Loading...
1998-04-21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER ROBERT PALING SENIOR PLANNER -SUSAN CIPPERLY PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 17, 1998: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 1998 , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 46-97 TYPE: UNLISTED CHARLIE’S OFFICE FURNITURE OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 5 HIGHLAND AVENUE MODIFICATION MODIFICATION TO EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN - MODIFICATION IS TO CHANGE 3600 SQ. FT. OF GRASS AREA TO GRAVEL AREA. TAX MAP NO. 110-7-1.1 LOT SIZE: 0.83 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 CHARLES MC NEIL, III, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-97, Charlie’s Office Furniture, Meeting Date: April 21, 1998 “The applicant proposes to modify an existing approved site plan to increase parking and loading space. The applicant has complied with the zoning requirements for setbacks and permeability. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-It still meets everything from the engineering reports, no problems or anything like that? Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MC NEIL-Charles McNeal the Third. I am the son of the owner of the property, and I have an authorization to act as his agent because he couldn’t be here tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and can you briefly explain to us what the purpose of the modification is? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. MC NEIL-There was an oversight on the first plan, and we didn’t recognize that the area in front of the ground level loading overhead door was put down as grass area, and it should have been put down as gravel area. MR. MAC EWAN-Is the graveled area that you’re referring to back on the portion going to go all the way to the fence line or are you going to stay off that fence line? It delineates it on here that you’re going to stay off the fence line. If I remember right, when we were out doing site visits, it goes all the way to the fence line. MR. MC NEIL-The fence is on the property, but the gravel is not going to go all the way to the fence line. MR. MAC EWAN-It is not going to go all the way? MR. MC NEIL-Not going to. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to maintain a portion of the grassed area? In other words, if you looked at the drawing, you’re all up against the trees. MR. MC NEIL-Yes. There will be grass. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to maintain, where it says “grass area”, will that be maintained as grass area? Because right now it’s all dirt. MR. MC NEIL-That’s been contracted to be seeded down next week, as far as I know, all the area around the building, that should be grass area. That will be seeded. MR. MAC EWAN-That was going to be my next question, because we noticed when we were up there on the back side of the retention pond and around that area. MR. MC NEIL-The whole back of the building has all been contracted to be seeded. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. When will that be done, do you know? MR. MC NEIL-I was told by my father next week. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And the bushes in the front, when are they going in? MR. MC NEIL-As far as I know, they were holding off on those because of the weather. They didn’t know if it would be warm enough yet. I know they’re supposed to go in some time in the, within the next coming month. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody else have any other questions? Staff any other comments? Does someone want to make a motion? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion to approve site plan no. 46-97, as modified by the letter. There’s no date on that, on the letter that we got from Charlie’s Office Furniture. So it’s going to have to be a letter of no date. MR. PALING-Is there a resolution? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing we’ve really got here is the letter requesting that. MR. MAC EWAN-Did he submit a revised site plan drawing? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You have that on file? MS. NOWICKI-You should also, all the Board members should have received one as well. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. VOLLARO-Is that the one with the yellow outline on it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STARK-Bob, when you make the resolution like this for modification, you’ve got to put in a SEQRA declaration that it’s not a significant impact. MR. MAC EWAN-The way you want to introduce it is as a modification to site plan no. 46-97, as written in the, how do you want to word this, so that it’s as written in the prepared resolution? MS. CIPPERLY-In the prepared resolution, it mentions a date of 3/25/98, that the application was received. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we just say, as written in the prepared resolution? MR. SCHACHNER-As long as you include the word “approved”, yes, and that the prepared resolution would be motion to, blank, approve or deny. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 46-97, CHARLIE’S OFFICE FURNITURE , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written, and there’s no significant change to the SEQRA determination. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification of Site Plan No. 46-97 to change 3600 sq. ft. of grass area to gravel area; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/25/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/cover letter. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held previously concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve modification to Site Plan No. 46-97. 2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. MC NEIL-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 7-98 TYPE: UNLISTED NOBLE TRUE VALUE OWNER: K. NOBLE & C. ST. ANDREWS ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: NOBLE TRUE VALUE, UPR. GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 32’ X 80’ TWO STORY WAREHOUSE ADDITION AND A 10’ X 130’ WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO EXISTING RETAIL BUSINESS. PER SECTION 179-22 ALL USES IN PC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 23-1989, AV 72-1995, AV 8-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/11/98 TAX MAP NO. 72- 6-24 LOT SIZE; 1.264 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 CHRIS ST. ANDREWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on March 24 was tabled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-98, Noble True Value, Meeting Date: April 21, 1998 “Site Plan No. 7-98 was tabled from the previous Planning Board meeting. The applicant has addressed the Rist Frost comments of March 17, 1998. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Chris St. Andrews, Noble True Value. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the first question I need to ask you is I think maybe there was, something fell through the line here. We thought we were going to get another site plan drawing that was going to show the location of two drywells on it, and I think someone on the Board even asked for an elevation of the back portion of that shed addition, and I’m not correct on that, folks? My notes said that that’s what we asked for. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. The first thing, well, let me start with the second one first, maybe. The elevation that I don’t have for you, I thought that we were just wondering how high it was going to be, and I was saying it was no taller than the barrel already is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Yes. I thought that’s what we agreed to. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Maybe I wrote that note before we came to that conclusion then. MR. ST. ANDREWS-And the first one, the reason that we changed it in our, in the narrative that came back to you was because I had a few construction people look at it, and O’Connor Paving came over and looked at it, and they just thought it wasn’t necessary to have two when the calculations were made up. MR. MAC EWAN-The down side of that is that was part of your motion for approval for your zoning variance. That was part of the motion that the ZBA gave you for that variance. So if they ask for two of them, according to the drawing that you submitted as part of that application, I would think we need to have both of them as part of the site plan approval as well. If it came down that you didn’t need one, and your engineering says you only needed to have one, then I would think you’d have no other recourse but to go back to the ZBA and ask them to modify that approval. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. ST. ANDREWS-And then I’d be coming back to you again, too? MR. MAC EWAN-Like a tennis match. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, I need to move on. So, I’ll put two. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. ST. ANDREWS-If that’s, if I understand this right. MR. STARK-Wait a second. Mark, if they require two, you know, and the engineering says he only needs one, why can’t we just go ahead with one? MR. SCHACHNER-Is the “they” you’re referring to the Zoning Board of Appeals? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And that was a provision of a variance that was granted? MR. STARK-Yes, well, they didn’t have the engineering study done at that point. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they did. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they did. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, whether they did or not, if they didn’t, it might be appropriate for the applicant to seek a modification from the Zoning Board of Appeals, but this Board doesn’t have the legal authority to change or vary something that’s in a Zoning Board of Appeals resolution of variance. MR. BREWER-The other question that I have is maybe, I don’t know. The letter we got today from the engineer says that everything was addressed on the drawing. Did we get a new copy of the drawing? MR. ST. ANDREWS-A new drawing like the plot plan drawing? MR. BREWER-That shows that all the changes and what not? MS. NOWICKI-All I have are the calculations. MR. ST. ANDREWS-The calculations and everything were what I hope you got, anyway. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-I got the calculations, but I thought I saw. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, there’s one on the retaining wall. That was another question we haven’t really gotten to yet, but there’s a drawing of that also. MR. BREWER-I guess that’s Chris St. Andrews. MR. ST. ANDREWS-That’s me. MR. BREWER-I guess this is your letter then. It says a 10 by 130 addition to a single story addition. This has been noted on the plan. All new paved areas have been noted on the plan. I guess I, the plan, I guess, is what I’m missing. MR. VOLLARO-This is the previous plan that they submitted to us. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s the document they’re talking to. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. ST. ANDREWS-No, I did not, I don’t think John drew up another plan, or made any additions to the plan. MR. BREWER-Do we have a plan on file that shows all these changes? That’s my concern. MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. BREWER-We should, shouldn’t we? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, but you can make that a condition of approval, because they have to be signed by both, if there were any more additional changes that you were going to make. MR. BREWER-But normally, don’t we have a plan before we approve things? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ve done in the past, Tim, where we’ve given approvals with conditions to it, and that the conditions are contingent upon, when it comes time to get the plat signed, they all have to be on there, and so we’ll just have to make sure we keep a laundry list, and make sure they’re all addressed. MR. BREWER-I just want him to be aware that everything’s going to be on there. That’s all. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right. I mean, could I do that for the building plan that I submit to Dave Hatin, then? MR. BREWER-That’s fine, as long as everything you show on your letter is on the plan that you put into the file. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay. It sure will be. MR. MAC EWAN-And that plan will be submitted to the Planning Department for, you know, should you get approval, that’ll be signed off on. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’ll have to have all those things addressed on there, but just getting back very quickly to the drywells. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Two drywells, and if you wanted to go to the ZBA and ask them for a modification of the approval, go ahead. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I understand. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody up here have any questions? MR. PALING-I just have one detail question. What’s the date of John Goralski’s letter that we received today? MS. NOWICKI-On 4/13/98. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Could, for Staff’s benefit, and the public’s benefit, could we have that made as part of the official record, John’s letter? And I’d also like your fax to me today made part of the record. MS. NOWICKI-I need yours to re-do that. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have a copy? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll give you my copy. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MS. NOWICKI-This is John Goralski’s letter. MR. MAC EWAN-John Goralski’s letter part of the record. The fax today to me part of the th record, and the April 20 letter from Rist-Frost to Chris Round as part of the record, as well. MS. NOWICKI-Craig, do you want these read into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s necessary to read them into the record, as long as we make them part of the record. It’s just housekeeping stuff, more or less. Does anyone else have any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-I have one. It probably hinges on what you just said, but in the Rist-Frost letter, they talk about a detailed description from contour map of the existing drainage patterns. Now, I noticed in John’s letter, he talked about, he described the drainage on that lot, and that the high point was 20 foot south of the building. It’s pretty hard to tell from this drawing. I think you’ve got to put that on the drawing, some contour or some notes about the fact that it drains off to Route 9 and it drains off to Old Aviation Road, and that kind of sets up how that drainage occurs. Because Rist-Frost is asking for that in their letter. They’re asking for at least some contour to show that you’ve got a high point on that lot that drains this way. MR. BREWER-I thought last month we talked about the four items that had to be on the drawing, and is that what you did? You went away with that list, I think. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes, I gave it to John. MR. BREWER-I still have it if you want it, and the contours were one of the items, Number Five on last month’s note, wasn’t it? MR. VOLLARO-No. It was Number One on Rist-Frost’s letter. MR. BREWER-I’m sorry, Number One. MR. MAC EWAN-Because I had written down, my own notes said that we were looking for an elevation the fence, the wall, the drywells, and Items One, Three, and Five of the Rist-Frost letter to be addressed. MR. BREWER-I thought One, Two, Three and Five, is what I’ve got marked. MR. VOLLARO-See, the design for the proposed drywells is included in Goralski’s mathematics. He has a set of math that show the retention level of those wells and their volume levels, and I looked at that. So that answers Number Two okay. The elevation, size and construction details on the proposed retaining wall, that’s also in John’s supplement. So I think that’s been answered. Details of the proposed changes for the entrance from Aviation Road, I don’t think there is any. MR. BREWER-No, we crossed that off. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now construction details of paving and retaining wall is also in John’s. The only thing that’s missing, as I see it, in answer to the Rist-Frost letter, is a detailed description of the contour map of existing drainage patterns. Now it says a detailed description or contour map. It looks like what John took was the detailed description and it verbally talked to the drainage on that side of the lot, but that’s, I read that a few times, and he just said, well, this is the way that water goes. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, there’s really no water problem here. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. That’s not really going to apply in this case because we’ve already asked for two drywells. We’re getting it, based on previously done engineering. So we don’t really need to address that. He’s re-addressing this thing because he’s trying to sway us on the belief that only one drywell is needed, and that’s just not germane to what we’re doing. Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? No? Does someone want to introduce a motion? Before we do that, lets do a public hearing. We left the public hearing open. Does anybody want to make comments or address an application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll close the public hearing. We need to do a SEQRA. MS. NOWICKI-No, you do not. You completed a SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we do not? MS. NOWICKI-You completed the SEQRA the last time. MR. MAC EWAN-Why would we complete the SEQRA and leave the public hearing open? MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, you can legally or technically do that. I don’t have my notes from last time, but that sounds right. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t think we did. Did we? MR. PALING-It says it was tabled. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have the notes right here. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t normally do it. We did do it, though? MS. NOWICKI-You completed SEQRA, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. STARK-I’ll make a motion to approve site plan no. 7-98, Noble True Value, as written. MR. MAC EWAN-Amend that just a little bit that two drywells are required, per the Zoning Board of Appeals variance. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That the outstanding engineering issues be put on the plat prior to its signature, meaning the two drywells have to be delineated. Are we looking for the construction detail of the retaining wall? MR. BREWER-That’s what we asked them for last month. MR. MAC EWAN-Construction detail of the retaining wall. MR. STARK-You have that, don’t you? MS. NOWICKI-I have that. MS. CIPPERLY-We have that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it on the drawing? MR. BREWER-She has all the things that we asked for last month, which were those right there. MR. MAC EWAN-Read them off, and make sure that we’re covered. MR. BREWER-They were numbered, One, Two, Three and Five. A detailed description of contour of existing drainage patterns, including any flow or from adjacent areas and proposed changes. Do we have that? MS. NOWICKI-Tim, did you receive what Maria dropped off today? MR. BREWER-Yes, the letter from John? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. MS. NOWICKI-If you look at all four of those pages, the last page shows you a construction of the retaining wall. MR. BREWER-I’m just asking if we have it. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-Because Craig asked which ones they were. We do have One? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-We had the design basis for the drywells. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-That’s a moot point anyway because of the. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Because we’re going to go with what the ZBA approval was. MR. BREWER-Elevations and construction details. We have that on here, too? MS. NOWICKI-I don’t have elevations. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Board felt comfortable that we didn’t need the elevations. We determined that’s fine, that it wasn’t going to exceed the height of the original building. MR. BREWER-And the construction details of the paving and the retaining wall, and we’ve got that. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got that, yes. MR. BREWER-And the fence, that was the only other thing that we asked for. MR. VOLLARO-And the fence is also described in the. MR. BREWER-Okay. We don’t need any other things, anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-It was just the drywells. MR. MAC EWAN-Just the drywells delineated on that. Do we have a second? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-98 NOBLE TRUE VALUE , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bob Vollaro: As written, and that two drywells are required, per the Zoning Board of Appeals variance. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 7-98, Noble True Value for construction of a 32’ x 80’ 2 story warehouse addition and a 10’ x 130’ warehouse addition to existing retail business; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 2/25/98, consists of the following: 1. Application. 2. Map titled Noble True Value Addition revised 3/8/98. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) 1. 2/26/98 - Letter from C. Round to C. St. Andrews requesting clarifications and/or additions. 2. 2/27/98 - Letter from J. Saxe - adjacent owner 3. 3/5/98 - Meeting Notice letter 4. 3/8/98 - Letter to C. Round from C. St. Andrews in response to letter of 2/26/98. 5. 3/10/98 - Letter to C. St. Andrews from S. Macey - adjacent owner 6. 3/11/98 - Warren Co. Planning Board resolution - Approved 7. 3/17/98 - Rist-Frost comments 8. 3/18/98 - Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals resolution 9. 3/24/98 - Staff Notes 10. 3/27/98 - Letter to C. St. Andrews from L. Nowicki 11. 4/13/98 - J. Goralski to L. Nowicki in response to 3/27/98 letter. 12. 4/21/98 - Rist-Frost comments 13. 4/21/98 - Staff notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/24/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 7-98 - NOBLE TRUE VALUE 2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the site plan approval process. 7. Engineering fees to be paid before C/O is issued. st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Mac Ewan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay. Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-98 TYPE II MRS. SALLIE A. BRANDT OWNER: SALLIE A. BRANDT ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR A DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION CENTER FOR NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, PAPERS. ALL USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 80-1995, SP 74-95 WARREN CO. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) PLANNING: 4/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 126-1-60, 61, 62 LOT SIZE: 6.83 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-98, Mrs. Sallie A. Brandt, Meeting Date: April 21, 1998 “The applicant proposes to house a distribution service - Burns News - in an existing building. All uses in LI zones require site plan review. A distribution service is consistent with the allowed uses in this zone. The applicant has addressed site issues on the property. There is no proposed change in the landscaping. The site has adequate parking for this use and there are no anticipated circulation problems. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-All engineering and such has been addressed, no problems? MS. NOWICKI-No problems. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. LEVACK-Mark Levack, from Levack Real Estate, applicant for Sallie & Paul Brandt, or agent, and also here on behalf of Burns News. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you give us a brief description, if you would, please, of what the intended use is, or the current use? MR. LEVACK-The proposed use is a paper and magazine reclamation and distribution area. They have 13 step vans/econo line vans that deliver the papers from this location, also pick up the unpurchased papers and they have a corrugating machine, or a bin, and they bundle them and then send them off for recycling, and they’re mostly active in the morning around five o’clock. The vans are out, and they’re usually done by 12, and I believe they have need for two, one primarily, but potentially two tractor trailers to be stored on site, and they have one employee working in the 3,750 square foot section of the building, and the rest of the property is shared in common with the chicken coop forge. There’s a small foundry in a back 2,200 square foot building. Glens Falls Kennel Club occupies the majority of the 6,440 square foot main building, and the other storage building to the west, 2,824 square foot building, is mostly parts storage for West Mountain Ski Center, and there’s an existing frame house that’s occupied by a tenant. The building, as you know, was West Mountain Tractor Sales. It did go bankrupt, and the Brandts have managed to hold on to the building, and through some marginal leasing, they’ve been able to keep the building above water, so to speak, and the property above water. They definitely have a plan to stain the weathered board and batten exterior this year, and dress up the front with some additional landscaping, and probably put some more crushed gravel in the driveway in certain areas that are really dirt travel ways right now. I think this year is going to be a nice turn around year for the property because of this tenant, and the fact that all four buildings are leased right now. The cash flow is getting to the point where they have some funds to start to make some improvements in the building. So we’re hopeful that you’re going to see some new landscaping, and the front of the building has sort of an unsightly concrete block exterior, and the goal is to just take some T111 siding and put it over the block, so that it looks very similar to the former Catone Kitchen manufacturing building right across the street, and then once the property’s all stained, and some landscaping is added, I think it will look 1,000% better than it looks right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody up here have any questions? MR. PALING-Yes, I’ve got a question. The site issues are the ones that are contained in your letter to Mark Levack. Is that what you mean in your Staff Notes? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. PALING-But we don’t have much of a detailed plan on any of this, a general landscape plan, and evidently you’re indicating, Mark, that there’s going to be, but we don’t have a schedule, and we don’t know what the plantings are. MR. LEVACK-Right. They just planned on putting some bushes in the planter boxes directly in front of the large 6400 square foot building, and they don’t have a plan detailed on that yet right now, but I’m here to tell you that due to this recent tenant, the cash flow figures have improved, 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) and it is their goal this year to make those improvements, but they don’t show up on this plan because we just talked about that yesterday. MR. PALING-Well, this falls in the area of, I guess, feel good language, we’ve learned from the past. If we’re requiring plantings and all, we should have a plan for it. If not, if we can accept this, then okay, but they’re not bound by it, by any means. MR. LEVACK-We don’t have to be bound by it. I’m just here to say that they plan on doing it. I was giving you an overview of the property and where things stand, and it’s basically using an existing building for a permitted use, and because it’s Light Industrial, we’re required to be here for site plan approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us why it’s occupied before the approval was granted? MR. LEVACK-Timing. MR. MAC EWAN-Timing? MR. LEVACK-Yes. They were getting kicked out of where they were, and they had nowhere to go. So, unfortunately, they were out on the street without a roof over their head. So that’s why they ended up in this property. MR. RINGER-The tractor trailers that you were talking about for storage, they’re going to be permanent tractor trailers there, or are they going to be there and filled, and then moved, and then other trailers brought in? MR. LEVACK-I think they’re going to be there more on a permanent basis without the cab attached to them, but my understanding is that they will leave the site. On occasion when they get filled up, then they take them off the site, and then they bring back an empty trailer to put the. MR. RINGER-Where I’ve seen that before, where they’ve just used tractor trailers for storage, and don’t move them out, those trailers. MR. LEVACK-No. This is definitely to store the recycled process in a staging area for departure from the site to a recycle area. MR. MAC EWAN-Will those trailers always be parked out in front? MR. LEVACK-No. They’re actually shown as being parked in the rear. MR. MAC EWAN-I know, I drive there every day, and they’re usually parked right out in front. MR. LEVACK-Yes. That was because the Kennel Club had a, are you saying the step vans or the tractor trailers? MR. MAC EWAN-The tractor trailers. The trailers are parked out in front. MR. LEVACK-The tractor trailer, to my understanding, they’re supposed to be in the back by the chicken coop forge. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not. They’re always out front. MR. LEVACK-Okay. Well, then that’s not reflective of this plan, and they should be moved out back, but my understanding was they were moved out front because the Kennel Club had a show, and the Kennel Club wanted the back area for parking because that’s primarily their main entrance. MR. MAC EWAN-I can tell you those tractor trailers have been out front since the day those guys occupied that building. MR. LEVACK-Okay. Then they show up on this plan as having to be out back. The landlords, Paul and Sallie Brandt, it’s their understanding that that’s where they were to be. I’ve never heard of anything otherwise. So if they have to be moved to be put to where they’re reflective on this plan, I don’t see a problem with that. MR. BREWER-Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-It would make it difficult, only because that Kennel Club operates primarily in the evenings when they do their training classes. MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-And if those two trailers, which it’s usually two trailers parked there, are parked out in front, with no tractor on the front of them, just the trailers are there up on their jack wheels, that it would make it difficult because I know that Kennel Club is very busy there during the evenings when they’re running their classes, and it’s difficult enough if you’re taking away approximately 10 or 12 parking places that people could utilize out front, that puts a hamper on things. So if they can be, it will make, if everyone wants, a part of that motion, that the trailers be kept out back. MR. LEVACK-I mean, it would just mean that the Kennel Club people would have to park out front and walk out back. MR. MAC EWAN-They go in that side door anyway, on the front. MR. LEVACK-Right. There’s the same amount of parking on site, in the improved area, whether they’re parking in the back or in the front, but I agree with you, that box trailer should not be kept in a travel corridor on site. They should be out back. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there some sort of fire door or security door between the Burns News side and the Kennel Club in that little walkway? Is there something that keeps people from going back and forth between? MR. LEVACK-There are two doors, one at the outside wall of each building, I believe. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does Staff know, offhand, is there any kind of requirements for the fire code or anything regarding this kind of a situation? MS. CIPPERLY-Before they occupy it, in theory, that would have to be addressed, but I know when the Kennel Club went in there, it was reviewed. MR. BREWER-They’d probably have to put a fire door there on the inside of that. MR. LEVACK-Yes. They had to put some panic bars and some emergency lighting up, and they did that. I think, isn’t that the situation where Kip just shows up and issues a checklist for them, and then he says I’ll be back in two weeks, and he’s back in two weeks and the panic bar’s on and the fire extinguishers are where they’re supposed to be? MR. BREWER-Hopefully. MR. LEVACK-Yes. MR. BREWER-Maintenance on the vehicles. Are they going to perform? MR. LEVACK-They perform no maintenance on the vehicles on site. No maintenance on site. MR. BREWER-Okay. Another thing is, I got a call about 6:15 from Frank Usher, who lives across the street. He doesn’t have a problem with the use. The only thing he has a problem with is the tractor trailers when they come in at night. They come in for, I presume, to unload and load, but they leave the trailers running, the tractors running, two o’clock in the morning, three o’clock in the morning. MR. LEVACK-Yes. That’s not very courteous. They do that because they’re diesels and they can run all night. MR. BREWER-I mean, he understands if it was a refrigeration truck, fine, but he doesn’t see a need to keep the newspapers cold. Is there anything you can do about that? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. LEVACK-I can certainly address it with Burns News, and I don’t think that neighbors should have to listen to tractor trailers idling. MR. BREWER-I agree. I just told him that I would mention it at the meeting and see if there was something we could do about it. MR. LEVACK-Well, I’ll talk to Burns and see what they have to say about that. I know, I don’t know why they would have to do it. MR. BREWER-I don’t know. He said that they come in late at night, early in the morning, and leave them running sometimes hours at a time. MR. LEVACK-I mean, if they’re loading and unloading, they’re going to be there running. They’re not going to turn them off, but if they’re parking it overnight, and leaving it running, I think that’s a different issue. MR. BREWER-I don’t know, Mark. MR. LEVACK-What’s this person’s name? MR. BREWER-Frank Usher. He lives right on the corner. MR. STARK-The green house. MR. LEVACK-I’ll give him a call. MR. BREWER-I don’t know if it’s green. Yes, I guess it is. MR. LEVACK-I can give him a call and we can work that out. MR. BREWER-Okay. The only reason I asked about, getting back to the maintenance, is because I know Burns, prior to when they were here, they did do maintenance down to the other building. I don’t know if that’s an issue with us or not, if they are going to perform it. MR. LEVACK-I was told that they would not be performing maintenance on site. I mean, if they were to change an oil on a step van, if they were to bring it inside the building to change the oil, that’s probably the extent of any maintenance. MR. BREWER-I’m talking about maintenance for a fleet. Because that’s what they did down on Newcomb Street. MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t want to see any maintenance of any kind going on up there. They’re not equipped to do it. MR. LEVACK-Well, it’s light industrially zoned property. It is a permitted use. I don’t see them doing it outside. The only thing I was under the understanding that they might change oil, if that’s considered maintenance on a vehicle, to change oil, that they would do that inside. MR. MAC EWAN-Permitted use is one thing. Being equipped to do it up there is another thing. I mean, how are they going to store the oil? Do they have mechanisms in place to be able to do that? MR. BREWER-Well, if they’re not going to do it, Craig, the man says they’re not going to do it, we’ll put it in the motion that they’re not going to do maintenance. MR. LEVACK-Yes. I was told that they would be doing no maintenance on site, but don’t know, is oil change considered maintenance? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes, that’s minor, but only from experience, Mark. I know that Burns, it changes engines, transmissions, I mean, they have a lot of vehicles, and that’s a concern that I have. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. LEVACK-All I can say is I was told that they would not be doing any maintenance on site. I’d like to reserve, I guess, an oil change, because that seems to be a pretty, they’re just kept in 55 gallon drums and then waste oil companies come and take the oil away. I don’t know that there’s any special container required for changing motor oil and having it taken off site, as long as it’s kept in a. MR. BREWER-Well, there’s a difference if you do it at your house, or you have 50 vehicles and you’re doing it every day. I mean, you’re going to accumulate more than if you did it at your home or I did it at my home. MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. BREWER-That’s the concern. MR. LEVACK-I guess we’d have to find out how many oil drums would accumulate over time, whether or not it’s even an issue. MR. BREWER-I don’t have a problem with it, as long as we know. MR. LEVACK-They have 13 step vans that they’d be changing oil for, at the most. MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind, unless they have provisions up there to do maintenance, just like a garage would be able to do maintenance and have the provisions to store the stuff, dispose of the stuff. I don’t want to see any maintenance going on up there. That’s my feelings. MR. BREWER-That’s exactly what they had at Maille’s place. They had a lift and they had. MR. LEVACK-Yes. That’s definitely not the case for this. I’m just trying to reserve for the tenant the ability to change oil there. I mean, I’m certainly happy to come back next month and get permission to change oil and tell you they’re going to be storing four 55 gallon drums for a few days. I mean, whatever, if we can quantify the amount of oil drums that are going to be needed to be retained on site and when they’re going to be removed, I could quantify that for you and come back, but I don’t think we should. MR. BREWER-Why don’t we find out. Can you contact somebody at Burns and see what they’re plans are to do? MR. LEVACK-Sure. MR. BREWER-Come back to us and find out if they’re going to. MR. MAC EWAN-Or, if we should approve this thing tonight, that we can approve it with conditions that no maintenance be done, and if you feel that maintenance is going to be part of the operations of this place, you can always come in and ask for a modification to the site plan. MR. LEVACK-Sure. MR. BREWER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-I have just one question. I guess mine is for Staff, Laura’s, it’s on your letter to Mark, the last one clarification is needed on the site development data sheet, that we do the calculations on 1.64 acres. I didn’t see that done on the latest data sheet. MR. LEVACK-I was going with Laura’s higher, because there’s six acres there, and we’re well, well below the ratios, I went with the Town’s figures, the higher figures. We conceded to those figures. MR. VOLLARO-All right, and then, looking at the length of the frontage, and I guess this is a very minor item, but it says 558 feet, and I can’t make 558 feet out of any of those dimensions. MR. LEVACK-Yes. I guess that’s, they also own this corner property right here. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at that. That doesn’t add up to 558 either. MR. LEVACK-Okay. Well, I’ll check those figures again, but I think it’s close. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. PALING-Okay. I don’t see that we have a detail enough on this. I’m going to abstain. I don’t see enough detail. MR. LEVACK-I’ll bring a landscaping plan back next month. MR. PALING-Well, if we’re asking for it in the letter, and we hold one applicant responsible for it, how do we not hold somebody else responsible? I don’t understand that. MR. BREWER-I agree. Why don’t we list the items that we want, Bob, that you have a concern with, and have him come back next week? MR. PALING-Well, I’m going by Laura’s letter, and she said these have been addressed, and Mark is saying, well, we’re going to do it. Well, hey, I just don’t think we normally accept that kind of an answer from anybody. MR. LEVACK-I was under the understanding that it wasn’t required. So, if I said nothing here this evening, it wouldn’t have even been an issue. MR. PALING-All right, then maybe that’s the better way to leave it. MR. LEVACK-Well, I’d be happy to leave it that way, but I’m just being a little more informative than I have to, I suppose. MR. PALING-Well, then I’m confused by Laura’s letter. She said these are addressed. They should be addressed in detail and on a plan, but if they’re not necessary, if we’re rescinding them, okay. MR. LEVACK-Right. That was my understanding. MR. PALING-But right now they’re in the letter. MR. BREWER-What are the ones you’re concerned with, Bob? MR. PALING-Well, go to the second page, location of the dumpster, outdoor storage, septic, proposed outdoor lighting, utilities and sign, screening of the dumpster, and so on. MR. BREWER-Well, then we ought to have that. MR. PALING-Well, that’s what my point is. It’s here, and we’re really not addressing it. MR. BREWER-The landscape plan, if there is none, then I can live without having that. MR. PALING-How about screening of the dumpster. There is no dumpster. MR. BREWER-That’s a requirement. That has to be done. MR. PALING-All right. MR. LEVACK-Is there even a dumpster out there at this present time? MR. PALING-That’s the problem. I don’t see a dumpster. MR. BREWER-Are you going to have one? MR. LEVACK-I don’t think there was ever a plan to have any outside dumpster anyway, at this point. MR. PALING-Well, why do we have it in the letter? MR. BREWER-I don’t know. Ask the lady who wrote it. MS. NOWICKI-I asked him, and there was no plan for a dumpster. So it was a question to the applicant, and the applicant addressed it. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. BREWER-Outdoor storage, none? MS. NOWICKI-None. MR. LEVACK-No outdoor storage. MR. BREWER-Outdoor lighting facilities? If they’re here at night, they’re not going to have any lights? MR. LEVACK-They’re shown on the plan, the light on the front of the Burns News building. There is also a light on the northeast corner of the building. There’s another light shown on the back of the Kennel Club building. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, this compactor thing that you spoke of earlier in your presentation, isn’t that located out in the back of the building, it’s on the outside? MR. LEVACK-I don’t believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s inside? MR. LEVACK-There was an old tenant that was there that was removing some debris, and that was supposed to have been taken off by now. If there’s a dumpster out there, it may be the. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about your compactor. MR. LEVACK-That’s inside. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s inside. MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, based on what seems to be everyone’s concerns up here, or a good majority of people’s concerns up here, I guess mine as well, maybe the right course to do would be to table this thing for one week, put you on for next week, and in the meantime, you find out from your clients what the intentions are going to be about servicing the vehicles up there. MR. LEVACK-Right. I agreed to come back next month on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Agreed to come back next month. MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. BREWER-Can’t we do it next week? MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the problem, tabling this and getting you to address all these issues? MR. LEVACK-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we do that? MR. LEVACK-I suppose. MR. BREWER-I mean, it’s not like we’re stopping you from doing anything. You’re there. MR. LEVACK-Right. That’s fine. MS. CIPPERLY-Is there a scheduling problem or something? MR. LEVACK-Yes, a little bit, but I can work around it. That’s okay. MR. PALING-Then lets revise this letter that’s addressed to Mark, and if we’re asking him to do something, then we’d ask you to do it, but if we’re not, lets leave it out. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets go right down the line. Are we all set on the boundary lines, parcel 126-1-60? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. PALING-Proposed parking. We don’t have to do that, I don’t think. MR. MAC EWAN-The parking’s already delineated. MR. PALING-Yes, I don’t have a problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, that’s done. Loading areas, pick up and drop off points, those should be delineated to show the employee customer entrance and loading docks. It should just be delineated on your plan. MS. NOWICKI-They are. MR. MAC EWAN-They are already. MR. PALING-That’s all right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Got it, done. MR. PALING-The uses are there. That’s okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So we need to locate the dumpsters, and I think when we went on site visits, I believe we did see a dumpster out back, and that’s. MR. LEVACK-I think they were temporary. They were clearing some stuff out of there. I’ll check on that for you. MR. MAC EWAN-All businesses produce rubbish and garbage and trash. So if we can do it. You’re going to also find out from the tenants their exact intent of what extent of maintenance you’re going to do, and how they’re going to provide for it. We already, I think you got an indication on the record tonight of the hours of operation, and, you know, I think I would like you, for me, is to delineate on your plat the tractor trailer parking in the rear of the building, so it’s clear. MR. BREWER-It’s out there, isn’t it? It’s right next to the chicken coop. Isn’t that what that’s for? MR. LEVACK-They were tucked back in the side near the chicken coop forge. MR. MAC EWAN-On either side of it, flanking it? MR. LEVACK-That’s what it’s showing on the plan. That’s what they talked about. MR. BREWER-It says one delivery truck on the left as you’re looking at the plan, and two on the right. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, well, okay. Delivery trucks and tractor trailers, I guess it’s the terminology. MR. LEVACK-It’s the same thing. That parking space, the size of that space, is for a tractor trailer. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to address that, at least, with your tenants? MR. LEVACK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That we don’t want them parking in front of the building. MR. LEVACK-Correct. MS. CIPPERLY-Under operating hours, did you want to include the idling in operation? MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe what you could do is get clarification on that, on their delivery schedules, when these tractor trailers come in, so maybe how we can figure out how we can address that. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. LEVACK-Yes. MR. BREWER-He said he was going to talk to the neighbor. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Does anyone have anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I think you want to delete the last one that says clarifications needed on the site development data sheet. That 1.64 acres is no longer applicable, is that correct? MS. NOWICKI-That is correct. He’s working with the two parcels. MR. VOLLARO-So that can be deleted. MR. LEVACK-No, we’re working with, I thought we were working with the one. It’s eight acres all together, and our site plan is only regarding six acres. They are two separate tax parcels with two separate tax ID’s. So our site plan approval is only for 126-1-61 and 60. Actually, then there’s three parcels that the Brandts own. Ours is only on the two. MR. VOLLARO-You’re only doing the calculations on 6.83 acres? Is that correct? MR. LEVACK-Correct, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Then your math is all right. I understand that. MR. BREWER-If you are going to do a landscaping, just ask the Brandts if they plan to put a plan. If not, fine. If they are, we should have a plan, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. LEVACK-Sure. MR. PALING-Okay, but the second page, you better revise or re-look at the first two paragraphs, including the general landscape that Tim is talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Which one are you talking about, Bob? Show the location of the dumpster? Is that one you want to look at? MR. PALING-That whole paragraph. MR. VOLLARO-I can pick out of this drawing everything but the dumpster. MR. PALING-Then they should remove the dumpster from it or else if it’s going to be in it, then lets see it on the print. MR. MAC EWAN-We already asked him. We’re going to delineate it. Okay. MR. LEVACK-Yes. MR. BREWER-You’ve got a list, right, Craig, so we can have the same list next week when we come in? MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to read off the list? I wrote it down. MR. BREWER-No. I mean, just make sure we’ve got a list, so next week when he comes in, we have everything covered. MR. MAC EWAN-Dumpster location, delineate the tractor trailer parking, so it won’t be out front. It will be out back. MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Hours of operation, which you verbally said you will put in the form of a letter. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Maintenance operations, the intent and the storage capabilities and disposal capabilities, and the landscaping plan. MR. LEVACK-Correct. MS. NOWICKI-Craig, do you want a new drawing as well? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, really what he’s going to do I think they’re just going to revise this particular drawing, which shouldn’t take much. MS. NOWICKI-So you want nine new copies? MR. LEVACK-That’s not a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re looking for, because that’s the one we’re going to stamp. MR. BREWER-We’re not going to stamp nine copies. Why don’t we just. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the requirements, nine copies, so everyone will have one, so nobody will be calling me next Tuesday and say, how come I didn’t get a copy of the drawing. MR. BREWER-Yes, but on the same hand, Craig, we didn’t do it on the last application. We didn’t get a drawing on that. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re getting it taken care of. MR. LEVACK-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Mark, thank you. What I’ll do is I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll leave the public hearing open. Next item. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAELS GROUP LEHLAND ESTATES, PHASE II OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: EAST SIDE WEST MT. RD. TO LEHLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES FINAL STAGE FOR PHASE II - 31 LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 74- 2-999, 74-1-32, 33 LOT SIZE: 37.57 ACRES SECTION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was on March 24. Was it left open? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-86, Final Stage, Phase II, Michaels Group - Lehland Estates, Meeting Date: April 21, 1998 “The applicant proposes final subdivision approval for Phase II of Lehland Estates. A waiver has been requested from the subdivision regulation requirement that 60% of the previous phase (Phase I) has certificates of occupancy before final approval of each additional phase. The elimination of the play area in the preliminary plan was the only change requested. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re all set with engineering and everything else. Would you identify yourselves for the record. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Dave Michaels, Jim Miller and Tom Nace. Even though the public hearing is closed, we would ask that you allow one of the neighbors, David King, to speak on the record, because he had some concerns when we were here last time, and we have since, Dave has had many meetings with him, and we have satisfied his concerns, and we would just like to put that on the record, for the Board’s sake. MR. MAC EWAN-No problem. MR. LAPPER-And Jim’s going to go through the final subdivision of changes that we made. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-Good evening. We’ve brought along for reference the plan that was presented last month. Some of the Board members that weren’t here, Phase I is the tan area. That is partially built out. We came in last month, and got preliminary approval for Phase II, which is this area above the red line, and for Phase III, which is the continuation of the loop, all total was 100 lots in Phase II and III. There were a couple of modifications. As you can see on this plan, there was some consideration for a playground which was eliminated, and what I’d like to just go over a couple of the changes that have happened, and you can see from the over all plan, we’re looking at Phase II. What we’ve actually done, we’ve modified the limit of Phase II a little bit. Because we were having some ongoing negotiations with Mr. King, Mr. King’s lot is Lot 23, in Phase I, and the concern with Mr. King was the buffer area to the rear of his lot. So what we did, while we were negotiating with Mr. King is we shifted the lot line up in Phase II. So we actually reduced Phase II from 31 lots down to 30 lots. Also, I’ll skip to another plan. It just shows a Phase II. It’s a little clearer. There were two situations that we, that were uncovered, with some additional, during some additional surveying, one of the reasons we didn’t pick up an additional lot is there is an encroachment in this upper corner, where a neighbor has constructed a house on the property line, and what we have done is expanded the Lot 47 so additional land will be transferred to the adjoining neighbor to resolve that encroachment issue, and that’s being taken care of. As I said, this lot line was shifted up. Lot 77 was eliminated, and one of the other things that was discussed last month was with Rist-Frost comment was grading in this area. There was a depression in this center portion of the loop road, and if you remember Lot 69 was where the playground was, and as part of that playground, we had a drainage easement. So what we’ve shown here is filling that depressed area, and then because we have to clear it to fill, we’re showing some street tree planting on both sides, both fronts of the lots facing the street. In addition, we’re showing some screened planting of some deciduous trees and some pine trees, down the center, and this is above, in addition to what The Michaels Group normally does for the landscaping on each lot, and you recall that we talked about grading at this intersection, was another area where we had to do some clearing to accommodate grading for the roads and for the drainage, and we’ve shown some additional street tree planting in that area. The rest of this tree cover that you see here, and it shows what will remain as the lots are sold. So predominantly the sites will be treed. MR. PALING-What’s the effect on the total number of lots, doing this? MR. MILLER-Well, what we’re going to do is reduce it by one. I think we had approval in preliminary for 100 additional lots. So original what we were going to do is decrease Phase II, but add it to Phase III, but as I will go on and discuss, one of the lots ended up being deleted. So we’re going to have one less lot in Phase II, and Phase III will stay 23 as it was approved in the preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-Is the deleted lot 77, is that? MR. MILLER-No, it’s not. I’ll show you how that works. They actually end up getting re- numbered. Mr. King is Lot 23, right here, in Phase I. Lot 24 is a vacant lot owned by The Michaels Group. You can see, the only thing that changes in Phase II as a result of this negotiation, is Lot 75 and 76, the line’s shifted a little bit to accommodate some of the negotiations. So they’re slightly smaller. Lot 75 is .47 acres, and Lot 76 will be .46 acres. There were three lots here, which on the old plan was 77, 78, 79. Essentially, what was previously 78, the middle lot, was eliminated, and what’s happened is those three lots were combined into two, and what we’re trying to do, if you remember the old plan, the conceptual plan that was approved, there was a triangular area back here that was a stormwater detention basin that was not going to have a house 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) there, and one of the concerns, as you can see from the sketch, Mr. King’s home is fairly close to that rear lot line. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the one that’s labeled no disturb zone? Is that what we’re talking about? MR. MILLER-That’s what you’re looking at. If you see the hatched area on your plan, that is the green area here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-So what we did is we were trying to have a no disturb zone, making those lots bigger so that we could still have a usable footprint for a house lot, but create a large no disturbance zone that mimicked the triangular shape that was there before. In some of this discussion, Mr. King was concerned how we would control that, and what Dave Michaels has agreed to do is this area in green, I think 17,300 and some square feet will be conveyed to Mr. King. It was the understanding that all but a small piece in the back will be a no disturbance zone. So it still will be a no disturbance zone, except Mr. King will own it, and not the new lot owners, and there’s also some additional space was taken out of Lot 24. That lot line is just rotated 25 feet. th So that will be decreased to 6/10 of an acre, and then Lot 77 and 78 are each .57 and .59 acres. So the overall effect has nothing to do with the engineering or anything. It’s just these lot line configurations will change. The one lot will be lost and some additional land will be conveyed to Mr. King, to satisfy his concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a little strip that runs behind Lot 76 and a portion of Lot 77 that abuts Lot 24. It’s also shaded. Will that be conveyed to King as well? MR. MILLER-Well, if you remember, no. Only that triangular piece. That relates to, we talked about having a no clear zone of 10 feet wide above and beyond the deed restrictions. What that is is that’s just an extension of that 10 foot no clear zone. That would run right up to that no disturb zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MILLER-Basically, you know, that was the major change. What we’re asking for tonight is we’d like to get approval, and we will make the slight modifications to these two lots on the plans that are filed, and most of this will be effective in Phase III. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have a copy of this? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-We had requested the waiver of the requirement that we couldn’t build in Phase II yet until we got 60% of Phase I built, and we sent the letter in with the application to ask for that waiver. MR. BREWER-What is the percent of that done now? MR. LAPPER-Under contract, we’re already there. MR. VOLLARO-It says sold nine homes. I’m just reading from. MR. BREWER-In Phase I, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Phase I has to be at 60% before, under the Subdivision Regs, before you can build Phase II. MR. BREWER-Right, I understand that, but what is the percentage of Phase I done now? DAVE MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-Phase I between what’s sold, CO’d, you take both in combination, since we opened the model in February, we had sold nine. That’s what we represented when we made the 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) application. Now we’ve already sold 13 in Phase I. So between the 13 and the existing there, we’re probably closer to 75%. MR. BREWER-So you’re there now. MR. LAPPER-But that’s not built. That’s under contract, that we’re in the process. MR. BREWER-Right. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Your regulation reads a CO. MR. BREWER-Right. How many CO’s are in that now? MR. LAPPER-We’ve only had a couple of closings. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. The total number of closings so far has been. MR. BREWER-You’re misunderstanding me. Not your closings. What’s the percentage of the completion in Phase I? MR. MAC EWAN-He’s going to answer that. I mean, when they do a closing, that’s when you get a CO. That’s what the provision in the Subdivision Reg’s is. MR. LAPPER-Seventeen were existing before The Michaels Group became involved in the project, and we’ve closed two, and we’ve built the model, which is three. MR. BREWER-That’s 20. Right? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. BREWER-How many lots are in Phase I? MR. VOLLARO-Forty-six. MR. BREWER-So it’s just like 40%, 45%. MR. MICHAELS-And I think we have five permitted and under construction, also, that are, you know, closing each month. MR. BREWER-How many under construction? MR. MICHAELS-Five. MR. LAPPER-Five. MR. BREWER-So you’re there. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So we’re only asking for the waiver with respect to basically two more houses, but we would like to just get in and do Phase II, get started. MR. MICHAELS-Well, an additional point, too, is if we are granted final approval, by the time the maps get filed, the land development work gets underway, the roads have to be all installed and dedicated, you know, received by the Town, and by the time that it gets all done, I mean, realistically, we wouldn’t be able to even get building permits probably until August, and at that time, there’s going to be that many more sold and closed. MR. LAPPER-What this allows us to do is do all that infra structure and do the roads over the summer, rather than wait until the fall. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have a problem with that. Okay with everybody else? Any other questions? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. VOLLARO-I do. I’m going to bring this question up more for the record than I am for anything else. Going back to the Area Variance of 10-1992, and I know John Goralski’s position on this, and I have his letter, but I’ve done some thinking about it, and I’ll just put that thinking out so the record’s got it. In 10-1992, it talks about, grant the applicant relief from the current lot area and setback requirements of the Ordinance. The relief granted would allow the lots the same lot area and setbacks they received in their original subdivision approval for Phase I. Now that was an Area Variance that was not acted upon. It was done in 1992, six years ago, and I still have a problem, even with John Goralski’s letter where he talks to the fact that you’ve got some vested rights, I still don’t understand John’s term of “vested rights”, and I’ve been wrestling with that for a while, and I know that when a variance is granted within one year, if it’s not acted upon, it terminates, and somehow John was able to take this particular Area Variance and convert it into his letter where he talks about vested rights, and I still haven’t been able to come up with that. I haven’t been able to satisfy myself. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that, but I had to get it out and put it on the table. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I’d like to respond to that. We had a detailed discussion of the vested rights issue, which your Counsel agreed with me on at the last meeting, when we were talking about the variances, but if we back up, and what John’s letter, which I have in front of me, was addressing is the situation, even without the variances, and it’s our position that those variances didn’t even need to be obtained because the vested rights existed at the time that this subdivision was created, because based upon the configuration of this subdivision, with the stub streets for Phase I, it was set up for a three phase subdivision, SEQRA approval for which was granted on the whole thing. So that when the then owner Mr. Passarelli went in and constructed the road in Phase I, that limited the opportunities to do a different kind of configuration in Phase II, because you had to connect those stub streets. It was already laid out at that point. MR. VOLLARO-So what triggered the variance, if that was the case? MR. LAPPER-He actually also cut in the road at that time for Phase II and Phase III. MR. VOLLARO-Because if what you just said is correct, there was no need to trigger the variance. Is that what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-I believe that the variance never needed to get done because vested rights existed, but somebody was trying to be extra careful back in ’92 and applied for a variance, but there’s no other way that this could be developed now that this was already established back in the 80’s, when this was already set up. Phase I was actually constructed with all the infrastructure and the lots and the homes, and on Phase II, they cut the trees down and cut in the road for this design that was approved, and in terms of the zoning law definition of vested rights, which is usually relying upon an approval and moving dirt, that that proves that you did something before the legislative body, the Town Board, changed the zoning law, that you have vested rights. So it’s our position that the vested rights exist without the variance, and I think that that’s what John Goralski’s letter of th January 15 addressed, because he wasn’t talking about the variance. He was just talking about vested rights in the subdivision. MR. BREWER-So why were you saying a little while ago you needed the approval to go in and put the roads in, if you’re saying that you already cut them out? MR. LAPPER-No, because subdivision approval is separate, because we need subdivision approval for Phase II and Phase III in order to designate where the lots are going to be, in terms of how the road’s going to lay out exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Could I ask our Counsel, you heard the discussion, what’s your take on this? I mean, you’ve already agreed that vested rights is what they have on that property and (lost words)? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. VOLLARO-Because I thought he just said that. I’m sorry. MR. SCHACHNER-I think he said something that could be construed that way, and I was confused about it myself, but I was present at the previous meeting when this issue was discussed. He’s correct about that, and if you’ll recall at that meeting, I believe what I said was that we had a determination by the Zoning Administrator on this specific issue, and that determination has been made, and in fact the time in which to appeal that determination has lapsed. So I sat, I believe, at the previous meeting and said, among other things, that that determination appears to be the valid, 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) binding determination on this situation. I think I also said then and say now that as a general proposition, the applicant’s attorney’s description of vested rights is largely accurate. In other words, the good faith reliance on a previously approved, I’m sorry, a previously issued approval, the moving of dirt and all those issues, I have not made any independent investigation or determination about these specific situations, or this specific situation under these specific facts. All I said last time was that they seemed to have addressed the issue with the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator seems to have issued a written determination. That written determination seems fairly straightforward and clear to me as far as what it says. MR. VOLLARO-As far as what it says, it’s clear to me, too. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-The problem I have with it that in order to contest the Zoning Administrator’s determination, somebody would have had to make a claim against it. In other words, somebody would have had to come in and try to overturn this particular, and there was a time limit on it, I think, of 30 days. MR. SCHACHNER-I think it’s 60 days, actually. MR. VOLLARO-But who is going to do that? I mean, I sat and wrestled with that today and said, what individual was going to come forward and do that? That’s what I couldn’t resolve. There’s a letter out by John that makes that determination, but if it wasn’t put out for the general public, then this could be contested. Nobody really knows that. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s sometimes true and sometimes it’s not. MR. VOLLARO-Well, in this instance, I think it was true. That’s my feeling. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else to say on the subject. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Moving right along. Anybody else? Does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute, aren’t you going to open the public hearing? MR. MAC EWAN-No, there is no public hearing. Mr. King did want to make a comment, though, if you still want to make a comment, we’ll accept your comment. MR. PALING-Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ll take public comment, how’s that? MR. PALING-Whatever. DAVID KING MR. KING-Thank you. I am David King. I reside at 12 Jacqueline Drive, Lot 23 in Phase I of th Lehland Estates. As stated at the previous meeting last month on the 24 of March, I was strictly opposed to the original plan that was set forth at that public hearing, based on the fact that it removed a green space behind my house that I believe predicated the purchase of my house, and every decision I had in setting the house where it was on Lot 23. Since that meeting, we’ve been in constant discussion and negotiation, and although I think compromises were made both by the builder, Dave Michaels and his team, as well as by me, the property owner, in the case that the th final plan that’s laid forth in this letter that I received from Dave Michaels on the 20 of April which I will give you a copy for the Town record, is different from the original plan. The green space has changed dimensions, but I believe that this proposal as laid out here in this letter and in this plan that we see before us is as good a solution to my problem as I can expect with a Phase II Final approval. I’m very satisfied with the process. I compliment the builder on his ability to keep open discussions for a month. A no time did he ever not listen to my concerns, and I think now, well beyond the public hearing, a month later, the team behind me has a very good understanding of my position, and I think the plan that they’ve proposed to me really answers all of my concerns that were set forth at the last meeting. So I have, for the public record, a copy of the letter from 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) Dave Michaels outlining his intentions in deeding this property to me, which will remain a no disturb zone, and I believe that no disturb zone as it’s deeded to me in this, as intended in this letter, preserves the value of my property that was originally part of my expected value when I purchased the property and developed the home, but I support acceptance of Final approval in Phase II, and the Preliminary on Phase III, based on the agreement that we’ve come to. MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to comment? Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-Could Staff just make a comment on this lot? It appears that, and Mark has agreed with that, that to do this adjustment in Phase I, you would need a modification of Phase I. MR. MAC EWAN-Explain to me why that is. MR. BREWER-Because he’s changing lot lines. MR. SCHACHNER-This issue was only asked me a few minutes ago, but as you know, typically, if there’s a filed subdivision plat and somebody seeks to change a lot boundary, that’s brought before this Board, if it’s a significant modification that’s one thing, but even if it’s a minor boundary line adjustment, which appears to be what we have here, those are typically brought before this Board so that a modified approval is issued so that a revised mylar is signed and filed, so that the records both in the Town’s possession and at the County Clerk’s Office accurately reflect reality. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have to re-advertise it as a modification to Phase I? MR. SCHACHNER-Typically, you only do that if there’s a determination made initially that it’s a material or significant modification. Typically you don’t do that for a minor boundary line adjustment. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we encompass that all into one motion tonight, that the lot line adjustment to lot number. MR. LAPPER-Twenty-three and twenty-four. MR. MAC EWAN-To lots number 23 and 24 of Phase I, that they aren’t significant to the original SEQRA determination, and then we can incorporate it as part of our overall motion for Phase II? MR. LAPPER-Insignificant. MR. MAC EWAN-Insignificant. MR. SCHACHNER-You said not significant. MR. MAC EWAN-Same thing. Can we do that? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. The only thing I would add is I would advise the Board to, I guess, state in your motion that you believe that the proposed adjustment is minor, not only from the standpoint of SEQRA review, or environmental impacts, but just that it’s a minor boundary line adjustment, so that you don’t feel any new public hearing or public notice is required, if that’s how you feel. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-And we should ask for the mylar to be revised. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It will be anyway. Does somebody want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 MICHAELS GROUP LEHLAND ESTATES, PHASE II , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written with the following exceptions: That the Board has determined that the environmental effect and the effect on the adjoining properties is insignificant and doesn’t need to be reviewed, 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) and that the mylar, Master Plan, will be revised to reflect the changes noted on a lot boundary modification dated 4/20/98, and that the waiver in 18336 of the Town Subdivision Regulations be allowed. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Subdivision No. 15-86 MICHAELS GROUP, LEHLAND ESTATES, Final approval for Phase II; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/25/98, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Maps SP-1 thru SP-9 dated 3/27/98 3. 3/31/98 - Letter to C. Round from T. Nace regarding waiver request. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 4/21/98 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/24/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act has been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve Subdivision No. 15-86, Michaels Group, Lehland Estates, Final Stage, Phase II. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-All set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to jump around a little bit on the agenda here. We’ll go to some further Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 MODIFICATION NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, L.L.C. MODIFICATION IS ADDITION OF A CANOPY OVER THE LUMBER PICK-UP AREA AT THE EAST END OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled. STAFF INPUT 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-97 (Modification), Meeting Date: April 21, 1998 “The applicant proposes a site plan modification for the Lowe’s Home Improvement Center. The applicant proposes a canopy over the lumber yard entrance for protection of the lumber products during customer transport.” MR. MAC EWAN-Engineering comments. MS. NOWICKI-“Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed the revised drawings incorporating a drive- through material loading area at the southeast corner of the building that was submitted to us on April 15, 1998. It appears that the curbed islands as proposed will reduce the driving lanes somewhat and also result in an inadequate turning radius at the southeast corner. We recommend that the design be further revised to address these concerns.” MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper. I’m with John Nicolich from Newman Development of Queensbury, L.L.C., and we brought out Traffic Engineer, Mark Gregory, from Transportation Concept. When we were here last time for the approvals, we were working with Dennis O’Malley, who works with Mark. Just to show you on this, and I submitted both of these to you, what we’re proposing, which is a small change order in the contract from Lowe’s, that is a newer concept in their stores from when we came in for approval in the Fall, is right at the far corner. Just a canopy over the lumber section of the store, so that if people are going to buy lumber, they can drive their pickups up to that section and be covered from the weather, while they’re loading and unloading. If we look here to the site plan, it is at the far southeastern corner of the building. This was always where the lumber entrance was going to be, and it’s just a matter of building a canopy over the entrance. The cross hatched area in front of the building is, runs next to the travel lanes, and it’s just there for somebody to pull up for loading and unloading. So it’s an extra area, not for parking, but just for stopping while you’re loading your vehicle. There was always a wide area proposed in front of the lumber area, so that somebody could load and unload, and the only difference here, in terms of the site plan, is just to construct the canopy to cover that already existing loading area. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there usually an employee out there to kind of make sure things move along, so that someone doesn’t utilize that as a personal parking underneath a nice, dry area kind of thing? JOHN NICOLICH MR. NICOLICH-Okay. Just to identify myself, I’m John Nicolich from Newman Development Group of Queensbury. Just a clarification. There was always a canopy out there, in the front, near the indoor. We’re just extending it, okay. There was always on the plan, and on the original site plan a canopy, okay. Yes, to answer your question, there is an employee that assists any customer, and that person will move things if you will. MR. MAC EWAN-So things don’t get bottled up. MR. NICOLICH-That’s correct. Secondly, this canopy falls within what was demarked through pavement markings as a loading zone. I am not increasing or changing what was the loading zone from the original site plan approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NICOLICH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions up here? MR. PALING-Yes. I’ve just got one general question. That whole part of the building is a loading zone, and now you’re just covering a part of it. MR. NICOLICH-That’s correct. MR. PALING-Why would I use any other part of that loading zone? Is it because of the, where the lumber’s located? MR. LAPPER-Because the lumber is just one section of the store. MR. PALING-Then that’s for lumber loading? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. LAPPER-Lumber only. The main check out is in the center of the building, okay. It’s to separate lumber, which is big and bulky, from everybody else. MR. PALING-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-I have a question, if I may. The concern by the engineer that the islands were cutting into essentially the drive aisle, it looks like that will happen, on the plan, and we get a lot of flack about parking lots as it is. If you’re narrowing the travel lane. MR. LAPPER-We’re actually not narrowing the traffic lane. The travel lane bends, but it’s not being narrowed. MS. CIPPERLY-Where the islands are, I’m talking about. It looks like you’re taking something away from the. MR. LAPPER-Right, down there, and it’s not, because if you see where it says “Stop”, there’s a full lane in front of the island. There’s a full drive lane. It just, everything just shifts over, but the width is the same. MR. BREWER-Why doesn’t somebody from your group get with our engineer? MR. LAPPER-Well, we brought Mark tonight to just address that, in terms of the. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the support mechanism for the canopy extension? I mean, is it going to be held up in the corners, in the corner of the canopy down with pillars, or does it just come off the building? MR. NICOLAGE-There’s four masonry piers. It’ll be masonry block to match the same materials as the building, excuse me, three, as shown on the front elevation. MR. LAPPER-Those piers, of course, behind the driveway. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. PALING-Didn’t you also state that you weren’t changing the dimensions of the loading zone. The loading zone stays the same, that would mean the piers are within the loading zone? MR. NICOLICH-That’s correct. There will be two, we are not, one’s shown as just a hatched area. The piers fall within that hatched area, and so do any curbing, so that we are not reducing the size of the drive lanes. MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe what we have here is Rist-Frost maybe misinterpreted what their intentions are here, because their drive aisle hasn’t changed from the original submission. It’s still the same. It was just that that delineated area with the striping in there was supposed to be for the pickup of lumber materials out through that area. They just put those concrete, stop me if I’m making a goof here, you put the concrete islands in there to support the extension of your canopy, but those islands still fall within your designated loading/unloading area. You’re not infringing on the originally approved drive aisle. MR. NICOLICH-That’s correct. That’s why, in talking with Chris, when we pointed that out, it wasn’t a problem. Secondly, I think the concrete aisles will help delineate through traffic from those loadings. From traffic safety, it will help that those concrete aisles are in there. MR. MAC EWAN-I would agree with you. Anything else? Any other questions? Does someone want to make a motion? Make sure that your motion includes that the modification is not significant impact on the SEQRA determination. MOTION TO APPROVE NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 AS A MODIFICATION TO THE ORIGINAL , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: And that this has no environmental impact on the previous SEQRA. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. NICOLICH-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE, SITE PLAN REVIEW, ETC. FOR THE AVIATION MALL PROJECT. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff, enlighten us. MR. PALING-Why are we here? What are we doing? MR. MAC EWAN-Enlighten us about this resolution that they want us to do, just so that we can clarify exactly what we’re going to make a recommendation for. MR. SCHACHNER-The action that’s contemplated, as I understand it, or proposed for the Planning Board is only, I believe, is one action, and that would be, this is the proposal by the Pyramid Company for the expansion of Aviation Mall, and that requires a number of steps, including re-zoning of some properties from, I believe, Highway Commercial, to Enclosed Shopping Center. It also requires, or the applicant is proposing and requesting modification of some language in certain provisions of the Town Zoning Ordinance. It also requires site plan approval from this Planning Board, as well as Town approval of, is it re-located water lines? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Some re-located water lines. Those are all the Town approvals required overall for the entire action, which is the expansion of the Mall. There would also be New York State Department of Transportation approval for certain traffic related issues, and I’m not sure if there are other agency approvals or not, but in any event, all that’s proposed tonight by the Planning Board, as I understand it, is that the Town Board seeks to be SEQRA Lead Agency. The applicant has already agreed to prepare and submit a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. So neither Board will have to go through the issue of determining whether an EIS or not. They are going to do one. All that’s proposed tonight is for the Planning Board to, if you would be willing to, to agree to the designation of the Town Board as SEQRA Lead Agency. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-And, Mark, the other points you made, the water line, the re-zoning and the language, whatever it was, we’re not talking about that. We’re talking only about lead agency for SEQRA is all we’re giving up? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. PALING-And the site plan will come back to this Board? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s correct, but I just want to make sure I’m clear on this. When you talk about the SEQRA review, the SEQRA review is of the entire action, consisting of all the steps I just described, but you’re correct that the only action proposed for this Board tonight is to agree that the Town Board be SEQRA lead agency, and you’re also correct that all the elements of Site Plan Review would come back to this Planning Board in its function as reviewer of Site Plan approval. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-I think what got people concerned, and the few phone calls that I received today was the fact that the way this is written up kind of gives the indication that the Town Board wants to do the Site Plan Review for this as well. MR. SCHACHNER-What is it that you’re referring to that’s “written up”? MR. MAC EWAN-“New Business: Resolution designating the Town Board as lead agency in the matter of Petition for Zone Change, Site Plan Review, etc., for Aviation Mall project”. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I’ve never seen this resolution, if that’s. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not the resolution. It’s just on the agenda for New Business, and I think that’s where people were kind of getting concerned on. MR. BREWER-If they do the SEQRA, they’re going to have to take all those things into consideration when they do that SEQRA. So, therefore, I feel that we should get together with the Town Board, and discuss all the concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s my understanding that when the hearing is going to be held for the petition for re-zone change, that it will be a joint meeting between the Planning Board and the Town Board. I’ve not been officially told that. That’s the hearings that I’m getting. MR. LAPPER-That’s what we had proposed as part of the procedure, but beyond that, to answer Tim’s question, you are still an involved agency for the SEQRA review, so that you would be participating and sending comments to the Town Board on the whole environmental review, before it comes back to you for Site Plan Review. So they want to be lead agency because it involves zoning issues, and that wasn’t our call. That was their call, and we’ll be dealing with both Boards in terms of the approvals. If they want to be lead agency, you would still be responding to them, telling them what issues you think are important for the SEQRA review. MR. VOLLARO-Are these Boards going to operate independently in that area, or collectively? MR. BREWER-We should operate collectively. MR. LAPPER-We met with Chris Round earlier in the week to just preliminarily set forth the schedule, and SEQRA has a provision that says that public hearings should be combined whenever it’s practical. So what we envision is having a joint public hearing, shortly, once we get into the SEQRA process, between the Planning Board and the Town Board, so that everybody can hear public comments at the same time. That would be in accordance with your recommendation, because on the re-zoning of additional lands, you have an advisory role for the Town Board in that respect. So with respect to that, and also with respect to the entire environmental review of the whole action, of the whole project. MR. PALING-Will that be the only public hearing? MR. LAPPER-That’s up to this Board, I would presume. MR. PALING-I guess I should address that to Mark. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if it’s for SEQRA, I mean, if they’re going to have a public hearing for the SEQRA, that would be the first, I would think, of a couple, because the first one would be a public hearing for the petition for zone change. Then provided you’re going to do a scoping session or something like that. MR. PALING-Well, let me ask the question differently. After, lets assume this goes along and the Town Board gets through the SEQRA favorably, and it comes for site plan review, will there be a public hearing at the site plan review? MR. BREWER-Absolutely. MR. PALING-I would assume there would be. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Typically you would have a public hearing at site plan review. MR. PALING-So we can if we choose. Yes, okay. All right. I would think we would. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. SCHACHNER-And just so you understand, it wouldn’t come to this Board for site plan review, only after the zone change, I mean, only after the SEQRA review. It would also have to have the Town Board having accomplished a bunch of other steps. MR. PALING-And the zone change would have had to have taken place, too. MR. MAC EWAN-But just so that we’re clear that this application, as it would progress, if it got to that stage for site plan review, the site plan review would be conducted by this Board, and not the Town Board. MR. SCHACHNER-No question about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I just thought I’d make a very brief presentation, just to bring this Board up to speed, in terms of what has been proposed. MS. CIPPERLY-In the course of that, could you also mention which changes you’re talking about in the language of the Zoning Ordinance? MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if I have that, the text of that with me tonight, but I can generally describe it. Sorry I didn’t have a chance to get this mounted. What’s unique about this is the topography of the site, and when the Howard Johnson’s parcel became available for sale, it added this entire area of the frontage of the Northway as available to add to the site, so that the biggest change is to incorporate that piece and to make that part of the Aviation Mall. This is in accordance with many of the planning goals of this Board, in terms of the integration of internalization of parking, so that you don’t have separate uses with separate curb cuts. It would all be part of the controlled access to this site, and the controlled ring road. Because of the topography change, which is the 40, 55 foot drop from the highway access from the Northway access side to the building itself, it allows Pyramid to build this sort of into the bottom of the hill, if you will. So that the addition is planned as a three story addition, which minimizes sprawl, minimizes the amount of land that would be necessary, but it also visually hides it into this big bank which would all be removed. MR. VOLLARO-Is that going to be a structure? In other words, that parking garage, if I can call it that, is that a structure? MR. LAPPER-This is a multi-level, actually a four level concrete parking garage, which will be built into the hill, and which will allow direct access to the new three story building. MR. VOLLARO-What about setbacks on that? Isn’t there anything? MR. LAPPER-We’re not proposing a setback along this side, because this is built into the steep hill, and a setback’s not going to do anything for anybody, in terms of what we’re proposing is to do the plantings within the right-of-way, which is very wide, within the DOT right-of-way, but because you’ve got this bank that has to be held back, because we’re going to cut right into the bank, we’re envisioning that the concrete wall of the garage would be built, which would act as a retaining wall, which would hold up that whole bank, because we’re starting, you know, from 50 feet down. So we don’t think that it’s necessary to have a setback here, but of course there would be a visual setback, and a visual buffer with a lot of trees planted over here. MR. BREWER-What about, I understand they’re doing expansion now to the ramps and what. What about future expansion, if they ever had to? MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s 90 feet from pavement. So there’s still room for expansion, if there were ever a lane which, you know, certainly anything’s possible, there’s still room for plenty of vegetative buffering, and an additional lane. MR. BREWER-And DOT will have to okay that, too. MR. LAPPER-That would be part of the DOT, the highway work permit. We’ve designed this based upon the new takings, the new design of the bridge and Aviation Road, which is happening 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) right now. This is the expansion of the Mall, which is three stories. The parking lot is tiered, as you go around, because of the topography, because of the hill. So when you’re coming here you would see a three story building. Here it would appear as a two story building, and here it would appear as a three story building, but it would be built into the ground, if you will, from the Northway. So it’s a very nice way to work the site, without having to use all sorts of other lands in the Town to accommodate this kind of development, by tiering the building and the parking. That’s the main feature of this. Beyond that, we all know that Aviation Mall could use some modernization and improvement, and this is just a major investment in the community, $100 million to improve the Mall, and everyone’s pretty excited about that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jon, would you just point to J.C. Penneys, please. MR. LAPPER-J.C. Penney is the dotted line here, down to here. That’s right there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s what I thought. MR. LAPPER-When we get further along, we will have detailed elevation drawings to show what it looks like from the different views. MR. MAC EWAN-I was just curious. Has any thought been given to having a direct exit right off the Northway to service the Mall? MR. LAPPER-Unfortunately, that’s not permitted, and what I’ve learned is that at Crossgates, which we’re all familiar with, that was an exception, because that part of the highway is not actually part of the interstate system, so that they were able to do that. That’s really a local highway that’s built to federal highway standards. So that can’t be done here. MR. PALING-Do you have a schedule yet with the Town Board? MR. LAPPER-Not a schedule per se. We’ve been sitting down with Chris, and just sort of figuring everything out. We’ve been working for weeks on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We didn’t need anybody to tell us that that was necessary, appropriate. We’ll be submitting that in the next few days. The Town has to bring on engineering and traffic consultants to review that. Chris has already sent out a Request For Proposals from some engineering firms, and the next step after the lead agency is established would be for Mark, as the Town Board’s Counsel, and the Engineering Consultants that are brought on to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for completeness for review, and then we’ll start the SEQRA review process which you guys are for completeness for review, and then we’ll start the SEQRA review process which you guys are very familiar with. MR. BREWER-And then if there were other comments or questions, there would be a supplement to the Draft EIS, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, not, probably not the way, depending upon how you’re using that term, what I believe Mr. Lapper just outlined was that there would be a submission of a Draft EIS that will first be reviewed by Staff, myself, engineering consultants, and whomever, as to whether we recommend that it’s complete for purposes of review. If you’re saying at that time there are questions and what not, or additional information needed, the additional information would not be in the form of what’s technically called a supplemental EIS. The reason I’m concerned is you used the phrase “supplemental EIS” and that’s a term of art under SEQRA. A supplemental EIS doesn’t happen until and unless there’s already been an EIS accepted. MR. BREWER-I guess what my point or question is if, I don’t know how we can, I know you can accept the Draft EIS, but that would be after the public hearing so you know what the comments and concerns are, whether we have concern? It’s like putting the cart before the horse. MR. SCHACHNER-I believe the way the process is envisioned here, and typically there’s a, there will be a public hearing on the Draft EIS. What I believe the applicant’s proposing here is to have that public hearing on the Draft EIS also function as a public hearing for at least two other purposes. One being for the Town Board, as it considers it’s rezoning and zoning amendments, and the other for this Board, because when you make your advisory recommendation about re- zoning and zoning amendments, you have decided as a matter of policy to have public hearings. So I believe that what’s being proposed is to have a joint public hearing between, or among the two Boards for all three of those purposes. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. LAPPER-That just makes it easier for the public to not have to come three times and say what they have in mind, but I think what Tim, what you’re getting at also, you’re thinking about the FEIS, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, where we’ll be responding to everybody’s comments and making changes accordingly. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess what I was saying is, how can you know what the concerns are before there’s any public hearing? I mean, you can logically guess what most of them are. MR. LAPPER-The determination of completeness for review doesn’t mean that you agree with all the mitigation measures that we propose and that will be an (lost word) process that will change as we get comments from the different involved agencies and the public, but what you’re saying, and Mark can correct me if he disagrees with my language, which is that it means that it covers all the issues, in terms of the potential impacts, and we feel that we’ve done a pretty exhaustive job, but it’ll be up to Mark and the consultants to tell us whether they agree, whether we’ve covered the issues, and once that’s set, then we get into the public comments and everybody rolls up their sleeves and we then respond in the FEIS. MR. VOLLARO-On the lower right hand corner of the plan there, is there anything afoot at all about another roadway down in there? In other words, I’ve heard comments that we may have some ideas about putting another ingress/egress capability to that site. MR. LAPPER-Pyramid does not own any land on that side of the Mall for that to happen. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. MR. LAPPER-Well, we have already obtained a detailed traffic impact analysis, which will be reviewed by the Town, the Town’s consultants, and that contemplates making significant off site traffic improvements based upon the existing right-of-way. We feel that we can fit everything within the existing right-of-way which is fairly wide, which is Aviation Road, and especially the Route 9 intersection and the Northway exit ramp, and modifying and adding additional access points on the site, and that is all stuff that is within our control, that we can do that. It’s a matter of spending a lot of money, but in terms of land rights, Pyramid has the ability to do that, subject to DOT’s approval. Our studies, which we’ve already read and analyzed and incorporated into the plans says that we can do that and accommodate all of the extra traffic that will be generated by the expanded Mall, but that’ll of course be the subject of traffic review. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s basically talking to a widening of Aviation Road? MR. LAPPER-Widening of Aviation Road, adding an extra lane all the way from the exit ramp to the existing traffic light, adding double left turn lanes, double right turn lanes in different places to accommodate additional capacity. MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be a crowded road. MR. LAPPER-We know our responsibility is to make sure the road works when this thing is done, and we know that the Town isn’t going to approve it without believing that. So that’s not the only impact, but that’s part of the process. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else? Is that it, Jon? MR. LAPPER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-How about the zoning? MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Sue. MR. LAPPER-The biggest issue, for zoning is that in the Enclosed Shopping district, the ESC, Enclosed Shopping Center 25 Acre zone, which was created to accommodate an enclosed regional shopping mall, this being the only parcel, at this point in the Town that’s ESC, so it was tailored to accommodate and to properly deal with this type of facility. The height limitation is 50 feet. So the biggest change that we need is to be able to go to three stories, is to go to 80 feet. It’s not 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) actually proposed that we’re going to use, it’s more like 75 feet, but we’re asking for it to be to changed to 80 feet to accommodate a three story structure. Because it’s built low into the ground, you’re not going to, I mean, not that there’s anything wrong with a three story structure, but it’s not going to look like a three story structure from most viewpoints. We need that to be able to accommodate this. All the changes are really, are technical changes to say that if you want to do this, if you want to have tiered parking, their density changes, because that Section of the Ordinance was drafted to accommodate what was built then, because that’s what the Town was looking at, and we’re now asking to change the Ordinance to accommodate what we’ve proposed, and the parking requirements. It’s been a policy of the Town, and certainly this Board when we went through the Lowe’s approval, that as a result of the K-Mart, that you don’t want there to be too much parking. So right now the standard in the Code is five cars per thousand square feet of gross leasable space, and what we’re proposing is to change that to 4.5, with the possible of building down to 4.1. Traffic studies say that you can do 3.5 for something like this, but tenants won’t, you remember the discussions we had on Lowe’s, with respect to tenants, that the tenants have a minimum number of parking spaces, so that we wouldn’t be able to tenant this with 3.5, but we think that 4.5 as a standard is something that you would be happier with because it’s going to be just less parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all going to be addressed down the road. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anybody else? We don’t have a public hearing, but does anyone want to comment about this? Okay. Moving right along. MR. STARK-Resolution? MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. STARK-I’d like to propose a resolution designating the Town Board as Lead Agency in the matter of Petition for Zone Change for the purposes of SEQRA Review process. MR. MAC EWAN-For SEQRA Review process purposes. MR. PALING-Do you want to mention re-zoning and all that other stuff, or that can be left out? MR. MAC EWAN-He just did. MRS. LA BOMBARD-He just did. MR. MAC EWAN-Petition for Zone Change. MR. PALING-I didn’t hear that. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-They said they’re agreeing to the Town Board being lead agency, right? that’s fine. MS. CIPPERLY-I didn’t know whether they had to list the things that were. MR. SCHACHNER-They just have to mention Pyramid or Aviation Mall. As long as it’s connected to this project, that’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we all set? Okay. MOTION TO DESIGNATE THE TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW PROCESS , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-All set. MR. LAPPER-Before I go, I just want to also introduce Greg Foche’, who I’m working with, who has done a lot of projects for Pyramid, and is very experienced with Enclosed Shopping malls, and we’ll be back here many times. Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. DISCUSSION ITEM: T.L. CANNON CORPORATION MR. MATT FAIRBAIRN OWNER: RICHARD & MONIQUE CUNNINGHAM ZONE: P C-1A LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD DEVELOPMENT OF A 5000 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AREAS ON A 2.34 ACRE SITE. TAX MAP NO. 63-1-1.4 LOT SIZE: 2.34 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 FRANK PALUMBO & STEVE BELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Discussion Item Restaurant, TL Cannon Corporation, Meeting Date: April 21, 1998 “The applicant would like to discuss an Applebees restaurant on Quaker Road. The applicant has been made aware that the application submitted would need additional information to be reviewed as a site plan application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. PALUMBO-Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Frank Palumbo. I’m with the Sear Brown Group, an engineering firm out of Albany, and with me tonight is Mr. Steve Bell, a representative from T.L. Cannon Corporation, the applicant. We met with Mr. Round and at the time that we did that, we were still in the process of obtaining some additional survey information. So our application wasn’t quite where it would have needed to be to be on for actual, more than discussion purposes, but as we discussed the project, there seemed to be some items that he felt would be opportunistic to take the chance of discussing with the Board, so that we didn’t go too far ahead without getting some input, and seeing if we were going in the right direction, the direction Board that the Board felt they could handle. If you’d like, I can present some of those particular issues. MR. MAC EWAN-Go right ahead. MR. PALUMBO-As stated, the project is an Applebee’s restaurant, and I believe my plan might be slightly different from the plan that’s directly in front of you, and there’d be very, very minor changes, but since that time, we’ve gotten more survey information. So we’ve been trying to update the plans. Primarily, what you see here, the outline of the whole property, it’s a 3.10 acre parcel. This outline of this building, that’s Mark Plaza. This is Quaker Road, and this is Lafayette Street, and there’s a traffic signal there at Lafayette that I’m sure you’re aware of. The proposal would be to develop 2.34 acres of the site currently for an Applebee’s restaurant, 5,000 square feet. We’ve labeled these as Lot One and Lot Two, but this is the first of the items that Mr. Round thought we should discuss with the Board. We are not proposing this as a subdivision. We are proposing this that once we gain approval for this site plan, that this land would be directly transferred to the owner of Mark Plaza, and incorporated into that entire parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a subdivision. MR. PALUMBO-That’s why we were to discuss it. Mr. Round thought that if it was a direct transference of land that there was a provision. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s still a subdivision of land because you’re delineating new lot lines. However, the good news on that would be it’s a two lot subdivision. So it’s pretty much of a one step process. Right? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MS. NOWICKI-It may also be a lot line adjustment, as far as I know. We discussed it with the person who owns the paint store. I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-That’s Passano Paint. MS. NOWICKI-That you were going to extend some land, the owner next to him. MR. MAC EWAN-The Mark Plaza’s owned by Mr. Boychuk, and he owns this parcel of land, as far as I understand, and if these folks were to buy that one parcel to put the restaurant on it, and to turn around and convey that long rectangular piece back would be a subdivision. Am I right or am I wrong on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Why a subdivision? In other words, it’s not creating additional lots, I don’t believe. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure they are. They’re buying one big parcel from them, right? And then you’re going to convey part of that parcel back to them. MR. SCHACHNER-I thought these were already separate lots. MS. CIPPERLY-This is one lot. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-And this is another lot. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-And what they really, they want to end up with this, and they want this to end up going with that. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So there are currently two lots, and there will eventually be two lots. MS. CIPPERLY-Unless this one is a lot for some period of time until it gets combined with this one. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. If they create a separate lot of the rectangular piece, then you’re correct. That would be a subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what they’re doing. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I didn’t understand that to be the case. I thought they were just conveying that to the other side and merging it, so that you start off with two lots and you end up with two lots, but they’re just the slightly shifting of the portion of one lot into the other lot. That would probably not be a subdivision because it doesn’t create any additional lots. Am I making sense or no? MR. PALUMBO-Well, that’s why we wanted to have the discussion. We believe that there, you know, that there could be a potential for that conveyance, without a subdivision. We wanted to make sure that we had that clear before our official application. When we talked with Mr. Round, he felt that there was a provision available to accommodate this, but he did want us to discuss it with the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the provision he’s referring to, and I don’t want to speak for him, is that there’s a provision in the Subdivision Reg’s for a two lot subdivision, which is a quicker process. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s certainly a true statement. I don’t know, I have no idea if that’s what Mr. Round had in mind. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not sure either, but I’m guessing by looking at the drawing. MR. PALUMBO-I would say not entirely, though. For one reason. This lot would not be a standard lot. We could not do a conforming lot of one acre. This is Plaza Commercial One Acre, which would be the main reason why we would be looking for a conveyance. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MS. NOWICKI-It was also previously subdivided. So you cannot do a two lot subdivision. MS. CIPPERLY-But the lot line adjustment, as far as I can tell, is something that could happen. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Staff seems to think that Chris may have had in mind a boundary line adjustment, in which at no time would there be a separate creation of what is rather confusingly labeled Lot Two on the diagram, where that would never be its own lot. MR. BREWER-How could it never be its own lot if it’s labeled Lot Two? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that’s why I said, confusingly labeled. MR. MAC EWAN-That furthest lot line to the left, you’re basically, I guess you’re going to say is going to be erased. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, exactly. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe you ought to re-label Lot One to just say “to be retained by owner”, something along those lines. MR. PALUMBO-We can do that. MR. VOLLARO-What do you envision your deed saying, that you’re purchasing 3.1 acres? MR. PALUMBO-No. The process that we’re undertaking is, one, to achieve the Applebee’s restaurant, on a lot of the smallest size possible, for the ability to, One, leave the most amount of land left for Mark Plaza. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to determine what are you going to purchase? What are you going to own? MR. PALUMBO-The 2.34 that we currently have. MR. VOLLARO-The 2.34. Okay. So the .76 you’re not going to own. MR. PALUMBO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-You’re never going to buy. MR. PALUMBO-I would have to work directly with the lease agreement or the purchase agreements and provide you with the information that directly spells that out. I don’t have all that information available. I don’t believe Steve has that with him tonight, but we would certainly make that as part of our application. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see how he can convey unless he owns, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Obviously, you can’t convey unless you own. I don’t understand it myself. I think that, certainly, I understand why Mr. MacEwan is saying, and others are saying, from the looks of the preliminary design, or the preliminary plan, it appears to be a subdivision because we see a Lot One of 2.34 acres and we see a Lot Two of .76 acres, and certainly Bob, you’re correct. You can’t convey something if you don’t own it, but I think what I’m hearing is that the diagram does not really reflect what the applicant seeks to accomplish. MR. PALUMBO-That is correct. We had put that on there, at the point in time, that’s when it became a question as to whether or not we could do this this way, and that’s why we came to the Board. So, please accept that we’ve made that mistake. It isn’t intended to be a two lot subdivision. That is not our intent there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets move on to the next item. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. The next item was the entrance location. There is currently a curb cut that was established by the County. We have gone up and met with the County Department of Public Works, Roger Gebo, to discuss the entrance. Chris had suggested that we touch base with 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) them before coming to the Board. We did that. As far as they’re concerned, the entrance that is there was put there purposely for the access to this lot, and that that is the point at which we should be accessing the property. It is relatively near the Lafayette Street intersection, but I think that as the County had done the plans for Quaker Road, they realized that this lot needed to have access, and that’s where there is an existing curb cut left for that, and that’s where we were planning on using it. We wanted to bring that to the forefront, so that we could get your comments on it. We realize some of the issues, in terms of the proximity to Lafayette, its proximity to another existing curb cut, and that’s why we wanted to raise it now. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of discussions have you had with the owners to Mark Plaza about internalization so that you can use the curb cut that’s already existing? MR. PALUMBO-We have left a potential future connection here. That was intended that any, you know, any future plans that they may have over in this area, that there would be a provision through to this point. The discussions have gone no further than that. MR. MAC EWAN-I know it’s the preference of this Board to internalize whenever possible. There’s a provision in the Zoning Ordinance for it as well, and personally, I would rather see you internalize and share an existing access than create another one that’s 120 or 30 feet away from another curb cut, just lends to a less dangerous situation. MR. PALUMBO-I would agree with you, and one of the things that I believe that we still need to accommodate for, if the Applebee’s is to occur here, that they would want to have their own direct access, and we will further the discussions on whether or not Mark Plaza, in the combination of these, would be willing to re-work any of their accesses. MR. MAC EWAN-How far have your discussions gotten along with the County? The County has jurisdiction over that stretch of road. MR. PALUMBO-This has not gone to the County Planning Board, because it hasn’t been. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, really the person you’re going to be talking to is the County Highway Department to see if they’re going to issue a curb cut permit. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. That was the conversation that I had with Mr. Gebo, and John Remington was also part of the discussion. He wasn’t there at the meeting, but we had talked verbally with him over the phone, that that existing curb cut is valid, and they would see it as valid, and would like to see us propose our entrance at that location. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the purpose, then, of the potential future connection? Why did you even consider that on this? MR. BREWER-Because it’s required. MS. NOWICKI-Because it’s required. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a Zoning Ordinance requirement. Personally, I would rather push to see that the internalization is done, than create another curb cut, especially that close to the intersection. That’s my personal preference. MR. PALING-I’ve got a couple of comments. You’re calling for a left turn out of the Quaker Road access right now. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. PALING-I think that would be tough to sell. The other comment I have is, and I thought that it was impossible. Now I look at this print. You’ve got Niagara Mohawk right-of-way coming across the corner of this lot now. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. PALING-Is there any chance at all to get some more and hook up with Lafayette Street to the light? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. PALUMBO-Even if we could come across here, which we don’t own the property. It is Niagara Mohawk’s, the second case is that there is a substantial culvert that was placed underneath this driveway to accommodate all the drainage which is coming down to the cemetery brook. What you would have there, you know, this may be minor in the context, you’d have, again, another large culvert affecting the drainage down to that point. I think there was a lot of storm drainage work done in this area right here to try to protect that brook as much as possible. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there some sort of easements or something you’re supposed to get, you know, from NiMo, to be on their right-of-way? I mean, how is that, have you looked into that aspect? Because obviously you’re going to be developing within their right-of-way. MR. PALUMBO-We’re not developing within their right-of-way. There is an easement here that was to NiMo. This is Lands of Niagara Mohawk. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-At this point down here, we actually do have to meet with Niagara Mohawk because there are some of their poles that are actually outside of the easement that they were given. So we have some discussions to go on with Niagara Mohawk. According to what we know at this point, is that where we had some parking, right down at this point, that that was still acceptable. Basically it’s a height provision that mandates that, in terms of, if we were to have a roadway going under those lines, where it is within the easement, not the right-of-way. I’m not talking about anything with the adjacent property there, but within the easement, if we were infringing their ability to maintain the lines, or having a height restriction, they mandate a height restriction between the lines and the top of any vehicles that might be going underneath there, but we do need to have further discussions with Niagara Mohawk to iron out exactly what’s going to go on there, with the inclusion of how their poles are sitting there, or actually outside the easement. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What else? MR. PALUMBO-Another issue. We’ve got a beaver family that has taken up some residency out here. This became aware to us after the survey was done. Van Dusen and Steves went out and did the survey for us. There’s a line here that I’m following that is indicative of, you know, the three dashes of a wetland boundary. We have a pond out there right now. We are trying to communicate with the Department of Environmental Conservation as to whether we have any rights, and what rights we have, in terms of taking care of the nuisance which is backing up water onto our property. I cannot say, currently, whether if the beaver dam were taken out, if it can be, if it were taken out, whether or not the removal of that water, which is now there, will still constitute, if this falls under Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands, and if this is designated as wetlands, and I don’t know if Mark would have any comments on this, but one of the things we would need to know is the applicability of our setbacks from that wetland, and what exactly we can do within the buffer area. I have to admit, I’ve gone through the Code, and I was not exactly sure whether or not we were only restricted from having a structure within a 50 or a 35 foot buffer. I wasn’t sure exactly which one applied. It was talking about shoreline. The definition of the wetlands doesn’t directly say, Army Corps or DEC wetlands, but I assume that that would be included. So one of the things I wanted to find out, which may have an effect on issue number one, because if we have to move this building over because of a setback from that, as a wetland, we may end up needing more of this tract. So I wanted to get, I wasn’t exactly sure how the Board interprets the wetland setbacks, in that case. MR. MAC EWAN-Unique situation, and even if it came to the point where you had to move your whole site plan to the north or to the west somewhat, does that not infringe, you know, what’s to say the pond’s not going to get larger over the years? MR. PALUMBO-Well, I think that it’s not going to really encroach very much more, because what we do have now, with the ability, that line is at the bottom of a fairly steep embankment. Could the water level go up? It’s certainly possible. It’s not, if the water level were to go up, it’s not going to see a significant lateral movement of that line, because the embankment back at that point goes down fairly rapidly. So I’m not as concerned about that encroaching any further with, you know, the possible exception of maybe a few feet, if it were to go up a foot or two with the water, but I don’t think that that’s likely to occur. MR. MAC EWAN-Next? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. PALUMBO-Well, in general, all right, next issue. We, you may ask us, if you were to read just the parking issues, you’d say that it says, parking required 50 spaces, parking provided 113 spaces. The likely question might be, why are we providing so many extra spaces, given Mr. Lapper’s comment with the Mall there, trying to reduce the amount of parking. We were wrong, once again. The 50 spaces was incorrect, and we have a bar with the restaurant, and so it’s our interpretation that we need the 50 spaces on the one per 100 square feet, plus using the length of the bar, that would require, basically it’s one space per every linear foot, I believe, is the Code. Probably the only thing I’ll need to work with the Department is, how a bar has been measured in the past. A portion of the bar is where the waitresses basically go up to service the customers who are there for the restaurant, and there’s limited, you know, the seating does not go all the way around the bar. If we take the whole thing, it would provide, or need another 50 spaces, which would bring that total up to 100. Then the other one that’s an additional in there, that, you know, should have been reflected on the parking required is the Staff, and the parking for the Staff, which would bring us right up with the one per every two. It would bring us up to 112 spaces, where we’re showing 113. So just so that you weren’t thinking we were just trying to throw more parking spaces out there. We actually were in need of it. I guess that is, those were the primary issues that we wanted to clarify. We know we have some homework on those items, but we did want to get your impressions on things. MR. MAC EWAN-One other issue that maybe we can just quickly touch on, just so that you would be prepared to react to it, is landscaping plans. It’s the practice of this Board to do some pretty intensive landscaping for new development, especially streetscaping, that we’ve been really trying to encourage developers to do, especially along the Route 9 and the Quaker Road corridor. So keep that in mind, that we will be looking for something pretty intense. MR. PALUMBO-We will, and I had thought to make that point. The trees that were shown on here were strictly shown as what would be the minimum requirement for the, within the five feet of the parking area, one per every 10 spaces. That was the minimum. We will have a much more extensive landscape plan. Applebee’s has a very extensive foundation around the foundation of the building. They want an attractive building, and we will be doing additional landscaping out in the front of the site. MR. MAC EWAN-Along those lines, I think the Board would also be interested in wanting to see elevations, and potential architectural designs, as far as, and I hate using that phrase, but like with CVS they showed us brick textures and such like that, and like dental molding detail and stuff that they were doing. We’d be interested in seeing. MR. PALUMBO-Like a materials board? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’d be interested in seeing that, so that we know where we’re going with it. MR. PALUMBO-We can do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone else have any questions or comments? MS. CIPPERLY-I have a comment on your parking. It sounded as if you didn’t think you needed as many spaces as the Code requires. MR. PALUMBO-No. We had mistakenly put on the plan. MS. CIPPERLY-I know. I’m just telling you there is the option, the Planning Board has the authority to not make you pave all of that right-of-way. You just have to show where you could possibly put it if you need it in the future, but if you don’t think you need it right now. MR. PALUMBO-No. We wanted it. The applicant wants it for his business. This is one of the cases where, you know, they’re not looking to have that reduced. It’s not a cost savings issue. They want the spaces, and we just wanted to show you how we really justified it within the Code. MS. CIPPERLY-And as far as the wetland issue goes, our Code refers to mapped wetlands, which is the DEC wetlands. The Army Corps wetlands are a different animal because they’re not 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) mapped. So that’s been our spin on it. So whatever the Army Corps regulations are there is what you would have to go by, which, just as long as you’re not in the wetland. MR. PALUMBO-Right, and we have, the total area is .47. So under the Army Corps, we would be mandated to let them know of that, we’re over the .3 acres. Basically one of the things that I was questioning on the description was whether or not this would be considered as adjacent to a body of water. I think there was some language in there for a permanent stream. I don’t know exactly where the beaver dam was set up. I don’t think this really classifies under that, what that definition was, but if it did, then we would have to assume that this meets the Town’s wetlands requirements. Cemetery Brook, to the best of my knowledge, runs right over in this little area here. Depending on where the beaver dam is set up, you could say that this area is adjacent to Cemetery Brook, but I don’t know if that was really the intent of the wetlands code or the wetlands definition there. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. When you have something more firmed up, we’ll figure that one out, MR. PALUMBO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. PALUMBO-I believe so, unless there’s any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Last call. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Does anybody else have any other items for discussion? I have one. Dunkin Donuts next week. I asked Chris when I had spoken with him, and I think everybody got in their packet, that there was a report that was done by the Glens Falls Transportation Council, some four, five, six years ago regarding a corridor study up there, through that area. I didn’t get what I guess I was looking for. So what I would like you to do if it’s possible, and I know time’s not on our side, is get a copy of the site plan to those people, and ask them to comment on it and get it to us before next Tuesday. MS. CIPPERLY-Those are the comments we received today from Mr. Sopczyk. MR. MAC EWAN-Good, because my worry is that if this is approved, this is going to be the snowball starting, and I want to ensure that we’re going to address is properly and the right way. MS. CIPPERLY-He brought comments in this afternoon on both the Hess station and the Dunkin Donuts. MR. MAC EWAN-Wonderful. We’ll have those in our packets on Friday? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Wonderful. MS. CIPPERLY-Isn’t it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-And it was after we had already sent Maria out with all your other stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s almost like someone around here is psychic. Almost. Anything else? MR. RINGER-Craig, when I was down south for the month, the newspaper down there ran a series of articles on planning and boom town and everything, a three week thing, and I made copies of it, just to pass around, if anyone is interested in it. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. RINGER-Just for information only. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll take a copy. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/21/98) MR. RINGER-So if you guys want, there’s three different weeks. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MR. BREWER-Second. MR. MAC EWAN-Done. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan 43