you’ll think of all the possible bad things. I would just consider that you consider where you live, where your residence is, and think about the worst thing that could happen to you, and think of those kind of perspectives, because that’s what these people are facing. You may grant this application and you may think you’ve covered all your bases, but you really need to think of all the possibilities, and how you would feel if it happened to you. That’s about it. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else? Okay. I guess that’s it, Laura. Do you want to read your letter now? MS. NOWICKI-This is “Dear Members of the Planning Board:” It is signed, Rachael Hunsinger. “I write this letter to make public opposition to an auto sales operation locating on Ridge Road, adjacent to my neighborhood. I am concerned about an increase in traffic at this site, which is just across the street from where all three of my children board the school bus. I am concerned that auto sales customers will test drive vehicles through a family neighborhood where children play. I am concerned that the applicant’s business will devalue my residential property when the entrance to the neighborhood is marked by cars, parked in tightly packed rows, with signs and banners flying. I am most concerned, however, that auto sales on this property constitutes an over-use of this site. I base this on the fact that an auto sales lot is a 24 hour a day operation. Its wares are always on display, enticing customers into the sales lot at all hours. Although the applicant will close his business at a set hour, he cannot prevent, nor would he want to prevent, customers from pulling in and pulling out of the sales lot whenever they choose to look at cars without any sales pressure. I drive past the existing auto sales lots that front Quaker Road each day, and I see families browsing the lots, under the lights, long after those auto sales operations have closed for the business day. This conduct is not appropriate in a location next to family homes. I attended the Planning Board meeting regarding this issue several months ago and I heard accusations that neighbors would be against any business at this location. This is untrue. I would support a business with set hours, whose merchandise or services are contained within a building, and are not on public display 24 hours a day. I would support a business where the noise and traffic associated with doing business would cease at a reasonable hour. This would not happen if a used auto sales business is allowed to operate on Ridge Road. Please deny this application and prevent 24 hour business from happening in our residential neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Respectfully submitted, Rachael Hunsinger” MR. STARK-Okay. Do you have another one? MS. NOWICKI-No. That’s it. MR. STARK-Okay. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak for or against? DOUG MILLER MR. MILLER-My comments will be brief. My name is Doug Miller. I had no intention of speaking tonight. I didn’t even realize this was on the agenda until I got here. Part of planning is looking at the impacts on the character of the neighborhood. The existing character of the neighborhood, what the character of the neighborhood would be, should changes of this sort be allowed, and I, Bonnie Glendenning’s comments of the business looking like a 24 hour party I think are very pertinent. This is a business that is not run inside the building. It’s primary means of making money are activities that occur outside the building. The merchandise is outside, the exterior use I think is an improper impact on the homes in this area, and I just don’t think it’s the correct use of the property abutting a residential neighborhood. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Okay. In that case, I’d like to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-And ask the applicant to come back up, please. Okay. Mr. Muller, most of the comments were, you’ve heard them, I mean, you know, as far as traffic and appropriateness of zoning. There was one thing that was said that wasn’t repeated by anyone else. That concerns the threats. Would you care to comment on those, the supposed threats by Mr. Zito? MR. MULLER-Yes. I’d like to comment on some of the relevant issues that were brought up, but will address your question first, and I was not at such a meeting. So Mr. Zito can answer it himself. MR. STARK-Yes, Mr. Zito. MR. ZITO-Mr. Sears and I attended this meeting, and I can tell you, on my grandchildren, on their eyes, I never said anything like that, nor would I say anything like that. I’m not in a position to threaten anyone. Mr. Sears was there the entire time and he’ll verify it. We discussed how pretty the deer were. We discussed how pretty the neighborhood was, and we discussed how they don’t 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) want to see the neighborhood change. That’s the only thing that we discussed at that meeting. We discussed how they take tai chi. We discussed bonsai, and never did I say a threat to any of these people, nor would I say it. That was the entire crux of that meeting, and I can assure you of that. Mr. Sears, I’m sure, will come up here and verify it. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. AUDIENCE MEMBERS-I’ll bet he will. MR. ZITO-Ma’am, I am not a liar. Now I’m getting really pissed off at you people, okay. MR. STARK-Mrs. Johnson, excuse me. You had your turn to speak and he didn’t interrupt or anything. Let him have his chance. He’s answering the question specifically, and he doesn’t need comments in the background. Please. MRS. JOHNSON-Sir, I didn’t say anything. MR. STARK-Well, whoever said it. I didn’t know who said it. That’s not very nice to call Mr. Zito a liar. If he had a chance to speak, you should have come up and called him a liar on the record. MRS. JOHNSON-Sir, I didn’t say anything. MR. STARK-Well, whoever said it, then, okay. Fine. MR. ZITO-I’ve been accused of lying twice at these meetings. I don’t lie because I’m not smart enough to remember the last lie I told. If you ask me anything, I’ll tell you the same answer twice. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. STARK-Thank you, Mr. Zito. Okay. Mr. Muller, if you’d care to comment. Mr. Sears, did you want to jump in? MR. SEARS-I was at that meeting, just to verify. I was at that meeting. I was in the room that Al Zito and I, we had the meeting. At no time did I hear Al Zito threaten these people. I was in the room with Bonnie Glendenning. Outside of the room, Al Zito was with these people and I did not hear anything then, but sometime, maybe I didn’t hear all the conversation, but I do know this. We went in that meeting open palmed. We went in that meeting to try to talk to the neighbors. At that meeting, there was an agenda that the neighbors had, and the agenda was, there will be no commercial activity at that site. That was the agenda and that was the impression we got from that meeting (lost words) that property is obviously a commercial piece of property. That’s all I have to say. MR. STARK-Thank you. Mr. Muller? MR. MULLER-Mr. Stark, as I’m sure every one of the Board members would agree, that the personal innuendo and the arguments serve no purpose here in trying to reach the merits of the issue, and that’s all that I wish the Board can do this evening. That is that if there is a very practical look at the application that has been proposed, we all cross paths time and time again in this community. We do, that is that I see you in other context, and you see me in other contexts, and so do these Board members and all these people that are in this room. How can we honestly deal with what is a pretty contested application? That is has there been any misrepresentation about the fact that this is Highway Commercial? No, there has not. Has there been any issue about this is some pre-existing nonconforming use that somehow Conklin, prior to Mr. Zito’s interest in the property, or prior to Mr. Boychuk’s current ownership had persuaded a Zoning Board of Appeals that they needed a variance for some sort of difficulty. That’s not the case. This has actually been zoned Highway Commercial, and I hear a lot about how it is going to negatively impact upon the residential area that is right next door. Well, right next door is a house that has a split use that has an insurance office in it. It is a permitted use in the zone that is behind this building, and it’s not an exclusive residential use, and it is also, behind that, I think you all know, a hairdresser, and further up the road, obviously Dr. Glendenning has his veterinary hospital, which I heard Mrs. Glendenning characterize as looking residential. It doesn’t look residential to me, but I’ll let you be the judge of it. A great deal of cars parked there. A great deal of traffic there. We offered to the Board, it was read into the record here with Mr. Zito’s letter as to what all the traffic is at that particular location. Why is there a lot of traffic on Ridge Road? Because it’s a State highway. It’s State Route 9L, and that’s the only access that we have, and that’s probably why it 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) was zoned Highway Commercial, because it was on a State highway with a substantial amount of frontage, and it had a commercial use. Now we don’t invent any of that when we come here, and my biggest concern is that when, again, I said it the last time when we got a no vote, is that if you put this on the applause mete, what we will find is that will then certainly be deserving of a denial, but if you stick to the facts, the facts are that the next perspective tenant that may wish to use that occupancy is, in my belief, a tenant who will not be before this Board, and everything that I heard here this evening, the one that I would like to single out, I wrote them all down. I thought I’d make a fair comment, but I won’t stretch it, because I know you’ve got a long agenda tonight, and you’re going to take on Lowe’s, it was, I think, Mr. Roger Boor, and he said, do your homework and, you know, be concerned about these interests, these opinions that are offered here, and in doing your homework, I look around, it was my own cousin, Maryann Amoick who was very upset with you people as Board members because you hadn’t done your homework with the go karts, and I said to Maryann, well, you know, you can’t think of everything. I am asking you to think of everything tonight. If you think of everything, what’s going to happen is that a restaurant with a retail business is going to come in there, guarantee it, okay. There’s tenants breathing down our back, and they’re going to come in there, and you’re not going to control the lighting, and you’re not going to control the hours of operation, and you’re not going to control which delivery trucks come in when. You’re not. Ask John Goralski if you’re going to control it. You’re not, okay, and all of what I heard from the neighbors, and we started out with the first one, Mrs. White, where she says that she’s concerned about the gentlemen that live in her house, and that they wander. Well they’re going to wander over to that restaurant and they’re going to cross the State highway, and they’re going to wander over to the retail business that’s over there, and we heard concerns about, that this is a business that’s at business at all day long, that is that it has outdoor inventory. If you look on the list, the things that are there allow outdoor inventory, sports equipment. Okay. Somebody’s going to sell sailboats out there, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles. That’s what’s permitted out there. We don’t propose that. I think that if you have an application that’s worthy of an approval, and this one is, you take control of it. That’s doing your homework, and you say all of the things that we’ve been trying to represent, which is that we have limited hours of operation. We can agree as to what those are. We have limits as to the amount of vehicles that are there. We can agree as to what those are. We certainly don’t project noise, that is that we don’t have music playing. We don’t have pennants. We never said that, but shoot us down, and I just think that it’s fair game, and I think that if I were Mr. Boychuk, I’d want to rent it to the next available tenant, and that I know that he will, and I know that when I see some of these people in the community again, they’re going to say, how the hell did that happen? How come that Board doesn’t have any say, and what’s going on with the Town Board? They’re going to come and say, how could that be? How could you let that in? And John Goralski’s going to have the right answer, which is, it’s permitted, okay. It’s a pre-existing building with Highway Commercial. They were not going to add on to the building. They were not going to increase the occupancy. They were going to have the same limited amount of parking spaces. I’m not talking about CVS, but I’m talking about something like a bagel store, a pizza parlor, something like that that can sell retail and restaurant, and I sense, based on what I hear from this audience tonight, that they don’t want to have any operation late at night. Can you imagine a pizza parlor closing at six in the evening? Or they don’t want to have any operation early in the morning when the school bus is there. Can you imagine a bagel and coffee shop operating, opening up at eleven in the morning? I don’t see it. I think that you’re going to let this one slip through your fingers if you deny it. So I’d ask for an approval. MR. STARK-Okay. Is there anything else? Okay. Tim, do you have any comments? MR. BREWER-Yes. Snow removal, where will you put that? It just looks that all your space is used for display. Where will you put the snow? MR. ZITO-Straight to the back of the building in that other property, straight ahead there, and then when it gets too high, what we do now is Pro Craft comes in and removes it, all right. We have arrangements. MR. BREWER-Okay. A couple of other things that I would like to comment. I can’t remember the gentleman’s name that spoke for you. MR. ZITO-Tom. MR. BREWER-It doesn’t make any difference. He indicated that people look at the property as though it is on Quaker Road. I disagree. There is no access to Quaker Road. I feel it’s on Ridge Road. You can see my house from Sherman Island Road, but it’s clearly on Candleberry Drive, is my point. I think this Board does do our homework. I still have the same feelings I had before. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. ZITO-That wasn’t the fellow who worked for me that said that. MR. BREWER-No, the fellow sitting right behind you, the realtor, Mr. Sears. Yes. If something else does go in there, then it goes in there, but I think we do do our homework. We think about the things that can happen, and just because it’s zoned Highway Commercial doesn’t mean that it’s right or wrong. I mean, there’s other properties in this Town that are zoned completely wrong, and there’s residential property zoned on Aviation Road that people think should be residential, but clearly other people think there should be commercial. So, you know, I guess it depends on what seat you sit in. I guess that’s all I have to say. MR. STARK-Okay. Larry? MR. RINGER-No comment. MR. STARK-Okay. Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of questions, I guess. The DOT traffic counts, traffic surveys or whatever that you referred to, did you submit any documentation to Staff to collaborate that? MR. MULLER-I have two comments on that. One is that the source of them is Mr. Sears, and that they’re basically disclosed to Staff by the letter of Mr. Zito. If you want to know where Mr. Sears got them, he’s right here. I never asked him where he got them. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, actually, I guess what I would ask for is if we’ve done this sort of thing in the past, I would ask that something be submitted to Staff for review, whether you get it from DOT or whether it’s from a consultant, engineer or something like that. MR. SEARS-Let me just clarify. I called two separate towns. I wanted to make sure that they were the right counts. Sometimes, I’ve never had it happen, but typically in my business you’ve got to double check. So I called, I don’t know what day it was, and I got it was 4,500 on Ridge Road, from Quaker to 149, and there’s 18,000 cars going on that road at that intersection. MR. MAC EWAN-Was this from the State or the County? MR. SEARS-This is from the State. MR. MAC EWAN-From the State. MR. SEARS-Now, I called again, a week later, it was the State, got a different voice, the same number. Now, the one on Quaker and Ridge was done in 1996. The one on Ridge Road was estimate. They take the percentage, I think the last one was done in about ’92 and they take a percentage, and they interpolate a percentage every year. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have any updated figures from the Glens Falls Transportation Council on anything that’s been done recently along that corridor, or could we get a hold of some numbers from the State? MR. GORALSKI-I mean, certainly, if you want, we can call the State and confirm those numbers. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we? Also, I guess the site plan here is the scaled drawing, appears to be scaled. You have one inch equals 20, but the drawing showing the amount of parking available, to me, doesn’t appear to be scaled. Is that a scaled drawing or can we get something to scale? Because I think that’s one of Staff’s concerns is the amount of parking space that’s actually available on the site is. MR. MULLER-We’ve submitted a scaled drawing by Harry Williams, and we did not. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it this one? MR. MULLER-I don’t know. Hold it up. Yes, that’s it, and that was because what we had first submitted had been shrunken on a photocopier, so the scale didn’t come out like the original, but as for the parking spaces, we haven’t delineated any. We put all of the cars for sale on the southerly boundary, but not putting any spaces. There will never be spaces on the land itself. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. MAC EWAN-Is the Staff trying to show how many cars this lot will hold? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. As I said in the beginning, I think Mr. Muller is correct in stating that the automobiles that are on display do not need to meet the 9 by 20 requirement. However, I think it would be appropriate to have a scaled drawing that shows how many vehicles can be displayed on the site, as well as how many vehicles can be parked, appropriately parked, on the site, meaning employee vehicles and customer vehicles. If the estimate is that you need seven feet to park a display vehicle, just indicate on the plan, you know, seven feet wide, you know, lines seven feet apart, just so that we know where the display vehicles are going to be displayed, so that we know that they’re not going to block access to required parking places for customers, and for employees. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you recall, in recent years, I can think of two that come to mind, when we did WilHelm’s Used Car lot there on the corner of Everts and Quaker, their site plan, didn’t we require them to show parking spaces on that for how many cars they could hold on that? MR. MULLER-I asked Mr. McDonough who represented Mrs. WilHelm. He said you didn’t, and he said there’s more than 25 cars there, and that’s a smaller parcel. MR. BREWER-Nor did we at Barrett’s require them. MR. MAC EWAN-Barrett was the other one I was thinking of. MR. GORALSKI-Barrett has marked parking spaces. MR. BREWER-I agree with that, but I think out in front, he wanted to put more cars and we said you don’t have to mark it. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. What he wanted to do out front is it had to do with paving area out there. MR. GORALSKI-As far as Barrett goes, there was a discussion about where he was going to park them, how he was going to park them, but that was defined basically by the pavement there, and so that was the difference. MR. MAC EWAN-But we had the site plan delineate how many cars they could accommodate on the site, is that not correct? MR. GORALSKI-Right, I believe so. MR. GORALSKI-The WilHelm one I wasn’t here for, so I don’t know. MR. MULLER-The applicant doesn’t have a problem in delineating it. I mean, as long as the Board acknowledges that we’re in agreement that we’re not going to provide parking, allotted parking spaces, I don’t have a problem. It’s probably going to be every seven feet. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess where I’m going with this is your letter said you’re looking for 25 to 30 cars, well, it should remain approximately 25 cars. The sketch that you show here with your cars on it shows 29 cars on it, but it looks out of whack to me, to the proportion of building, and I guess that’s where I’m going. If you’re trying to show us that you can accommodate that many cars, lets do it to scale so we can see how many cars. MR. ZITO-I thought it was only 25 on the thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Your display area says we have reduced the amount of vehicles 25 to 30, and the primary inventory should remain at approximately 25 vehicles, but this drawing here is showing that you have 29 cars, including the employees cars and two handicaps. MR. ZITO-I put the employee’s parking there, but the employee’s take a vehicle from the display. So that’s, (lost words) back there. The employee’s drive a vehicle. So it leaves and it comes back. So there really is no employee parking except for one man. So, him and his son ride together. MR. MULLER-Well, obviously, that could change, you know, you have a different employee, but I don’t have a problem in showing that along the linear display line, which would be the southerly line, cars will be placed there, and in drawing it to scale and submitting it. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’m still somewhat confused about that. I think I would want to see all cars on the lot, not just necessarily cars for sale, but employees. Where are customers going to park their cars when they come in? MR. MULLER-There’s four spaces right by the building that were drawn on the plan that I’ve submitted. MR. MAC EWAN-The Harry Williams plan or the other plan? MR. MULLER-Harry William’s plan was requested of Staff when they said that the scale on the original plan was not correct when measured, and I accounted for that because the photo copy machine that Mr. Zito had used at Staples, somebody didn’t have it calibrated, so that it was the actual size. They reduced it by about 90%. I didn’t know that, but that’s what was submitted. So, I think Laura Nowicki asked for a scale of the plot, really, and that’s because when we submitted the application, she determined from the Assessment records that this parcel was .25 acres, which of course is not the case, and I had said that it was about an acre plus or minus, and that’s not the case. So we had Mr. Williams compare it to the survey map, and he prepared that document you’re looking at that has really only the building, its setbacks, and the line, course and distance. That was the actual scale depicting nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe the best course of action we could take would be to take this drawing that, the Harry Williams drawing as incorporated in the amount of parking spaces in it, to show that we can accommodate that on the site. MR. MULLER-I totally agree. MR. MAC EWAN-How’s that? Okay. That’s that. Hazardous chemicals. Your statement says we do not require the use of hazardous chemicals. Your next statement says we use motor oil and antifreeze. They’re both hazardous chemicals. How will you store them? MR. MULLER-Okay. Well, Mr. Zito explained it the first time, but you should do it again. MR. MAC EWAN-The first application doesn’t count. This is a new one. MR. ZITO-Yes. Hazardous chemicals, I was talking of degreasers and that type of chemical that would be dumped into the ground and so forth and spread around. Motor oil goes into the vehicle, and when it’s removed it’s put into a container. So it’s not a hazard, actually, as far as I’m concerned. Antifreeze is handled the same way. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you store it, though? Are there any requirements? MR. ZITO-They give us, we have a storage drum and a full drum. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any special provisions that need to be made to store those kind of chemicals? MR. ZITO-No, not in 30 gallons or 50 gallons. MR. MAC EWAN-You can just have a regular 30, 50 gallon drum sitting in the middle of your garage and don’t have a retainer pitch or crack or break open or anything like that? MR. ZITO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. ZITO-Well, I guess they’re tested by Bio Tech, when they pick them up, because they remove the whole drum and leave you another one. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess the last question I would have is for Staff. I guess there’s some conflicts over where the actual school bus stops are and what time of days they are. Can we get some information from Queensbury Schools as to exactly when those buses come through and where they do stop and let children off and on? MR. GORALSKI-Sure, we can get that. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like that. That’s all I have. MR. STARK-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question as to, when you have to make some repairs on the vehicles that you’re selling. For example, you said you contract with Northway Car Care and Streeter’s for major engine repair. Do they come and tow the cars away from your site? I mean, if a car has a dropped transmission, obviously, it’s not going to run. So you just, you know, or if you have a car that’s not working too good, so you just put it on a tow truck? MR. ZITO-We’ll deliver it over, if it’s runable. We’ll drive it over there. MRS. LABOMBARD-You’ll drive it over, but I mean, are there big tow trucks that are going to be coming in and out? MR. ZITO-No. If we have two cars a year towed out, it’s a lot. They’re usually driven in, and you know beforehand what’s wrong with them. MR. MULLER-It’s possible that a vehicle would be towed out of there, sure. It’s certainly not our intention to buy a clunker or sell it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, that’s what I’m saying. MR. MULLER-But sure, it’s possible, and I suppose it’s possible there could be a fire in the building, and there would be a fire truck there and there would be a medical emergency, be an emergency vehicle there. That’s all possible. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, in just asking us our opinions and things right now. I still have a tough time with the fact that the entrance to this property is not on Quaker Road. It is on Ridge Road, and I just can’t get that out of my head. I mean, it’s factual. MR. MULLER-What’s interesting is that if you were on the County Board, they are 180º from where you are, and that is that they insist that it be on Ridge Road, and wanted to have our absolute positive assurance that under no circumstances would we ever see Quaker Road access, to which I was able to give them the absolute assurance, because we have no property interest, and Mr. Boychuk has no ownership interest. So that’s really a rip saw, that is that we go to the County, and they’re all in favor and find no negative impact, traffic wise, as long as we are required Ridge Road and only Ridge Road, and you feel the contrary. That property would seem to have a problem. MR. STARK-Okay. Cathy, that’s it? MRS. LABOMBARD-Right now, yes, that’s it. MR. STARK-Okay. John, Craig asked for a few items and everything for you to get, and also for Mr. Zito and Mr. Muller to get some kind of verification from the State as to traffic counts. In lieu of that, I’ll ask Mr. Zito, would you like to table the application until the first special meeting in th January, which is January 13? It’s Tuesday night. MR. MULLER-We have no problem with that because, you know, the sense of this is that we’ll give you whatever it takes to try to persuade you that it’s worthy of approval, and we’ll do that. We’ll let Staff know, however, if we’re actually able to come to that, because the pressure is on. Right behind us is another tenant. MR. STARK-For this property? MR. MULLER-Right. So we would have to ask Mr. Boychuk if he’s going to extend to us one additional extension. If his answer is yes, we’ll do it all and we’ll be here, and we ask for that continuance until that date. If his answer is no, we’re not going to pressure anybody. We’ll fold our tent and go home, and I’ll certainly have the courtesy to tell the Staff so we’re no longer carried on the agenda. th MR. STARK-Okay. We need a motion to table this until January 13, or Mr. Muller notifies Staff. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. SCHACHNER-Well, not necessarily. I think the public hearing is still open, is it not? MR. STARK-No, we closed it. MR. SCHACHNER-You closed the public hearing. Okay. Then it would be appropriate, if you want, you can have a motion to table or not. You have 62 days from the close of the public hearing in which to make your decision. So there’s no pressure on you. MR. STARK-Does anybody want to make a motion to table it? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-97 NEWTON’S AUTO SALES , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Pending further information that we need. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: MR. STARK-Do you want to put a date on that? MR. BREWER-Are we going to notify the people? MR. STARK-Do we have to re-notify? Well, there’s a motion on the table. I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling MR. STARK-John, do we have to re-notify? MR. BREWER-You don’t have to, I don’t think. MR. GORALSKI-Legally, you don’t have an obligation to re-notify, because you closed the public hearing. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-However, you know, if there’s new information. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I have a concern about the public hearing issue because if I understand this correctly, the Board has asked both the applicant and Staff to provide additional information on this application. The applicant, I think, has agreed that it will provide the information if it is still an applicant, if that’s a fair statement, and Staff has indicated it will provide additional information. If and when that additional information is provided, it’s going to be our advice as th Counsel, and we’re not going to be here. I can’t be here on the 13. That’s a special meeting night, but it’s going to be our advice as Counsel that the Board should allow members of the public to comment on the new information if they wish to. MR. MULLER-And the applicant has no objection to that. I think that that’s good practice. MR. STARK-Should I re-open the public hearing, then, in that case, or just make an announcement that the public will be allowed to speak at that meeting? MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I would suggest that you actually re-open the public hearing and leave it open. That way we avoid the issue of having to legally re-notice it. MR. STARK-Okay. If that’s the case, I’ll re-open the public hearing, and we are trying to get this th on the agenda for January 13, okay. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. STARK-Do you have a comment, Mr. Johnson? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. JOHNSON-Yes. Will the matters of this meeting be in continuance? Will they be a matter of record? Will we have to voice our opinions again? MR. STARK-No, you will not. MR. BREWER-Everything is on record. MR. STARK-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-As part of this application. MR. JOHNSON-Some of us cannot be here at the January meeting. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. MULLER-Could I just have a clarification of what my homework assignment is? It was to get Mr. Williams to put the parking locations on the scale drawing. MR. GORALSKI-Clarify that, the employee parking, customer parking, and then indicate the display area and number of cars in that display area. MR. MULLER-Okay. No problem, but the DOT part was Staff? MR. GORALSKI-I will confirm the DOT numbers and. MR. MAC EWAN-The Queensbury schools. MR. MULLER-Okay. So there’s three issues, really, that remain open? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. MULLER-Okay. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. MULLER-Everybody have a good holiday. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Same to you. SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 TYPE I NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, L.LC. OWNER: QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. GROUP ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NE CORNER OF QUAKER AND BAY ADOPTION OF FINDINGS STATEMENT. JON LAPPER & MARC NEWMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing was on October 28. MR. STARK-I don’t think that’s open anymore. MR. GORALSKI-No, the public hearing is closed. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, that’s done. So there is none tonight. MR. STARK-Okay. John, you wanted to speak. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Let me just bring you up to speed here. Last week we distributed to the Board members a Draft Resolution and Findings Statement. Over the course of the last week with Laura and Mark Schachner, we’ve been communicating with the applicant and refining some of the language, doing some of the lawyer things that they do as far as commas and numbers and stuff, and we’ve come up with a couple of minor changes that I’d like to go over with the Board, if I could. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. STARK-Fine. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. On the second page of the resolution, Item Number Four at the top of the page, Mark asked that you delete that line. MR. RINGER-The whole line, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, just Number Four should be four. MR. STARK-So there’s no more Number Four? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-The paragraph is still there. MR. GORALSKI-Right. The paragraph is still there, but Number Four gets. Okay, and then we go on to the actual Findings Statement. Page Two, the third paragraph down, the second line, well, the whole first sentence should read “Parking spaces at the project, (except for handicapped spaces which are larger) will each measure nine by eighteen, with an overall parking bay width of”, and then it should read “at least 60 feet”. MR. STARK-You want to have at least 60 feet in there? MR. GORALSKI-Right. Okay. That’s it on that page. Page Seven, the second full paragraph, the fourth line down, there should be a semicolon after “developers”. Okay. Page Nine, Paragraph B, if you go six lines from the bottom, it says “will be improved to promote safe and smooth”, “the” should be deleted. So it should just read “safe and smooth traffic flow”. All right. Page 10, the first two lines at the very top should be deleted. So the sentence will now read. MR. LAPPER-That’s just a typo, they’re repeated. MR. GORALSKI-Right. What it was was, “Applicant will provide replacement of eight foot wide bicycle lane along this stretch that has the advantage of being separated from vehicular traffic by a sidewalk”. It was just a typo that those two lines were typed again. Okay. Page 11, the second paragraph. Basically what you want, the easiest thing to do is delete that second paragraph. Add a paragraph that reads, “The Planning Board has determined that it is feasible to link the proposed parking area to the adjacent property to the north. Because the adjacent property to the north is currently residential in nature, the applicant shall identify on the site plan a 20 foot wide area for future connection per Section 179-66.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. This connection will be constructed at no cost to Newman Development Corporation if the Planning Board deems it is necessary at the time the adjacent property is developed for commercial use. In no case will this easement be used as the primary access to the adjacent property. The Planning Board shall give written notice to the applicant or its successor in interest that an application for a site plan approval is pending with the respect to the adjacent property so that the applicant or successor in interest can appear at the Planning Board meeting to voice any concerns it may have regarding the proposed connection.” Okay. Page 12, the third paragraph down, the last sentence should read, “This structure will be equipped with a hooded opening to reduce the conveyance of floating debris and will be sized to maintain existing rates of discharge or runoff amounts up to and including a 50 year storm event”. Okay, and then the fifth paragraph, the last sentence, we’re actually going to split that into two sentences. “The detention basin will also be actively monitored during the construction and fill placement, with periodic removal of trap sediments. The perforated underdrain and overlying crushed stone will be protected with a temporary cover to avoid build up of sediment”. Did you get that? MRS. LABOMBARD-Got it. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Page 14, first paragraph, fifth line down, where it starts, “Both the”, delete “Both the”, the sentence, start with the word “Lowe’s”, and read “Lowe’s Home Improvement Center”, delete everything up to “falls”, so it will read “Lowe’s Home Improvement Center falls outside the 100 year floodplain or flood zone as mapped by FEMA. A small portion of the site is mapped as being in an area between the 100 year and 500 year flood zone, and then add a sentence, “Depending on which map is used, a small portion of the proposed out parcel building may fall within the 100 year floodplain”. MR. STARK-Depending on which map is used. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. GORALSKI-“A small portion of the proposed out parcel building may fall within the 100 year floodplain”. Okay. Then in the next paragraph, once again, the last sentence, “The net result of the bridge replacement, together with the placement of new fill and structures on the project site, is that there will be no calculable on or off site increase in flood levels, the water surface elevation resulting from the 100 year storm event.”, and you can delete the rest of that sentence. Okay. Lets see. That may have been it. MR. LAPPER-I don’t have everything that I read to you, but I think that’s it. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. It looks like that’s it. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-Those are the only changes that we had. Otherwise, I’d present this document to you as a complete Findings Statement for the project. MR. STARK-Does the applicant have anything to add? MR. LAPPER-No, and we’re very pleased with how the process has gone since we were here. We’ve been to the Beautification Committee and we’ve made some adjustments to add some more plantings, which we’ll talk about at Site Plan, and we’ve been to the County Planning, and they incorporated a bunch of conditions that we’d all agreed to on some traffic mitigation measures, and we think that we’re all set with the findings. We’re very thorough. MR. STARK-Okay. Larry, do you have anything? MR. RINGER-No. MR. STARK-Craig, Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. STARK-Okay. Then we’ll just go ahead with a motion to accept the Findings. MR. GORALSKI-A motion to adopt the Findings Statement as presented. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQR FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 29-97, NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, L.L.C., FOR LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER PROJECT RESOLUTION NO.: 29-97 INTRODUCED BY: LARRY RINGER WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: CRAIG MACEWAN As written with the minor modifications made to the resolution tonight. WHEREAS, Newman Development Group of Queensbury, L.L.C. (NDG) has duly filed a Site Plan for the development of a 25.4-acre site, as more particularly described in the Findings Statement; and WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board has reviewed the Findings Statement and the site plan, traffic studies, drainage and stormwater management, sewer, water, solid waste disposal, landscaping, lighting, and all other issues relevant to site plan approval, together with all Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) documents (including the Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS], incorporated by reference therein); 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, in connection with the site plan approval, the Town Planning board has fully considered the impact of the actions, not only upon the Town of Queensbury, and in connection therewith has carefully considered the comments and recommendations of the Warren County Department of Public Works; the Warren County Planning & Community Development Department; the Adirondack-Glens Falls Transportation Council; the New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT); and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) as well as all of the other comments submitted by other involved and interested agencies and by the public; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board hereby reaffirms that the requirements of Part 617, New York Code of Rules and Regulations, Title 6, have been met and hereby determines that: 1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met; 2. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, and taking account of the reasonable alternatives thereto, the site plan as revised and presented to the Planning Board is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, including the effects disclosed in the FEIS; 3. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable; For the convenience of other involved or concerned agencies and all other persons who may wish to carefully consider this Resolution as well as particular parts of the SEQR Findings which follow, there is set forth at the outset of the Findings Statement a Table of Contents to assist in such review. However, the Planning Board wishes to emphasize that this complete Resolution, including the entire SEQR Findings, as well as other related Resolutions with respect to the site plan of the Project Site, must be read together for a full understanding. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling SEQR FINDINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART I. THE PROPOSED ACTION................................................................2 PART II. THE SITE...........................................................................................4 PART III. NATURE OF SEQR PROCEEDINGS................................................6 PART IV. TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS..............................8 PART V. DRAINAGE PLANS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM..............................................................12 PART VI. EFFECTS ON FLOODWATER FLOWS.........................................14 PART VII. EFFECTS ON HALFWAY CREEK, ADJACENT WETLANDS, AND PLANT AND ANIMAL HABITAT..................15 PART VIII. COMMUNITY SERVICES..............................................................18 PART IX. WATER SUPPLY, SANITARY SEWERS, SOLID WASTE 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) AND UTILITIES..............................................................................20 PART X. PROJECT BENEFITS......................................................................21 PART XI. INDUCED GROWTH......................................................................22 PART XII. ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................23 PART XIII. MITIGATION MEASURES.............................................................24 PART XIV. MISCELLANEOUS..........................................................................25 PART XV. CERTIFICATION............................................................................26 PART I: THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action concerns the redevelopment of an existing commercial property in the Town of Queensbury, to construct and operate an approximately 121,000 square foot Lowe’s home improvement center, an associated (unenclosed) 27,297-square foot garden center, and a separate 12,000 square foot (or smaller) retail and service facility (or other permitted retail use) on an outparcel in the southeastern portion of the project site [the Project]. The Project, to be developed on a 25.4-acre site in southwestern Queensbury, on the northeastern corner of the intersection of Quaker Road (County Route 3) and Bay Road (County Road 7), is designed to serve the needs, not only of the Town of Queensbury and eastern Warren County, but of a more extensive trade area (extending into Saratoga Springs to the south, 50 miles to the north, and east and northeast about 25 miles into Vermont). Parking lots to service project buildings will require approximately 6.5 acres of pavement (including loading dock spaces) and will provide parking for a total of 670 vehicles (a ratio of approximately 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of enclosed floor area). Approximately 12.4 acres (~49%) of the site will be left uncovered and vegetated. The Town Planning Board has reviewed the previously submitted EIS documents in relation to the proposed Site Plan and other information provided for the current project, and concludes that all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, including project traffic and necessary roadway improvements, drainage and storm and flood water management requirements, water quality effects, and anticipated socioeconomic and fiscal impacts, have been adequately evaluated and considered in accordance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617. Parking spaces at the Project (except for handicapped spaces, which are larger) will each measure 9' x 18', with overall parking bay widths of at least 60 feet. Consistent with the Town’s desire to minimize paved parking surfaces, and in accordance with the determination of the Town’s Zoning Administrator, the Town Planning Board has determined that the applicant’s parking plan, including the nature and amount of parking proposed, is suitable and appropriate under all the circumstances of the Project and meets or exceeds all applicable Town of Queensbury parking requirements. The Project is a Type II Site Plan Review use under the site’s current Highway Commercial (HC-1A) zoning, is fully consistent with the Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan’s designation of the Bay and Quaker Road corridors as the Town’s “commercial center.” The site is nearly fully surrounded (except for a small area in the northeast corner of the site, which is separated from a residential area by a dense cluster of trees) by other properties in the HC-1A zone. All Project buildings are one story in height and conform with the standards for building height limitation contained in the Town Code. The Project meets or exceeds all setback requirements specified in the Code, and minimizes to the maximum extent practicable incursions of structures or fill within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. The Project has been designed to reduce the current rate of site runoff and will result in no increase in either upstream or downstream flooding or in flooding of nearby Quaker Road. The construction and operation of the Project will benefit the Town of Queensbury and Warren County in several ways. It is expected to generate about $34 million in annual sales, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in new annual revenues to the Town of Queensbury and Warren County in sales, taxes, real property taxes, school district taxes, and other revenues. (Warren County REDC estimates that the Town will realize over $292,000 annually in sales tax 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) and nearly $325,000 in property tax revenues, with additional sales tax benefits to the county of more than $1,020,000.) No tax abatement is being requested. The construction of the Project will create over 200 temporary construction jobs and, once completed, some 250 full-time jobs-- generating millions of dollars in construction wages and annual salaries. (Warren County REDC’s estimate of annual Project wages is “over $3.5 million.”) PART II: THE SITE The Town Planning Board is familiar with the Project site and the area surrounding the site. The proposed Lowe’s Home Improvement Center will be located along the north side of Quaker Road, just east of its intersection with Bay Road. Quaker Road is presently a highly traveled local artery in Warren County, in the southwestern section of the Town of Queensbury. The Project is centrally located between Routes 9 (to the west) and 9L (to the east), and is approximately 1.6 miles east of the Northway (I-87), a major interstate highway linking New York City and Canada. A detailed site plan has been submitted and sequentially revised based on in-depth review by the Planning Board at numerous public working sessions with the developers and their consultants. Specifically, prior to today, the Planning Board has considered aspects of this Project at no fewer than four afternoon or evening public sessions on: August 26th (EIS scoping meeting); October 7th (DEIS completeness determination); October 28th (DEIS public hearing); and November 25th (FEIS completeness determination). The detailed final Site Plan has taken into account the comments of the involved and concerned agencies--in particular, Warren County DPW, NYS DOT, and the Adirondack-Glens Falls Transportation Council [A/GFTC] regarding roadway improvements; and the comments of Town Planning and Community Development Department staff, the Queensbury Environmental Advisory Committee, NYS DEC, and the Warren County Planning & Community Development Department, regarding stormwater management, erosion and siltation control, protection of Halfway Creek water quality, flood control, and a variety of other environmental issues. The Planning Board, in reviewing the final Site Plan, has considered, among other issues: ground coverage, setbacks, parking spaces, ingress and egress to county highways, Town- maintained traffic signals, sewer, water, drainage, soils, lighting, signage, and landscaping. The Planning Board has determined that the Applicant’s proposals for this Project will provide adequate parking and setbacks, and landscaping and/or open space, and will control drainage through a system of drains, grassed swales, and three onsite detention basins to mitigate any increase in the peak rate of storm water runoff. The proposed open-space includes landscaped areas along the developed portions of the site, around portions of the detention ponds, along unshaded areas of Halfway Creek, and at intervals throughout the parking lot. There are also areas to the east of the large detention pond and directly along Halfway Creek that will be kept in an unmowed condition to allow the return of natural vegetation. The Planning Board has considered the proposed lighting plan, including the lighting aspects of proposed illuminated signs, and has concluded that light scatter will be minimal and that there will be no significant adverse visual impacts of the Project. The Planning Board has also concluded that there will be no excessive noise impacts. Any signs to be erected at the Project site will be duly reviewed by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of. The Planning Board has also reviewed and determined to be appropriate the guiderails proposed to be constructed for safety reasons along the access road bridge (these will be metal) and along the elevated eastern perimeter of the paved areas of the site south of the Lowe’s building (these will be of wood construction). PART III: NATURE OF SEQR PROCEEDINGS An application was filed by Newman Development Group of Queensbury, L.L.C. (NDG or Applicant) on or about July 29, 1997, requesting the Town Planning Board of Queensbury to approve the Site Plan for the proposed Project. At about the same time, a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts I and II, were submitted to the Town Planning Board. The Town Planning Board was duly designated lead agency under SEQRA (pursuant to resolutions proposing and accepting this role on July 30 and August 26, 1997, respectively). Other agencies which must approve various aspects of the proposed development and which have 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) participated in all SEQR proceedings include: Warren County Department of Public Works New York State Department of Environmental Conservation The Planning Board as lead agency duly noticed and held a public scoping meeting on August 26th to which all involved and concerned agencies and the public were invited. A DEIS in support of the proposed Site Plan application was filed on September 25th and was determined to be complete by the Planning Board on October 7, 1997. A public hearing on the DEIS was held on October 28, 1997, and comments were received from the public and interested agencies prior to, at, and following the public hearing. The public comment period on the DEIS closed on November 10, 1997. Based upon all of the comments received from involved or concerned agencies as well as the comments of the public, an FEIS was subsequently prepared by the Applicant for consideration and review by the Planning Board (it was submitted on November 17, 1997). Following its careful review and analysis, the Planning Board determined that the FEIS was complete on November 25, 1997, and made the FEIS available to the involved agencies and the public. Comments on the FEIS were accepted through today. The Planning Board has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the information contained in the FEIS and its appendices, including the DEIS and its various technical appendices incorporated by reference therein, and comments thereon, and found it to be an adequate examination of all important potential impacts which might result from affirmative action on the subject Site Plan application. In particular, a broad review of land use, physical and biological, drainage, floodplain, water quality, roadway and traffic, socioeconomic, and community service considerations was undertaken and included in the DEIS, comments were received on that information, and responses to that commentary were included in the FEIS. These responses were carefully and thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Board and determined to be adequate and complete. The Planning Board also carefully and thoroughly considered additional comments received from the public and from involved agencies since receipt of the FEIS and determined that sufficient technical information had been provided to make a decision on Site Plan approval. The proceedings relating to the Lowe’s Home Improvement Center FEIS and the Site Plan approval application occurred over a period of many months. Technical data and professional reports and analyses were submitted by individual agencies, the applicant, and the public. During this period, the Planning Board reviewed hundreds of pages of written submissions, received several days of oral comments, and carefully considered, questioned and analyzed, the various impacts of, alternatives to, and potential mitigative measures for, the proposed project. Numerous issues and questions were raised by Planning Board members, by Planning Department staff, by the Queensbury Environmental Advisory Committee (acting in an advisory role to the Board and staff), and by Rist-Frost Associates (retained as a consultant to the Planning Board). All of these were diligently and satisfactorily addressed by the developers; in a number of cases, through revisions to the Site Plan and through other project refinements. Throughout the Planning Board review process, environmental and socioeconomic implications of the project were discussed, probed, and evaluated. As a consequence of this careful review, the Planning Board expressly finds and concludes that all environmental concerns of SEQRA have been considered and satisfied and that none of the project modifications made subsequent to the submittal of the FEIS are environmentally significant--except to the extent that they will further reduce the potential environmental impacts projected in the DEIS for the original project. Specifically, the Planning Board concludes that there are no important or relevant issues which were not addressed or were inadequately addressed in the EIS; there have been no changes proposed for the Project which may result in a significant adverse environmental effect; there has been no newly discovered information about significant adverse effects which was not previously addressed; and there has been no change in circumstances which may result in a significant adverse environmental effect. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) PART IV: TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The members of the Town Planning Board are not only familiar with the site but also all surrounding roadways and highways (both local and regional). Outside traffic engineering analysis has been supplied by the Warren County Department of Public Works (DPW), the Adirondack- Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC), and New York State DOT (NYSDOT) as technical liaison to A/GFTC. (Of these agencies, only Warren County DPW has project approval/disapproval authority.) Warren County DPW “concurred with” the major mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant to deal with project-related traffic impacts. A/GFTC, similarly, found the major site-specific recommendations made in the traffic impact study to be “appropriate” (and the study itself to be “valid”). Finally, NYSDOT found the traffic generation numbers, including bypass credit, used in the traffic impact study to be “conservative and, therefore, acceptable.” And, it saw “no problem” with the small increase in traffic projected for Glenwood Avenue due to this Project. However, each of these agencies also offered comments on various “larger issues” of greater regional than site-specific significance. The principal roadways to be significantly affected by the construction and operation of the Project are Quaker Road (County Road 3), Bay Road (County Road 7), and Glenwood Avenue. As noted above, Warren County DPW, A/GFTC, and NYSDOT have accepted the Applicant’s traffic studies as being acceptable, appropriate, and valid for review of the Project. Although detailed engineering plans must be submitted and approved by appropriate agencies, sufficient information has been supplied to determine overall levels of service in accordance with New York State standards. In response to the FEIS, Warren County DPW has informed the Town (by letter of November 24, 1997) that “all of their concerns were addressed.” Applicant has agreed to make the following improvements, as set forth in the EIS, solely at the Applicant’s own cost and expense (collectively, the “Roadway Improvements”) which will maintain or improve existing Levels of Service, offset other Project-related impacts, and/or enhance public safety in the vicinity of the Project Site: a. QUAKER ROAD: Applicant will provide a new (wider and higher) access road bridge at the Quaker Road entrance to the Project site--to permit better ingress and egress, and will utilize, geometry, curbing, striping, and signage to make this entrance exclusively right turns in and out--to minimize interference with traffic flow on eastbound Quaker Road. [The applicant shall petition the Town Board to pass a resolution so that Warren County Sheriff’s Department can enforce the no left turn] It is proposed to place the main entrance to the Project on Bay Road, rather than Quaker Road, in a further effort to reduce to the extent practicable interference with Quaker Road traffic flow. These changes are sufficient to avoid any decline in Level of Service at any of the Quaker Road intersections potentially affected by the Project). Finally the applicant is required to purchase and provide to the Town of Queensbury the necessary control equipment to enable the traffic signal at Bay Road and Quaker Road to be part of a coordinated system. The Planning Board concurs in the appropriateness of each of these actions. Some Planning Board members believe that a dedicated right turn lane for westbound Quaker Road traffic is needed (turn right onto Bay Road to proceed North). They believe it would both benefit general traffic movement and avoid vehicle back ups. Based on the applicants traffic engineer and Warren County DPW (which has jurisdiction over this intersection) careful consideration of the matter, including an analysis of the projected queue lengths of westbound Quaker Road traffic in the right lane when the traffic signal is red at the Bay Road intersection, neither believes that the right turn lane is needed. There are also questions as to whether the existing road and shoulder geometry in the vicinity of this intersection can accommodate the necessary lane modifications. Accordingly, the Planning Board will not require the Applicant to construct a dedicated right-turn lane at this location. b. BAY ROAD: Applicant will establish the main entrance drive to the Home Improvement Center at the Bay Road intersection with Glenwood 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) Avenue. This will entail realigning the entrance drive from its present location south of Glenwood, so that it is directly across from the Glenwood Avenue intersection. A new traffic signal, equipped with pedestrian controls and technology allowing coordination with nearby signals, will be installed at this intersection. Designating this as the main entrance and facilitating access both from Bay Road and Glenwood Avenue will alleviate pressure on Quaker Road. The new traffic signal will greatly enhance the safety of this intersection, not only for vehicles but also for pedestrians and bicyclists. This is further enhanced by pedestrian/bicyclist controlled pushbuttons and crosswalk striping on all sides of this intersection except the south side. A Truck Entrance with appropriate signs will also be provided from Bay Road near the northern boundary of the Project site to avoid truck/car conflicts and to minimize interferences with internal vehicle circulation. The main entrance will be wider than strictly necessary, and the storage distance between the driveway and the site’s internal road system will be increased as much as possible, to facilitate convenient ingress and egress and minimize stacking of vehicles waiting to exit the site. Bay Road north of the site will be improved to promote safe and smooth traffic flow from the two northbound lanes south of Glenwood to the single lane that currently exists north of this intersection. Because these improvements will utilize a portion of the roadway shoulder currently available to bicyclists, the applicant will provide a replacement 8-foot-wide bicycle lane along this stretch that has the added advantage of being separated from vehicular traffic by a sidewalk. Finally, the applicant will provide a left-turn lane for southbound Bay Road traffic to enter the Project site via the truck entrance. The applicant is not proposing to construct dedicated curb lanes for bicyclists, or even to connect existing bicycle paths with the concrete sidewalk on the west side of Bay Road south of Glenwood, because either of these measures would encourage bicyclists to cross Quaker Road at Bay Road, rather than via the proposed bridge to be constructed for this purpose near Woodvale Road off of Glenwood Avenue. The Planning Board concurs in the appropriateness of each of these actions and positions. c. GLENWOOD AVENUE: The new traffic signal at the Bay Road intersection will greatly enhance the safety of vehicles attempting to make left-turns onto or from Glenwood Avenue. The signal, its pushbutton feature, and the associated crosswalks, will also promote pedestrian and bicyclist safety. A further helpful measure to be taken by the applicant is to provide appropriate signing and striping to identify points of potential vehicle conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists in the area where the bicycle trail crosses Glenwood Avenue (west of the Woodvale Road intersection). The Planning Board concurs in these actions as well. These Roadway Improvements, to be paid for entirely by the Applicant and at no Town or County expense, will substantially mitigate the effects of increased traffic and will provide for control of traffic and flow of traffic in accordance with accepted traffic engineering guidelines. Receipt of all necessary Warren County DPW and Town of Queensbury approvals and full completion of all Roadway Improvements in the vicinity of the Site to the satisfaction of Warren County DPW and the Town of Queensbury Code Compliance Officer shall be conditions precedent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the site. Once the off-site Roadway Improvements have been constructed by Applicant and accepted by Warren County DPW and the Town of Queensbury as being fully in accordance with design standards and criteria and as otherwise in full compliance with applicable law, maintenance will be performed by each respective governmental jurisdiction over its roadways. As provided in the Site Plan, the Applicant will provide painted pedestrian crosswalks along the Bay Road main entrance and within the site, to facilitate safe pedestrian movements into and within the Home Improvement Center. Applicant agrees to provide a bus stop in front of the Lowe’s home improvement store, at a location agreeable to Lowe’s and the transit company. These commitments are fully responsive to the comments raised on these matters during the comment period. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) On the issue of parking spaces, the Planning Board concurs with the Applicant that there should be no further reduction in the required number or increase in the required size of paved parking spaces. The Planning Board has determined that it is feasible to link the proposed parking area to the adjacent property to the north. Because the adjacent property to the north is currently residential in nature, the applicant shall identify on the site plan a 20 foot wide area for future connection per Section 179-66.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. This connection will be constructed at no cost to Newman Development Corp., if the Planning Board deems it necessary at the time the adjacent property is developed for a commercial use. In no case will this easement be used as the primary access to the adjacent property. The Planning Board shall give written notice to the applicant or its successor in interest that an application for site plan approval is pending with respect to the adjacent property so that the applicant or successor in interest can appear at the planning board meeting to voice any concerns it may have regarding the proposed connection. Furthermore, the Planning Board recognizes that connections to a potential future project to the east (along Quaker Road) are not feasible because of the presence of Halfway Creek and associated wetlands—which would have to be crossed to establish such a connection. PART V. DRAINAGE PLANS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM As described in the Stormwater Management Plan, as updated (DEIS, Appendix B; FEIS, Appendix B), the Applicant will make provision for transporting drainage water off site by strategically placing fill and impervious areas on the Site to allow continuation of pre-development runoff and Creek flow patterns; by collecting runoff from newly created impervious surfaces in catch basins and piping it to three on-site detention basins; and by placing imported fill so as to allow drainage to the designated detention basins. The detention basins are sized to detain the Project-related runoff for up to and including 50-year storm events (4.9 inches of rainfall in a 24- hour period). The system thus provided will ensure that the Project will not adversely affect existing drainage patterns (whether of onsite or offsite origin). Indeed, not only will there be no net increase in the rate of peak stormwater drainage attributable to the Project site after, as compared to before, Project construction, but the runoff rates to Halfway Creek and surrounding properties will actually be reduced by more than 25% (from 22.03 cfs for a 50-year storm to 15.74 cfs). The detention basins are designed to detain the first one-half inch of runoff (the most polluted “first flush”) in the bottom of the basin and to allow it to exit the basin only by percolating through soil and crushed stone to the perforated underdrain running the entire length of the open basin. This design features allows treatment (removal) of suspended matter and floatables (including any parking lot oil and grease), and has the added benefit of reducing the temperature of the water that exits the basin. Flows in excess of the first one-half inch of runoff will be allowed to exit the basin through a controlled outlet structure. This structure will be equipped with a hooded opening to reduce the conveyance of floating debris and will be sized to maintain existing rates of discharge for runoff amounts up to and including 50-year storm events. Flows exiting from each of the detention basins will be routed through a grassed swale (constructed through woods, in the case of the large northeast detention basin) before entering the Creek to provide the added benefit of additional cooling and pollutant removal. (In the case of the northeast detention basin, the width of the grassed swale will be enlarged before entering wetlands in order to minimize wetland impacts.) The stormwater management system will be maintained at a high level of efficiency by periodically removing accumulated sediments (and any litter and debris) from the detention basins and outlet structures, based on inspections following heavy rainfall events, and by applying the other maintenance guidelines set forth in Section 6.0 of the Stormwater Management Plan. The detention basins will also be actively monitored during the construction (and fill placement) period with periodic removal of trapped sediments. The perforated underdrain and overlying crushed stone will be protected (e.g., with a temporary cover) to avoid the build-up of sediment there. Erosion and siltation control measures, meeting NYS DEC guidelines, will also be employed throughout the construction and fill placement process--both to avoid sediment buildups in detention structures and to safeguard Halfway Creek and its associated wetlands. See Section 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) 5.0 of the Sediment Management Plan; the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Site Plan document #C5); and the FEIS discussion on pp. II-2 through II-5. The Site Plan for drainage has been carefully reviewed by the Planning Board. The Planning Board concludes that the proposed measures are adequate and effective, comply with applicable regulatory requirements and standards of engineering design, and effectively mitigate potential effects on water quality and other environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. PART VI. EFFECTS ON FLOODWATER FLOWS The 100-year floodplain of Halfway Creek extends onto the project site upstream (west) of the access road bridge crossing. A section of the site (partially overlapping with the location of the wetland) is located within a 100-year flood zone (FEMA Flood Insurance Zone A2). Less than one-tenth of the site area to be developed (parking lot) falls within the 100-year floodplain. Lowe’s home improvement center falls outside the 100-year floodplain (or flood zone) as mapped by FEMA. A smaller portion of the site is mapped as being in an area between a 100-year and a 500-year flood zone (Zone B). Depending on which map is used, a small portion of the proposed outparcel building may fall within the 100-year floodplain The Applicant proposes to address this issue (as well as to better manage site drainage) by raising the elevation of the developed portions of the site by an average of six feet through the placement of approximately 100,000 cubic yards of imported clean fill material. Although placing this fill in the floodplain would have the potential to displace flood waters and cause increased flooding elsewhere, hydraulic calculations performed by the Applicant’s engineers (employing the same hydraulic model used by FEMA in constructing its flood maps) demonstrate that these effects are offset by other measures to alleviate flow restrictions in Halfway Creek. Specifically, Applicant proposes to replace the access road bridge to/from Quaker Road with a wider, higher span that will avoid the problem of water backing up during high-flow conditions on the upstream (west) side of the bridge. (It is proposed to remove the existing bridge’s steel girders and concrete deck, while leaving in place the old bridge’s concrete abutments and support walls--in order to minimize stream disturbance.) The net result of the bridge replacement, together with the placement of new fill and structures on the Project site, is that there will be no calculable on or off- site increase in flood levels (water surface elevation resulting from a 100-year storm event). In response to concerns raised by the Queensbury Environmental Advisory Committee about the phasing of bridge replacement in relation to fill importation, the Applicant has developed a detailed “sequencing chart” (FEIS, Appendix B), showing the relative timing of various construction details that could have an impact on flooding or erosion. The Applicant has agreed that the existing access road bridge will be removed (except for the abutments that will be left in place) before any imported fill is placed within the 100-year floodplain. This will ensure that floodwater-displacing onsite activities do not occur before offsetting obstruction removal activities occur. The flooding that is predicted to occur on Quaker Road under existing conditions upstream (west) of the culverts beneath Bay Road (where the road elevation is approximately 313.0' and the 100-year floodplain water surface elevation is 314.6') will not be affected either positively or negatively by the Project. (Any efforts to alleviate this condition--for example, by constructing additional culverts beneath Bay Road--would only serve to exacerbate downstream flood potential.) The Planning Board concludes that the proposed measures are adequate and effective to address potential flooding issues associated with the proposed Project. PART VII: EFFECTS ON HALFWAY CREEK, ADJACENT WETLANDS, AND PLANT AND ANIMAL HABITAT The Project Site does not represent a significant or unique habitat for plant or animal communities. No endangered or threatened species inhabit the site. Although the Karner blue butterfly (a Federally listed species) and the small white ladyslipper (a State-listed endangered plant) have had reported sitings within a few miles of the Project Site, field investigations by the Applicant’s biological consultants in the Spring of 1997 found no evidence of either of these species or of their potential habitat on the proposed Project Site. The Site does contain sensitive aquatic habitat--in the form of a regulated stream, Halfway Creek, and associated freshwater wetlands. Halfway Creek, a Class AA waterway with AA(T) 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) “trout” standards (because the Creek can sustain trout and is annually stocked with brook trout), flows from the southwest corner to the northeast corner of the project site, occupying approximately 0.7-acre within the Site boundary. The Creek section in the southern portion of the Site shows extensive signs of prior disturbance and was apparently moved south (and straightened) to accommodate the office buildings currently occupying Quaker Village. It also experiences thermal stress during summer months because of the lack of shading along its banks. The character and quality of the Creek improves markedly as it turns north. This area has not be channelized and extensive bank-side cover is present to provide good shade to the Creek. This section of the stream also contains many riffles, runs, and pools, and includes in-stream cover (e.g., logs, tree roots), which enhance its value as trout habitat. The Site also contains part of a Class II freshwater wetland (designated GF-19 by NYS DEC), which is a mixture of deciduous forest and scrub-shrub cover types. In the southern section of the wetland, purple loosestrife is present, but its numbers are currently low. The Applicant’s consultant--Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc.--delineated the boundaries of this wetland, which was subsequently verified and concurred with by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NYS DEC. The onsite portion of this wetland is 2.75 acres in size. On September 27, 1997, the Applicant’s consultant delineated additional wetlands on a portion of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation property (located between the southern boundary of the Project Site and Quaker Road) to ensure that no Project-related work associated with replacement of the access road bridge or work on the Quaker Road approach lane impacts these wetlands. The Planning Board notes that the Applicant has successfully avoided any impacts to wetlands in and around the Project Site. Although the Applicant could not completely avoid construction work within the 100-foot adjacent area of wetland GF-19, the Planning Board is satisfied that the Applicant has minimized or avoided such impacts to the maximum practicable extent. The Applicant has duly applied to NYS DEC for an Article 24 permit to work in the 100- foot area adjacent to wetland GF-19. By letter of November 19, 1997, DEC advised that this application was complete and that a technical review had commenced. The Planning Board expressly conditions its approval of construction work within the 100-foot adjacent area on DEC’s issuance of the requisite Article 24 permit (and associated Article 15 permit and 401 Water Quality Certification). The following mitigation measures and enhancements have been agreed to by the Applicant and will effectively mitigate potential impacts on the quality of Halfway Creek and associated wetlands and biological habitat. These measures must be completed as a condition precedent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the Site. 1. The Project’s Stormwater Management Plan will protect the Creek and adjacent wetlands from runoff-related particulates and pollution by channeling Site- generated (as well as some offsite-generated) runoff through one of three shallow detention basins, equipped with a filtration and subsurface drainage system (as well as an outlet and overhang construction), designed to trap hydrocarbon (and other) pollutants and particulates. The detention ponds and outlet structures will be regularly maintained to minimize the build-up of sediments and debris which could impair their efficiency. During Project construction, excavated detention ponds will help trap construction-related sediments. Measures will also be taken to avoid clogging of the filtration system, when that is installed later in the construction period. 2. During Project construction, Best Management Practices, in accordance with NYS DEC erosion and sediment control guidelines, will be employed to avoid and minimize soil erosion which could adversely impact the Creek or wetlands. 3. Thermal degradation of the cold water fisheries of Halfway Creek will be avoided by employing several measures to cool runoff water before it enters the Creek. 4. The quality of the Creek will be further enhanced, and thermal degradation will be further avoided (particularly in the disturbed southern sections of the Creek paralleling Quaker Road), by providing approximately 2,000 shrub seedlings to be planted along both sides of Halfway Creek in areas which now lack adequate vegetative shading. These seedlings will be planted by volunteers from the local chapter of Trout Unlimited. It is recognized that plantings can be placed in areas owned or controlled by Niagara Mohawk only with the latter’s permission. (Delay or denial of this permission, which is beyond the Applicant’s control, will not 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) delay Applicant’s receipt of necessary Occupancy Permits.) The precise mix and spacing of plantings is subject to approval by the Applicant’s biological consultant (Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc.)--after considering inputs from the Town of Queensbury Beautification Committee and NYS DEC--to ensure that plantings are environmentally appropriate, hydraulically functional, aesthetically pleasing, and do not adversely affect the visibility of Project tenants. 5. Only treated water from the stormwater management system will be allowed to enter the onsite wetland to avoid any impairment of wetland function. 6. Natural vegetation will be allowed to reestablish itself to protect wetland and wildlife habitat and to further prevent pollution of the Creek by maintaining in an unmowed condition (a) a strip at least 10 feet wide directly along Halfway Creek on the eastern boundary of the Project Site, and (b) a larger section between the large detention pond and Halfway Creek (this area will be allowed to revert to an open field vegetation cover type and will be mowed no more than once every five years per FEIS to maintain this habitat type). 7. As suggested by NYS DEC, the Applicant will place rip-rap in front of the old bridge abutments (to help stabilize the barren space between the vegetated banks) and on the northern bend of the “S” curve located on the Lowe’s site, to help stabilize the Creek and its banks--as outlined in Exhibit F-12 to the FEIS. This rip-rap will be installed in accordance with the conditions of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 13 (“bank stabilization”). The Applicant will also provide rip-rap for placement by Niagara Mohawk (or others) on the south side of the “S” curve. PART VIII. COMMUNITY SERVICES The Applicant believes (DEIS, pp. II-20 - II-23), and the Planning Board agrees, that existing community facilities are sufficient to service the Lowe’s Home Improvement Center project. The Project will place no new demands on facilities such as schools, libraries, and recreational centers, because retail centers tend to draw their employees from the local area. The Queensbury Fire Department will not incur specific additional fire-protection costs as a result of the Project, which will be fully covered by an effective sprinkler system. At most, there may be a need to handle occasional car and dumpster/compactor fires and false alarms. A fifty- foot clear zone for emergency vehicle access has been provided along the Project perimeter-- including 40-foot wide paved access along the east side of the Lowe’s building and a minimum of 45-foot paved access along the north side of the building. There is also a 110-foot diameter semi- circle at the northeast end of the Lowe’s building to further allow and facilitate easy maneuvering by large trucks, including emergency vehicles. (See, e.g., C.T. Male memo in FEIS Appendix B.) The Project is expected to result in no more than a minor increase in the workload of the Queensbury Police Department. This will be in the form of traffic control-related activities, investigation of larceny and criminal mischief, and calls for services such as car lockout and lost children. Provision has been made for a bus stop in front of the Lowe’s store to facilitate use of public transportation by Project employees. The Planning Board does not anticipate significant use of mass transit by customers of a home improvement center, however. The Project also incorporates features to enhance the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians on Glenwood Avenue and Bay Road in the vicinity of the Project site, which will yield net benefits to the community. Mitigation measures (to be incorporated in the design and operation of the Project) to reduce impacts on community services, include the following (see, e.g., DEIS, p. II-23): 1. Buildings will be equipped with alarms and other appropriate security systems. 2. Buildings will incorporate sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. The Site will contain four appropriately positioned fire hydrants and adequate roadways to permit ready access to buildings by fire equipment and other 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) emergency vehicles. 4. The Site has two general access drives, plus a Truck Entrance, to provide convenient ingress and egress both by customers and by emergency vehicles. 5. Water-saving fixtures will be incorporated into facility design. 6. Buildings will incorporate energy-saving features in their design, will utilize energy-efficient HVAC equipment, and will conform to the New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code. 7. Solid waste generation will be reduced where practicable by utilizing recycled and recyclable materials, and by practicing and promoting recycling and pollution prevention. 8. Most sales and managerial staff will be hired from the local work force (so that new facilities and services will not be needed to accommodate new residents). The Planning Board concludes that the Project’s impacts on community services in the Town and County will be small; that these impacts have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. PART IX: WATER SUPPLY, SANITARY SEWERS, SOLID WASTE, AND UTILITIES As documented in the DEIS (pp. II-19 - II-22 and Exhibit II-8), the Project’s need for water, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, and electric and gas utilities are small in relation to the available capacity or supply, and in each case the public or private service provider has indicated that the additional demand created by the Project can be accommodated. The Project is expected to use approximately 4,500 gallons per day of water, plus associated sprinkler system and fire hydrant requirements. The Project will use an 8-inch line to tie into the 12-inch water line on Bay Road, which in turn connects to the 16-inch water main on Quaker Road. (Pressure testing of the 16-inch main confirms that water pressure is adequate to permit this tie-in.) The 8-inch line will loop around the Lowe’s building and connect to the 12-inch line at two locations. Fire hydrants will be installed at four locations, as specified by the Fire Marshall. The Town of Queensbury Water Department (per Mr. Ralph VanDusen, Deputy Water Superintendent) has confirmed that the Town water supply system can accommodate these requirements. The Applicant will conform to Town Water Department requirements for water meters (see FEIS, Exhibit F-11), including its preference to not have water meter pits. For its sanitary sewage needs, the Project will tie into the 8-inch municipal sanitary sewer located on the east side of Bay Road. Sanitary sewer mains will be constructed to collect the wastewater flows from the building service laterals and then convey them to the sewer on Bay Road. This sewer eventually discharges to a pump station on Meadowbrook Road, which then conveys the flows through a force main to the City of Glens Falls system. The Town of Queensbury Department of Wastewater (per Michael O. Shaw, Deputy Director) confirms that the Town’s “collection system has sufficient capacities to accommodate” Project sanitary flows of 4,500 gallons per day (actual sewage generation will likely be more like 4,050 gpd). The Project’s solid waste output of some 24 tons a month will be incinerated at the Town’s burn plant--most likely after recyclables have been removed at the Town’s transfer station. No problems are anticipated (per Mr. Jim Coughlin) in accommodating this material. Niagara Mohawk Corporation has confirmed its capacity to deliver both “electric service” and “natural gas service” to the proposed Project (both the home improvement center/retail store and the outparcel retail building). PART X: PROJECT BENEFITS The Planning Board agrees with Warren County REDC (FEIS Exhibit F-1) and the DEIS (pp. I-3 - I-4) that the Project will yield a variety of substantial employment, wage, and tax benefits to the Town of Queensbury and Warren County. Specifically, the Applicant projects that the Project will create 200 to 250 temporary construction jobs over an 8-month construction period, and approximately 250 full-time managerial, sales, and service positions once the Project opens for business. (Even assuming only 200 new jobs at an average hourly rate of $8.50, REDC projects a minimum ongoing wage benefit of more than $3.5 million annually.) 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) The Applicant also projects annual sales of approximately $34 million (yielding annual State Sales Tax revenues of nearly $2.4 million) and property and other tax revenues to the County, Town, and School District in the range of $1 to $1.5 million over 10 years. (REDC assumes lower annual sales but higher--mostly indirect--property tax revenues.) No public funding or tax abatement is being requested. PART XI: INDUCED GROWTH The Queensbury Environmental Advisory Committee praised this Project for reusing “already developed land [in the Town’s commercial corridor] rather than disturbing a new site.” (FEIS, Exhibit F-6, item #2). As an existing site, the Project is fully served by water and sewer utilities and no new infrastructure is needed of the sort that would promote ancillary development nearby. The Project is fully consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and is surrounded by similar zoning and land uses. Much of the Town’s commercially-zoned land centers around the Quaker Road / Bay Road intersection--an area that is now almost completely developed. The potential for future new commercial or retail development permitted under current zoning is thus very limited--particularly for large projects. As noted in the Applicant’s Alternatives Analysis (DEIS, p. IV-2), only five sites could be found in the Glens Falls/Queensbury area in the 10-25-acre size range and most of these had limitations severely constraining development of a project of this kind. The incremental impact of the Project in inducing new commercial development is expected to be minor. It is expected, however, that the Project will have a beneficial stimulatory effect on nearby commercial sales and services. This may lead to some refurbishment and revitalization of existing area businesses. PART XII: ALTERNATIVES In accordance with SEQR regulations, the DEIS and FEIS (Section IV) contain a discussion of alternatives to the requested approval of the proposed site plan to redevelop the 25.4- acre site at the northeast corner of Quaker Road and Bay Road, as follows: (a) The No-Action Alternative, in which the current use and ownership of the project site would remain unchanged; (b) Alternative Site Designs, including locating the parking for the Lowe’s building behind it rather than out front, placing the garden center on the east side instead of the west, reorienting the retail space so that the dumpster and masonry walls are not visible from Quaker Road, increasing the setback between the southeastern portion of the parking lot and Halfway Creek, and maintaining the current site elevation without importing 100,000 cubic yards of outside fill; (c) Alternative Sites, including 5 other Queensbury sites in the 10-25 acre size range; (d) Alternative Project Sizes, including both larger and smaller projects; and (e) Alternative Site Uses, including a large regional shopping mall, a small community shopping center, and a commercial office park. These alternatives represent the full range of alternatives possible at the Site and allow the Town Planning Board to fully evaluate the impacts of any conceivable alternative development. The DEIS contains a comparative analysis of the environmental, social, open space and traffic effects of each of the alternatives evaluated. The Planning Board finds that the proposed development plan represents the highest and best use of the Project Site, without creating unacceptable adverse impacts on Halfway Creek or its associated wetlands or floodplain. The proposed Project plan maximizes fiscal and economic benefits to the Town and County, while preserving nearly half the site as vegetated open space. Scaling down the site to a smaller development would not be practicable financially in light of high site development costs. Alternative site designs are not feasible because of site constraints and tenant requirements. (Applicant will, however, vinyl coat the chain link fence surrounding the 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) garden center and to add additional landscaping on the Bay Road side of the two smaller detention ponds. Also, as previously noted, Applicant will utilize wood rather than metal guiderails in the area north of the access road bridge.) Although the development of the Project as proposed will undoubtedly generate increased traffic, the proposed Roadway Improvements detailed in the DEIS and FEIS will satisfactorily mitigate adverse impacts to local roadways and maintain or improve existing levels of service for the motoring public--as well as enhancing the safety, not only of motorists, but also of pedestrians and bicyclists. PART XIII: ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES In addition to all of the ameliorative and protective conditions set forth throughout these SEQR Findings, mitigation measures to be incorporated into the final Project include any further such measures identified in the Draft or Final EIS documents and/or reflected in the Final Site Plans for this Project. PART XIV: MISCELLANEOUS In addition to all of the foregoing, the Planning Board finds and determines that: 1. adequate energy resources are currently available and that Project energy consumption will not significantly affect local, regional, or national energy supplies or use or conservation of energy resources; 2. the Project will not have a significant impact on solid waste management; and 3. the Project is not within, nor will it have a significant impact on, a groundwater protection area, as defined in section 55-0107 of the Environmental Conservation Law. PART XV: CERTIFICATION TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD By: Robert Paling, Chairman Town of Queensbury Planning Board 742 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804 518-761-8200 SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 TYPE I NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, L.L.C. OWNER: QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. GROUP ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NE CORNER OF QUAKER AND BAY PROPOSAL IS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 114,731 SQ. FT. HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER WITH A 34,060 SQ. FT. GARDEN CENTER AND A 12,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL OUTPARCEL BUILDING. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 12/8/97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/10/97 TAX MAP NOS. - 59-1-5.5, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19.1, 19.2 LOT SIZE: 25.4 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JON LAPPER & MARC NEWMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STARK-Okay. Now, do you have anything on the Site Plan? MR. GORALSKI-Laura’s got some comments on the site plan. MR. STARK-Okay. STAFF INPUT 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) Notes from Staff, Newman Development Group of Queensbury, L.L.C., Site Plan No. 29-97, Meeting Date: December 16, 1997 “The Applicant proposes to build a Home Improvement Center with a Garden Center and a Retail Space building. The applicant has completed the SEQR review of the project and is looking for site plan approval. The applicant met with the Beautification Committee and received their approval for planting plan #97-314R with a condition. Staff has received a faxed copy of planting plan #97-314R. Staff has received the proposed enhancements to Halfway Creek and it appears to be consistent with the FEIS. Glens Falls Transportation requested that the circulation of the Bus through the parking lot be well defined - such that the bus would enter the store from Bay Road and travel the perimeter of the parking lot and proceed to pick up passengers in front of the main entrance of the store and exit onto Bay Road. This could be similar to the circulation design of Hannaford on Broad Street or K-Mart on Dix Avenue. Staff would like to mention that the fence on the north side needs to conform to Code no higher than eight feet in height, (DEIS pg. I-4 Fig. I-4 shows a 10 foot fence) Section 179-74.” It does. In their original site plan, it’s now at six feet. “Staff would also be interested in seeing a construction traffic route to and from the site.” MR. STARK-Okay. The Warren County, do you want to read that. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “Comments: With the conditions stated in D. Kane’s memo to the WCPB on 12/10/97 with the exception that the developer will be responsible for the purchase only of the appropriate traffic signals and that they will provide site lighting at the intersection of Quaker Road and the southern site road on their property; and the approval will also incorporate the conditions of L. Penistan’s letter to D. Kane on 12/10/97. Both memo and letter are attached.” MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. MR. SCHACHNER-And the recommendation with that condition was to approve. MS. NOWICKI-Right. MR. STARK-Yes. Okay. Now, you have Rist-Frost’s letter stating all your concerns are going to. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and they issued, that’s the newest letter that they’re set with the answers. th MR. STARK-The one from December 16. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that we’ve answered all their questions. MR. STARK-Do you want to comment on the fence? MR. LAPPER-I think six feet is what we’re proposing now. MR. STARK-The fence on the north side can only be eight foot high. You show ten foot high. It’s no big deal. MS. NOWICKI-They addressed it. MR. LAPPER-It won’t be any higher than eight feet is the answer. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add? MR. LAPPER-Just the one comment that Laura just read that we didn’t discuss with you. Since we were here last time, to look at the Final EIS, the Town, through John, asked that instead of what we had in the FEIS was the proposal that we would contribute $2,000 to the Town to do a study on coordinating traffic lights on the Quaker Road corridor, instead John has come back and asked us to supply the computer equipment for the Bay/Quaker intersection for that signal, so that that could be part of a coordinated system as will the light that we’re supplying, the actual hardware, the computers, which is a fairly significant dollar figure, but we’ve agreed to that, and so that’s a project change, and an additional measure. MR. STARK-You can add on to the one on Quaker now? MR. LAPPER-Correct. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. STARK-Then your new one will have it? MR. LAPPER-Yes, so that they can be coordinated, and we’re going to supply that equipment to the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s nice. MR. STARK-Now, just as an aside, the one in front of Hannaford, is that able to be computerized now, or no? MR. MAC EWAN-You weren’t here for, were you here for that one, George, the last time? That’s a long story. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-As to who owns it, but who maintains it and who operates it and where it is. MR. GORALSKI-I think I can give you an answer, and that is that this applicant has no control over that light, and it seems that not too many people want to take control of that light, but that’s something that I am working on right now with Warren County DPW, and we’re going to see if we can work something out with them. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. Do you have anything else you wish to add? MR. LAPPER-Marc would probably like to say a few words. MR. NEWMAN-I would just like to say that I appreciate everybody’s input, participation and cooperation, and that we are very dedicated to the community to do a perfect project, and throughout the project, we will have people from our company on Staff, and if there’s ever an issue, I can either be notified or one of my Staff people will make sure that it’s corrected, and I think you’ll be very proud and pleased with the project that we’re going to bring to the community, and I again thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You said that you went back and met with the Beautification Committee again? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you give us a quick overview of what happened? MR. LAPPER-What they were concerned about, we had already added some extra screening at the request of the Board, along the northern most detention basin on Bay Road, on the west side of the project. That area is now 75 feet of buffer where we’re taking out pavement and putting this grassed area. They wanted some more plantings. What you have on the plan up there, you can see at a distance, is just some cluster of plants. We’ve now significantly increased the number of shrubs. We have a new site plan that we’ll be submitting for signature that provides that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I see the difference. MR. LAPPER-Right, where Jim is up on top, that’s what used to be there. MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, are there any measures that are going to be taken, even if they can be preserved, any of the trees that are currently on the site? MR. LAPPER-The problem is that we’re going to be filling, except for the area where the stream, we’re going to be filling the site six to seven feet. So it’s really not going to be possible. Even if we could take them out with a tree spade, they would have to sit while the thing is filled. They’re not going to survive, but what’s going to be planted along the parking lot are good sized maple trees and ash trees. So it’s going to be hardwood. It’s going to be good sized trees. At least three inch caliper to begin with when they’re planted. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all I had. MR. STARK-Okay. I guess we can entertain a motion, then to approve. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/16/97) MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have new drawings that have been submitted? MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve submitted new drawings, but there are three issues. We submit the final, Final, which includes all the agreements that are in the Findings. There are three things that we still have to add, which John will see before they’re signed by the Chairman. We have to put on the bicycle lane that we’ve agreed to, going from our site north. We have to indicate in a note that we’ll have the bus stop on our site, and the third one, the 20 foot connection, we’ll show where that’s going to be, to the site to the north, the parcel to the north, that’ll be on the final plan. So those have all been agreed to. You haven’t seen them yet, but that they will be on the final site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I would also recommend that in your motion you state that all the conditions of the Warren County Planning Board approval, Warren County Department of Public Works letter and Warren County Planning Department’s letter be complied with. MR. LAPPER-Which were all referred to in the County approval. MR. MAC EWAN-You said County Planning Board, County DOT, and what was the other one? MRS. LABOMBARD-Public Works. MR. SCHACHNER-Not DOT, Department of Public Works, and the Warren County Planning Staff. MR. LAPPER-All those letters are referred to in the Warren County Planning Board approval. It’s a condition to their approval, because we agreed to all those conditions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, L.L.C. , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For the development of a 120,931 square foot home improvement center and a 27,000 square foot garden center and a 12,000 square foot retail out parcel building, and that the conditions that the developer adhere to the approvals that were set forth by the County Planning Board and approvals granted by the County Department of Public Works. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. NEWMAN-Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, George Stark, Acting Chairman 46