Loading...
1998-12-22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK LARRY RINGER ROBERT PALING ROBERT VOLLARO PLANNER -LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 62-98 TYPE: UNLISTED PREMIER PARKS, INC. d/b/a THE GREAT ESCAPE OWNER: SAME ZONE: LC-42A/RC-15 LOCATION: ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT “THE NIGHTMARE RIDE”, AN ENCLOSED ROLLER COASTER RIDE. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR AMUSEMENT CENTER WITHIN RC-15 ZONING. CROSS RFERENCE: SP 14-90, SP 26-98, AV 87-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 248.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JOHN LEMERY & CRAIG TRIPP, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there was a public hearing that was left open on November 24, and it th was closed at last week’s meeting on December 15. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 62-98, Premier Parks, Inc. d/b/a The Great Escape, Meeting Date: December 22, 1998 “Description of Project The proposed “Nightmare Ride” was tabled pending a Zoning Board of Appeals determination on a height variance, which was granted on 12/16/98 with conditions. Staff Notes The Planning Board determined that the project would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Staff requested a cross section map and clarification on the acoustic insulation of the building. As part of the SEQRA determination, the applicant has indicated that the ride will not generate a significant amount of noise because the ride is enclosed and the building will be insulated. The applicant has indicated that the insulation is for heating but will provide noise dampening. The applicant has supplied the Board with a drawing demonstrating the existing and proposed parking for the Animal Land site. The structure itself will be painted with the theme of a haunted mine shaft, the applicant has indicated that the painting scheme will not be visible off site. In addition, the structure will be heavily landscaped where it meets the ridge, and landscaping will surround much of the ride for aesthetics. Staff would recommend a plan be submitted that shows a painting scheme for all four sides of the structure and a preliminary building plan that shows the construction materials for the structure. Staff would also recommend the New York urban erosion control comment be added to the final plans. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-When are you asking for the painting schemes? MRS. MOORE-That can be part of the final, because we don’t have a full painting scheme of all four sides. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anything else that we need to add in? I guess we’re all set. Do you want to come up, John. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. LEMERY-My name is John Lemery from the law firm of Lemery & Reid, Counsel to Premier Parks, Inc. MR. TRIPP-Craig Tripp, representing the LA Group. MR. LEMERY-We have also with us Phil Mantz, who’s one of the officers of The Great Escape here also. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. LEMERY-We have no further comments, sir. The Zoning Board granted the variance with the understanding that acoustic insulation would be provided, which was agreed by the applicant that there be no signage on the exterior, excepting that frontage which directly is within the Park and where the people will enter the ride. The painting also had to be in conformity with the background, the greens and the background, so that it wouldn’t be visible, and those were all agreed to by the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant has retained and engineering firm which is working with it now to determine how to address the noise on the toboggan ride, and that will be addressed. We’ve provided the additional parking plan, at the last meeting, I believe, of this Board. So far as I know, we’ve addressed the issues which people in the audience and this Board and the Zoning Board have addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. BREWER-The only question I had was, we discussed, or in Staff Notes or comments, about a long range plan. Was that ever developed and handed to us, just out of curiosity? MR. LEMERY-I’m sorry, a long range plan for? MR. BREWER-No? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. BREWER-Did you put that in your Staff Notes about a long range plan, as far as? MRS. MOORE-It was a comment. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. MOORE-It was up to the Board to discuss it with the applicant, to request that, and that may be in the future. MR. BREWER-Just for future reference, as to what you might do or any plans that you have in the back of your mind. MR. LEMERY-They’re certainly going to give it some thought. It’s impossible, at this time, so far as I understand it, to try to develop an overall thematic designation for the Park. They’re still in the stage where they’re trying to determine what fits where. The traffic issues which were of principal concern to this Board, we talked about that, and at least so far as The Great Escape is concerned, they’re going to try to do what they can to move the traffic in fast this season, to get it off the road faster, but frankly when the traffic is leaving, it gets caught up in the traffic at Martha’s, the traffic going to the shopping malls up there. So it’s pretty much impossible to determine. MR. BREWER-I just didn’t know if, per se, The Great Escape had a master plan, so to speak. MR. LEMERY-No, it does not. MR. BREWER-It does not. Do they anticipate ever developing one? No? MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get a copy of that in your Staff Notes, the additional parking plan for over in Animal Land? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. VOLLARO-This is just really for the benefit of the applicant, so that when we approve this or disapprove, whatever comes out of this, we’ll have something that we can rest on. The grading plan, Drawing No. L-3, dated 11/11/98, shows the finished floor elevation at 100 feet. Then the Zoning Board gave you a 12 foot variance on your 50 foot, so you’ve got a 62 foot building. That gives you 162 foot of elevation. Now, in this rendition drawing that we’ve got, the site profile, which it’s called, shows the peak elevation of the building at 303 feet. So we’re in variance, in my mind, with, and I know what you’re trying to do, but the finished floor has got to be set from some data. You’ve got a 100 foot in one drawing, plus 62, would be 162 foot of elevation. This drawing shows it at 303 feet at the peak, and all I’m asking for is that you submit something that, when I vote on it, I know what I’m voting on. Okay. MR. TRIPP-The reason for the difference in those two is that on the grading plan, that grading plan was done off of a survey that took an assumed 100 elevation when they were out there in the field, and the drawing you have in your hand right there came at a later date, when we had combined that survey with an overall. MR. VOLLARO-I can see that, but the grading plan as it is now, then, needs to be changed, and the elevation of that finished floor has to be elevated in accordance with some, I guess there’s a USGS benchmark that you used for the elevation that you drew in on Route 9? MR. TRIPP-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So that should be square away so that we know what we’re voting on, or at least I do. MR. LEMERY-I’m confused. What are you speaking about, what you’re voting on? It’s a 62 foot high building. It doesn’t matter where it sits in the Park. It’s 62 feet high. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just saying that in my mind, from where I sit, there’s a conflict in the data package, and I’d like that to be cleaned up. That’s all I’m really saying. There are two separate things proposed in this data package. One goes with the grading plan, as it’s been submitted, at 100 foot elevation of the finished floor, and the other one shows the peak at 303. I know you’ve got a 62 foot building in accordance with the variance. So this gives me a 162 foot height. This gives me 303. I just would like these two documents to agree with one another. That’s all I’m saying, on the submission. MR. TRIPP-Are you asking for an answer at this point, or just for further? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sir. MR. TRIPP-I mean, they are one in the same, as far as reality. The 303 is the correct, in the real world, peak elevation of the building, what it will be at when it’s built. The grading plans, planting plans, all of the construction documents were done when we had a survey of the immediate area of the ride, and when the surveyors went out in the field, they didn’t have, they gave us a survey with an assumed 100 elevation, they just picked a mark out there and said, this will be 100, and we went from there. Basically, all that would happen is that all those numbers would get either increased/decreased to correspond to the same drawing, but the information wouldn’t be any different. MR. LEMERY-So the accurate number is the 303 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Three hundred and three foot elevation at the peak of the building. MR. TRIPP-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I’m with them on that, I just have a problem with the variance of data, that’s all. On the acoustic insulation, I’d just like to go over some of John Collins’ data, and I’ve boiled this down, so it’s relatively simple now, and this is the data at Dallas/Ft. Worth, at the ride at Six Flags Over Texas. The inside reading of that ride was, for the four levels that we were using, the pressure level, was 88, 98, 96, and 93, and I would assume that the inside decibel reading of the ride we’re going to have is about the same, should be about the same. If you need help. MR. LEMERY-It probably will be better, because the acoustic, I don’t know that, in the Dallas ride, they actually used an acoustic insulation. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. VOLLARO-Well, they did. MR. LEMERY-It will be equal to or greater than what’s set forth in the Dallas ride. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, the outside, at the east location, if you look in the, I’m going to coach you on if you want to be coached on. It’s on Page 03. The west side of the building had tall, stucco wall, and the east side of the building had sheet metal only. One side was just plain sheet metal, and the other side was a full stucco wall. Stucco does have some acoustical dampening characteristics. Now, if you take a look at the east location, where it’s only sheet metal, the readings are 70, 75, 75, and 73, but if you go to the west side, and these readings are 10 feet away from the building, the readings I’m talking about now, the west side with the tall stucco was 65, 69, 68, and 68, and what that translates into is that the west side of the building, with the stucco, provided a minus 23 db reduction, minus 29, minus 28, and minus 25. Now the preparer of the document said, at those levels, there was no discernible noise from outside the building, and I would buy that, and they also talked about getting 40 to 50 feet away from the building and getting very little bit of dB reduction. So all I’m saying is, can you give us some quantifying statement that would say that the building you’re going to put there has the same acoustical dampening characteristics, or you will make them about the same, using acoustical insulation. MR. LEMERY-We’re not prepared to do that, and the reason is, I don’t want to get into a large dialogue with the Planning Board about the various rides at The Great Escape and the acoustical levels of those rides. This attraction is well within the Park. It’s within the building, there will be some noise. It’s an amusement park. It’s a roller coaster within a building. So we’re not going to get into a situation where we start to quantify and try to get so particular. It makes no sense, and we can’t do it. It’s a ride. It’s within a building. The Zoning Board asked that we provide acoustical insulation. We did so. The decibel levels that we provided the Planning Board are well within the limits. It probably can’t even be heard at the parameters of the Park. It’s well within the Park. So that’s the best we can do. We’re not prepared to go beyond that, other than what we’ve submitted, Mr. Chairman, to the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-You said the ZBA, you told the ZBA you were going to provide acoustical insulation? MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Was that part of your approval with them? MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m not worried about it, then. Because the insulation that you have speced out in here, that you’ve submitted as part of our packets. MR. LEMERY-Is not acoustical insulation. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. LEMERY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s good. No problem. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I had. I just wanted to bring that up. All I was trying to do was to get some assurance that this ride would mimic the acoustical characteristics of the ride. MR. LEMERY-Well, this is an amusement park, and there will be noise within that amusement park, and we don’t want to get into these long dialogues about noise, other than, you know. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think what’s brought us to this long dialogue about noise is some of the comments that we’ve received from the public hearings regarding the Bobsled. We don’t want a repeat of that. MR. LEMERY-Right. We understand. We have to address that. We know that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s where the Board’s going with this whole thing, is to assure that we just don’t have people coming next summer complaining to the Board saying that that ride is 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) noisy as well, but the fact that you’re taking measures to put acoustical insulation in there, and as part of your approval with the ZBA, I think is, in my mind, is good enough for me. MR. SCHACHNER-A question. A quick review of the ZBA approval does not seem to reflect what the applicant is stating. MR. STARK-He said he was going to use it. Right in the minutes of the ZBA. MR. MAC EWAN-Is the ZBA motion to approve inclusive in their motion that they’re going to use acoustical insulation? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t believe it is. That’s exactly what I’m commenting on. The statement you just made, I’m not talking about the applicant’s statement. I’m talking about the statement you just made, Mr. Chairman. I believe you just indicated something to the effect that you were satisfied because the ZBA approval includes the requirement. MR. MAC EWAN-I was asking him based on what he was telling me, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and again, I was not at the ZBA meeting. All I’m doing is looking at th the minutes of the ZBA meeting of December 16, and I’m looking fairly quickly here, but the approval. MR. VOLLARO-I can give you the words, Mark, if you want the words. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t want the words. It’s up to you all, but what I’m seeing here, as far as acoustics, is the applicant, I’m seeing a phrase that says “The applicant has agreed to provide as much acoustical screening or acoustical barriers to the ride to minimize the effects on people living outside of the Park, and I just want to make sure that this Board, you know, that you understand what language is in the ZBA approval and what language is not in the approval. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve just had this handed to us tonight. So most of us haven’t had a chance to read it. MR. SCHACHNER-Myself included. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I just read Page Five, which was easy to read, where Mr. Thomas says, “You don’t have any problem with that in a resolution? MR. LEMERY-To put acoustical insulation in? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. LEMERY-No.” So I just assumed that it was going in, but now as I read the final resolution on the back page, it’s not exactly worded like that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I jumped to the end. I didn’t see the dialogue you just mentioned, but that certainly is an accurate recitation. I see what you’re saying. MR. LEMERY-We’re prepared to make it a condition of site plan review, if you’d like to make it that, that the acoustical insulation will go in the building. That’s the agreement, everybody, with the Zoning Board. I don’t know how it reads. MR. PALING-We can’t agree to something like that. We don’t know what we’re agreeing to. That’s like saying, I’m going to put up some traffic lights somewhere. That’s too general a statement. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not agreeing to anything right at this moment. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When you say acoustical insulation, you want like a certain, like with heating insulation there’s a certain “R” factor. MR. PALING-Sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-With acoustical there must be a certain whatever they measure that with. MR. PALING-And to go back another step, I think that the insulation that they specified before, which is four inches in the wall, the six inches in the ceiling, is going to be adequate to do this. I’d rather approve that than I would to approve saying we’re going to put some acoustical insulation in because I don’t know what they’re saying. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. BREWER-What’s the difference between acoustical insulation and? MR. VOLLARO-Thermal insulation. MR. PALING-I don’t know. That’s why I’m saying, I don’t know what they’re talking about. MR. VOLLARO-And thermal insulation. They’re a different species. MR. PALING-Thermal insulation. MR. BREWER-How do we, as a Board, know what that insulation is? I don’t know what that is. MR. STARK-They told us the dB ratings with the heat insulation in there. They’re doing, because the ride is going to be air conditioned. MR. BREWER-Well, that’s fine. I don’t care. I don’t think you’re going to be able to tell the difference anyway, but just for my own satisfaction, what’s the difference of acoustic insulation and the insulation I have in my house? MR. PALING-There is no difference, the insulation, correct me if I’m wrong. MR. BREWER-Then why are we making a big deal? MR. VOLLARO-Wait a minute, there’s a difference. MR. PALING-Between the insulation going into your house. The insulation going into the ride is the same as the insulation you have going in your house. There is an acoustical value to it, but it is not specified. Having worked with it, I think it’ll be adequate to do this job, but there’s no way that I know to put a number on it, from me or the manufacturer or anyone. MR. BREWER-Is the acoustic insulation a hard board insulation? Can somebody explain to me what it is? MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s a soft insulation. It’s usually set up so that it’s convoluted. It’s designed to absorb frequencies over a given range. Some acoustical material will absorb frequencies in the very high frequency spectrum, some in the very low. What they do is design it so, for sound, across the spectrum that you can hear, from 20 to about 20,000 cycles per second, and there’s acoustical insulation that’s designed to absorb those frequencies. MR. PALING-Okay. I don’t think that’s what they’re putting in here, is it? MR. VOLLARO-They’re not putting that in there, Robert. You’re absolutely right. They’re putting in “R” value insulation, which is what you were talking about. That’s thermal. Thermal and acoustical are different. They’re totally different. MR. PALING-I’m not questioning that, but I’m saying that, having worked with it, I am satisfied that there’s sufficient dampening to get it below the level that we discussed, but to say that just to go with the term “general acoustical insulation” that’s even less than what we know about the regular thermal insulation. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’m saying is put acoustical insulation in that will reduce the internal noise by 23, 29, 28, and 25 dB, when taken over those ranges. I’m trying to quantify it. You’re complaining that we can’t quantify it, and I’m trying to throw a quantifying number at it. Now, I’m not going to belabor this forever because this is a tough forum to discuss the reduction of noise, I’ll tell you that. It’s a difficult forum. MR. BREWER-In my mind, it’s an amusement park, you’re going to hear noise. If they put insulation in, and this is only my opinion, if somebody could explain to me what they’re going to put in there, I probably would be satisfied, but to say that they’re going to have R-19 value, and how you measure the other. MR. PALING-R-19 doesn’t do any good. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. BREWER-I’m using that as an example. MR. LEMERY-Mr. Collins, at the meeting, and I don’t know the technical difference, personally, but Mr. Vollaro made a point at the last Planning Board meeting that there was a difference between thermal insulation and acoustical insulation, and John Collins’ position was, we had planned to put the thermal insulation in. If our experts tell us that we can get a greater noise reduction by putting in an insulation which has a higher acoustical rating, we will put the higher acoustical rating insulation in, so as to reduce the noise, and I assume everybody could come over and take a look, at the point where they’re ready to put it in, and be satisfied that it’s adequately noise buffered. It will be at least what Mr. Paling has suggested, which is the thermal insulation, which is they have speced out for the ride itself, but to the extent that they can get a greater reduction with an acoustic insulation of the same degree and quality, John Collins has said they would do that. The Great Escape does not want to have any problems with any neighbors, and they’ll do what they can to minimize the noise impact of this ride, including the acoustic insulation, if it’s a greater, you know, it provides a greater noise barrier. MR. VOLLARO-If you get the right insulation across that range, it’ll definitely decrease it significantly, and by the way, it’s inexpensive. It’s not expensive. MR. LEMERY-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-But can it serve a dual purpose? They also need a regular thermal insulation for the air conditioning. MR. VOLLARO-It may. It may not. I doubt whether the kind of insulation I’m thinking about is going to give them much of an “R” value to hold the cooling in the building when they air condition it. They may have to go to a two fold, and insulation is pretty inexpensive, whether it’s acoustic or thermal. MR. LEMERY-I’m assuming they can buy an insulation which has a thermal quality to it that says that, based on the thickness and whatever, it provides a certain acoustical sound barrier. MR. VOLLARO-There may be one that satisfies both requirements. That would be the best of all worlds, sure. MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-This is a really, really easy question to answer. None of us, as far as I know, are qualified to answer it. I would have imagined that the applicant would have presented qualified, expert engineering data to answer this question, but we don’t need to be shooting at this moving target and saying, well, maybe it’ll be better as acoustic, maybe it’ll be better as thermal, maybe a combination is better. All I’m saying is I have a substantial amount of experience myself in similar proceedings elsewhere involving the noise issue, and I’m telling you as a Board, this is an extremely easy question to answer, not by us, but by qualified sound engineering experts, very easy question. MR. LEMERY-We don’t think it rises to that level. We don’t want to bring a bunch of sound engineers in here, relative to a ride that’s going to be enclosed, given the data you have. I happen to agree with Mr. Paling, given the data you have, it’s more than adequate to address anybody’s concern about the noise. The Great Escape doesn’t want to be a problem for it’s neighbors. If it’s greater, and creates a problem outside the Park, John Collins and those people will address it, just as they’re going to address and deal with the toboggan ride so that it doesn’t cause a problem for you folks here. I don’t know how else to answer it other than. MR. BREWER-But as we sit here tonight, how do we know it’s going to be adequate? That’s my point. MR. LEMERY-I guess we won’t know until we try it out, and the Park opens and it’s a problem, but if you look at the decibel levels that were provided to the Board from the data in Dallas, and you look at the decibel data that was provided at the OSHA, by the OSHA inspections which were provided to the Board, and look at the comparisons with the other rides in there, you can get a good sense of what this ride will do, as opposed to the other rides, so it’s all laid out there. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. BREWER-I think we’re beating a dead horse. I mean, there’s no insulation on that big ride that’s out front, and that’s right on Route 9, and people are screaming. That’s going to be in the middle of the Park, and it’s going to be enclosed, and I think we ought to just forget it. MR. PALING-As long as they’re saying any other insulation that they put in will be better than the four inches in the wall and six inches in the ceiling that they’re talking about now, then I could go along with it, and I’m talking thermal insulation when I say four and six. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re satisfied with the Masell Brothers quote that they’re showing there? They’re showing R-19 six inch and R-13 four inch? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. PALING-Well, yes. At the last meeting, I believe John Collins committed to put a fence on the north side of the parking lot to prevent cars from running up on the grass strip, and I’d like the Board to make that as part of the resolution, part of the motion, that there will be a fence there that will help to retard the parking of cars there. MR. LEMERY-Is a chain link fence adequate, would that be reasonable? At the foot of the hill? MR. PALING-I’m talking about the hill that’s in front of the Coachman. MR. LEMERY-At the foot of the hill going up to the Coachman? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. LEMERY-Right. He did agree to that. MR. PALING-Other than that, those are the two points that I had. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just tell me, what did we decide upon with the insulation? Is that still? MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m hearing, I think the consensus of the Board is they’re satisfied with the thermal insulation. That’s what I’m hearing. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. th MR. RINGER-One thing on traffic, John, at the ZBA meeting on the 16, last week, you said that they’re going to take some steps to try to move the people in there faster. I think Mr. McNulty made a comment last night about how they ought to move the traffic the way they do at Disney World, and you get the people off the road as quickly as they can. Can you be anymore specific on what they’re going to do or what their plans are to move that traffic in and out of there, other than to say that they’re going to try? Do they have any plans? MR. LEMERY-Well, as I understand it, they may make use of the Animal Land parking lot earlier than rather hold it just for the overflow. They may start trying to move the traffic into that area, so that there is more than one ingress and egress on east and west side, and move people along south of the entrance, and get them into that other parking lot earlier. MR. RINGER-Before it fills out, okay. Because it says here that they’re going to use the Animal Land after it fills up. All right. That helps a little bit. MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. RINGER-Thanks, John. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add, John? MR. LEMERY-No, sir. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-98 PREMIER PARKS, INC. , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the following conditions: that any insulation put inside the ride will have at least the noise suppression value of regular R value thermal insulation, four (4) inches in the wall and six (6) inches in the ceiling of the ride, and anything different that the four and six, they’ve got to give us the sound rating of the four and the six and compare it to whatever it is they’re going to put in there, and we’ve got to make sure it’s better. That a fence be erected on the north side of the parking lot to prevent parking on the hill before the Coachman, entering from the Great Escape parking lot. Finished heights will reflect the 62 feet, at time they apply for a building permit application, and the accurate elevation of 303 feet. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: MR. PALING-That any insulation put inside the ride will have at least the noise suppression value of regular R value thermal insulation, four (4) inches in the wall and six (6) inches in the ceiling of the ride. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. You can’t do R values, as far as inches goes. Sometimes it’s density. MR. PALING-Well, six inches and four inches do have an R value. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you know what I’m saying. MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. I’m just saying, could you have a thicker insulation that didn’t, wasn’t as good as one that would be thinner and denser? So you’re just reading it off the contract thing here, Bob. MR. PALING-This is a standard industry thing. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Okay. It’s off this thing, the contract thing. MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. No problem. MR. PALING-And that a fence be erected on the north side of the parking lot to prevent parking on the hill before the Coachman, entering from the Great Escape parking lot. MR. STARK-Second. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. SCHACHNER-The thing we’re listening for most particularly now is enforceability, and as we understand the motion, there’s going to be an enforceability problem if the applicant chooses to insulate with something different than what’s been presented in the application, because in order to meet the proposed condition, it’s going to be incumbent upon somebody to demonstrate that the insulation they put in is better, for lack of a better term, is more dampening of sound than what the applicant proposes. I understand the intent of that, but the Town’s Code Enforcement Staff is not going to be able to make that determination. So I’m not recommending against that condition, but I’m going to suggest that if you want to include that condition in your approval, that you add something in that approval that makes it incumbent upon the applicant, if it chooses to install different insulation, which I think is a good thing, by the way. I think the intent of the motion is good, that the applicant also provides the Staff with the engineering data so that Staff can say, yes, the insulation that you propose to install is, in fact, more acoustically dampening than what you originally proposed. Am I making sense? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. LEMERY-I thought that what was off the table, I thought what you suggested was that the four inches and the six inches, which is what is contained in the specs, would be what would go in there, no less than the four inches and the six inches. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. PALING-And I said if you do different than that, if you do different than the four and the six, then you’ve got to give us the sound rating of the four and the six, and compare it to whatever it is that you’re going to put in there, and we’ve got to make sure it’s better. MR. LEMERY-That’s fine. Understood. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly my point. So it’s incumbent upon the applicant to produce that data, so that Staff will have the basis for making that determination. MR. LEMERY-Yes, understood. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s condition one. Condition two is the fence along the northern side of the property line, adjacent to the Coachman. How do you feel about his comment, regarding the elevation of 303? I mean, if they’ve got a variance and it allows for 62 foot. MRS. MOORE-I’m sure they’re going to be submitting building permit plans, and it may be addressed in that fashion, if that’s something that’s acceptable. MR. BREWER-What do you mean it may be? It should be? MRS. MOORE-It should be. We can ask them, for our file record keeping purposes, to submit a drawing that represents what Bob Vollaro has requested. MR. VOLLARO-Incidentally, Craig, I talked to Craig Brown today on the phone about this same subject, and he cannot reconcile these two numbers, the way the data currently exists. Okay. He’s got the same problem I do. MR. BREWER-So make it so that it should be accurate in the file when they apply for the building permit. That’s something you should be able to do easily, isn’t it, or not? MR. MAC EWAN-Finished building heights will reflect the 62 feet at time you apply for a building permit application. Okay? MR. LEMERY-Yes, and the accurate elevation. MR. VOLLARO-Of 303 feet. MR. LEMERY-Fine. MR. VOLLARO-If the motion states that, then the building will be 303 at the peak. MR. MAC EWAN-Done. Those three items. George, did you second that? MR. STARK-Second. MR. MAC EWAN-Maria, call the vote. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. LEMERY-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 67-98 TYPE: UNLISTED THE BON TON DEPARTMENT STORE OWNER: PYRAMID BROKERAGE COMPANY ZONE: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION ROAD, AVIATION MALL APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AND ADD AN ENTRANCE TO THE FORMER CALDOR’S STORE AT AVIATION MALL. ALL USES IN ESC-25A REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN COUNTY: DECEMBER 9, 1998 CROSS REFERENCES: P1-98, SPR 14-98, 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) SUB. NO. 2-1994, SPR 1-91, SPR 10-90 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.21 LOT SIZE: 40.81 ACRES SECTION: 179-27.1 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 67-98, The Bon Ton Department Store, Meeting Date: December 22, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to modify the exterior of an existing store attached to the Aviation Mall. All proposes uses in the Enclosed Shopping Center zone require Planning Board review. Staff Notes The applicant has complied with the site plan review requirements. A physical entrance with associated landscaping and sidewalk modification on the west side of the building is all that is proposed regarding site plan. The applicant has indicated there will be no change in the parking or traffic pattern for the proposed entrance. There are no foreseeable impacts to the mall. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to be added? MRS. MOORE-The County. Warren County Planning said, No County Impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and I’m here on behalf of The Bon Ton. This is the simplest application I’ve ever asked the Board to approve. It’s a technicality that it’s a site plan modification. There are just two minor change to the Mall. I was at the Zoning Board of Appeals last week to approve the signs, which are related to the site plan modification, because there’s signage over the two entrances where we’re asking for the site plan to be changed. This is a picture of what is proposed for the new entrance, and the front of the Mall facing Aviation Road, which right now has sort of a triangular, mirrored pediment, and this is a much more attractive entrance. This mirror’s, or it’s very close to what was done for the new Penney’s. Because the Bon Ton is in the back of the Mall, in the old Caldor space, this allows people to see when they’re coming into the Mall from Aviation Road, in the front parking lot, there is a Bon Ton. So it’s important for the Bon Ton, to take the back space, to have signage on the front. This is the only sign that will be on the front of the Mall with their name on it, but in addition, right now what covers the sidewalk is just this small, triangular, I submitted this, but it’s sort of hard to see it. What’s there right now, existing doors, there’s this little triangular thing that comes down. What’s proposed is it’s going to be much nicer, bigger, in terms of protecting people from rain and snow and that’s what the picture is. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the west elevation, Jon? MR. LAPPER-This is not. This is the north elevation. MR. VOLLARO-This is the north elevation. MRS. LABOMBARD-This is the main entrance. MR. LAPPER-This is the main entrance. This is the entrance which used to be the Ground Round, and now it’s sort of in the center. MR. VOLLARO-So what I’m looking at here is the north elevation. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And that’s what I showed you in color. MR. VOLLARO-The next one is the west elevation. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. LAPPER-Right. The west elevation is a new door. Also, to entice Bon Ton to take the space in the back, and also to satisfy them, just in terms of moving people into the parking lot, they’re asking for a new doorway which will go directly from the parking lot behind the movie theater, into the side of the west elevation, the side of that elevation, so that you don’t have to go into the Mall, but you can go directly into the store from the parking lot, and the site plan modification which has to do with that is merely bringing the sidewalk from the curb to the new door and some fairly extensive planting. Right now there’s a dumpster on that side of the Mall, and just some kind of scrubby trees and a planting bed. MR. BREWER-The whole stretch there by that? MR. LAPPER-On that west facade of this building. That whole stretch is going to be improved with some nice landscaping, nice sidewalk, just to make it look like an entrance to a department store, rather than the back side of the Mall. I submitted this later because I got the planting plan after I made the original submission. I submitted it to Laura. I don’t know if the Board has it. MRS. MOORE-As far as I know, the Board has this. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are the Mall compactors moving to? MR. LAPPER-It’s hard to see, the back of the Mall, the back of the Bon Ton store, and one side is. MR. MAC EWAN-I see it. It’s stuck in there. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that’s where customer pickup was for Caldor. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And, Jon, the entrance is really on the west side, though, the new entrance, right there in the corner or in the middle? MR. LAPPER-It’s in the middle. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. There is a dumpster. You see it when you go into the movies. MR. LAPPER-That dumpster was not just for Caldors. It was for that whole side of the Mall, but that’s all being changed and cleaned up, and now that’ll be a very inviting entrance to the store, and that’s why all the landscaping. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When are they going to do this? MR. LAPPER-When are they going to do this? Starting Monday, and it’ll be open in April. This is an immediate, get it in here. MR. MAC EWAN-You hope. MRS. LA BOMBARD-As long as it goes through. MR. LAPPER-I have someone here who can verify it. Once we finish this, I also wanted to introduce Bill Marquardt who has just moved to Town to work with me on the expansion, and we expect to shortly be back to talk in detail about the expansion, and Bill is here from Pyramid, and can verify that the contract has been let and really will start on Monday, and if there’s any other questions about this or the expansion, we can talk about that as well at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STARK-The only question I had was the compactor, and Jon answered it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It sounds nice. MR. BREWER-Signs, you’re going to have all these signs? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. LAPPER-The signs were approved by the Zoning Board, and as you know, it’s not a simple thing getting Sign Variances. In this particular case, the County Planning Board and the Town Zoning Board unanimously approved the Sign Variances. I can just quickly go through that. We’re talking about six signs, but three of them can’t be seen from off the property, and those three, if you go, the entrance by the movie theater now, you have to go down an alley on both sides, either if you’re coming from the Sears or from the Penneys, you go down that sort of alleyway, and at the Mall entrance there is this sign, is this sign. This is what it looks like down that alley. So two of the signs you can’t see from even the parking lot until you actually get onto the sidewalk. So they don’t count, and the Zoning Board said that really doesn’t require a variance because you can’t see them from off the site. The third sign is this small pylon sign, freestanding sign, and that’s just so if you’re in the parking lot between Sears and the Bon Ton, there’s no other sign on the east side of the facade that says Bon Ton. So this is the only thing to direct people that that’s the entrance on the east side, because there’s not an entrance on the building facing Sears, like the entrance that they’re adding facing the Northway. So those are three of the six signs, and then beside that, there’s only the sign on the front of the Mall that I showed you, the only sign facing Aviation Road, a sign over the new entrance to direct people into the new entrance on the west side, and then one other sign on the west side, which is a little bit larger, which is at the top of the building, so that for a split second, perhaps if you’re driving by on the Northway, somebody may know that there’s a Bon Ton there, and beyond that, just if you’re coming in the back of the parking lot, you’ll see that it’s there. So based upon the location of the building and these signs being pretty hidden, it’s really pretty minor, even though it sounds like a lot. MR. BREWER-My only concern is that if the Bon Ton is allowed to do this, how many other tenants are going to ask to do the same thing? MR. LAPPER-I would answer that by saying that the Zoning Board is always extremely careful, some would say overly careful, to distinguish that they’re giving a variance that has to do with very specific site requirements, and in this case, it was because the store is all the way in the back of the Mall, and that these signs can’t be seen off site, and that was part of the resolution. MR. BREWER-CVS is in the back of the Mall, too. MR. LAPPER-But it’s only, the Sign Ordinance, only allows one sign per business, and as the Mall developer, Pyramid will only make exceptions, Pyramid has to agree to allow a tenant to apply to the Town for additional signage, and they, as a policy, will only allow an anchor store, someone who has leverage with them, to say, okay, you want to put a Bon Ton here and you want to be in the back of the Mall, you’ve got to give us some extra signage, and then give them the permission to come to the Town and see if it’s acceptable to the Town. So it’s just not, I mean, they wouldn’t allow CVS to have six signs. MR. BREWER-I just happened to pick them because they’re in the back of the Mall, but I’m not saying they will or they won’t. MR. LAPPER-But there’s always the protection that the Zoning Board has to approve it, and they’ve, historically, been very tough when it comes to Sign Variances. In this case, they made an exception because of the location, that they thought it was appropriate. I can tell you, it’s not easy to get Sign Variances in Queensbury. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question, Jon. It has to do with what you said about a fleeting, a split second somebody driving by the Northway could see, but with the whole new site plan study for the new addition to the Mall, all that time and effort was put in to camouflaging everything with the tree plantings and all of that. Now we’re saying, I don’t understand what you’re saying. MR. LAPPER-If you look on this site plan, the addition is going to be from J.C. Penney heading north into this hill, where the motel is and the gas stations and the restaurant. This building is back here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then that sign is going to face more like southwest, I mean, southeast? MR. LAPPER-This space is due west. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I was going to say a little bit on the diagonal, so coming up the Northway? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. LAPPER-The only, this was just something I mentioned because it was, they were saying it sort of facetiously at the Zoning Board, that it’s just an absolute split second where the vegetation is low, right just south of the site, where you might, for a second, and they were going back and forth on the Board saying, could you even see it, that there’s a possibility that you might be able to see the sign. It’s just so minor, because the whole rest of this is all higher than the Mall, and when the addition is built, so it’s built into where the hill is now, you’re not going to see any of that either. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I thought. MR. LAPPER-It’s really, I mean, it’s just not visible, and this building in the back maybe for a split second, but hopefully when people come around the back. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When people come around the regular drive there, it would catch them. Yes. MR. LAPPER-That’s the real reason. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I see, all right. I’ve got you. Okay. MR. BREWER-Craig, can we look at the landscape plan? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-If we’re going to approve it. MR. MAC EWAN-A quick question for Staff. The application says that it’s a site plan modification. The SEQRA refers to it as modification. Staff Notes refer to it as a modification. It’s on our agenda as a site plan review. What is it? MRS. MOORE-It doesn’t refer. Staff Notes aren’t modification. MR. MAC EWAN-“The applicant proposes to modify the exterior of an existing store. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not a modification of the site plan approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we dealing with it as a new site plan, yes? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay. Tim, you wanted to ask what now? MR. BREWER-The landscaping plan, if we’re going to approve it, I’d like to look at it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We kind of saw it on that picture there. MR. LAPPER-This is the new doorway. This is a new sidewalk. This is a new sidewalk out to the parking lot, this is landscaping here, and on that side, it continues. The description is on the first page. It’s pretty extensive. That came from Bon Ton, because they wanted to make the entrance attractive. MR. BREWER-Can I look at it for a minute? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-While you’re looking at that and passing it down, lets open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment regarding this application? Please come up and address yourself on the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL MARQUARDT MR. MARQUARDT-As Jon said, my name is Bill Marquardt. I’m with the Pyramid Company. So if there are any questions I can be helpful with, don’t hesitate to ask. Naturally, we’re certainly 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) excited about Bon Ton coming to the Center. We think it adds a great shot in the arm to the merchandise mix. What you’re seeing before you were extensively negotiated, and in Bon Ton’s mind are critical to them coming to the Center. When we first sat down with them, or any tenant, they always joke and say, you know, you need a map to get back to that store, and so this signage and the new entrance and the landscaping are all key components to their coming to the community, which we think is an exciting move. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? All right. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: THE BON TON DEPARTMENT STORE , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 67-98 THE BON TON DEPARTMENT STORE , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: In accordance with drawing dated November 19, 1998, Pyramid Companies Mall, 4 Clinton Avenue, Syracuse, NY, and also in accordance with the north elevation rendition provided and with 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) the west rendition provided, and that’s the rendition for the entrances on the west side and on the north side, and in accordance with the landscaping plan, file no. 896. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 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, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and Bill and I expect to be back here shortly to move along the bigger more exciting project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-That should be more exciting, Jon. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1998 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED ROSE PROTOTO BRANDT OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-5 LOCATION: CLEMENTS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, ONE LOT IS 80.87 ACRES AND ANOTHER LOT IS 6 ACRES. THE SKETCH PLAN STAGE IS ONE OF THREE PHASES FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE KNOWN TAX MAP NO. 27-2-9 LOT SIZE: 86.87 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ROBERT KELLY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled for tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 14-1998 - SKETCH PLAN, Rose Prototo Brandt, Meeting Date: December 22, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to subdivide an 86.87 acre parcel into two lots, 6.0 acres and 80.87 acres. Staff Notes The applicant has complied with the Sketch plan stage for subdivision review. Staff would recommend the applicant include a note on the drawing about erosion and sediment control being in compliance with the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, the drawing should demonstrate a proposed well, septic location and design, and driveway for the 6.0 acre lot. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. ROSE PROTOTO BRANDT MRS. BRANDT-Yes. I’m Rose Prototo Brandt, owner of the property. Do you want the address? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, we’ve been there. MRS. BRANDT-Okay. MR. KELLY-And I’m Robert Kelly, attorney for Mrs. Brandt. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are you familiar with some of the Staff’s comments regarding some of the items you need to put on your subdivision plat? MRS. BRANDT-No. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. KELLY-Yes, we’ve been provided those, and we do acknowledge we’d be happy to comply with those notes. MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, do you anticipate any further subdivision of the remaining 80 plus acres? MRS. BRANDT-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The only other note I would mention to you is that because this is a pretty simple subdivision, if you are going to want any waivers from some of the standard subdivision regulations, as far as stormwater management plans, and so on and so forth, that Staff can help you out, that you submit a letter of waiver request to them, prior to Preliminary. Okay. MR. BREWER-Isn’t there a simple process for a two lot subdivision? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know, this is within the APA. MR. BREWER-That kicks it into a review process? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BREWER-That’s the only question I had. MR. PALING-You’ve got to help me with the arithmetic. I can’t come up with the total that Staff talks about, 86.87 acres. MRS. BRANDT-Well, that’s what I have. MR. PALING-If you don’t mind. MRS. BRANDT-Not at all. MR. PALING-Is one lot in Warren County and one in Washington County? MRS. BRANDT-Yes, we have two. MR. PALING-Well, if you add that 44 plus 41, is 85, plus 6 is 91. That’s not what Staff says. MRS. MOORE-Our records are from Assessment records. I’m sure if we ask Mr. McCormack to address that, I’m sure he could put that note in there, total acreage, and it’s just an assessment issue. MR. PALING-All right. As long as it gets accurate, I don’t care. So, how are you going to do it? MRS. MOORE-I can check with Assessment, and I can check with Mr. McCormack and make sure he puts that note, so you can put that in Preliminary, for his Preliminary application. MR. PALING-Is it 91 or is it 86? What is it? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know it’s 86.87, because of the way the Assessment. MR. PALING-Okay. You realize it doesn’t add up. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we wouldn’t, because some of her property falls over into Washington County, we wouldn’t consider that. MR. BREWER-It’s contiguous property, though. MR. PALING-Then change the note in the Staff notes. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s her property, but not from an Assessment standpoint. That’s where the numbers come in. MR. BREWER-So they’re drawing a property line on the back portion for Assessment purposes only. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. MAC EWAN-At the Town line. MR. PALING-If it’s all within Warren County, then you’re talking 50 acres. MR. BREWER-Yes, but then that throws the numbers off, because you said how many acres are in Washington County? MR. PALING-Washington, I think, well, it says 41. MRS. BRANDT-Forty-two acres in Washington County. MR. PALING-All I’m asking for is the prints to be accurate. I don’t care. MR. BREWER-Then how can we say that it’s 88? I agree with what you’re saying. How can we say that it’s 80? MR. PALING-Well, Staff came up with 86.87. There’s no way you can come up with that number by adding what’s on this print, and all I’m saying is, tell us what it should be, and let it go. MR. MAC EWAN-By the time they come back around for Preliminary, it will be duly noted on the print, and through Assessment. Okay. Has anybody got anything else? Okay. You’re going to make application for next month, I’m assuming, for Preliminary? We should be able to do it in one night, two steps, Preliminary and Final. Okay. MR. KELLY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Just make sure that any waivers you’re going to be looking for, you submit with your application a letter to Staff, so we can get that taken care of. MR. KELLY-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1998 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED STEWART’S ICE CREAM OWNER: ROGER AND BARBARA BRASSEL ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF BAY AND CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.70 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS; 1.1 ACRES AND 6.6 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCES: SPR 65-98 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-11.1 LOT SIZE: 7.70 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JIM GILLESPIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because this is a Sketch Plan, there is no public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 12-1998 - SKETCH PLAN, Stewart’s Ice Cream, Meeting Date: December 22, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to subdivide a 7.70 acre parcel into two lots of 1.1 acres and 6.6 acres. Previously subdivided parcels require subdivision review for further subdivision. Staff Notes The applicant has complied with the Sketch Plan Stage subdivision application. The applicant proposes to utilize the 1.1 acre lot for a proposed Stewart’s Store. No proposal for the remaining lot has been submitted. Staff had suggested the applicant re-examine the proposed subdivision (letter 12/14/98) from Staff to the applicant. Staff believes there may be a better way to lay the lots out that would facilitate the proposed and future commercial use on both lots. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read the letter into the record about, from Staff to Stewart’s Ice Cream? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Stewart’s Ice Cream. “This is a follow-up to our conversation of December 9, 1998, informing you that an Area Variance is required. I faxed you a copy of the variance application, and Section 179-78, Travel Corridor Overlay information. I am 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) including these items with this letter. Area Variance applications are reviewed by Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer. Please contact him with any questions regarding the application. Subdivision of the parcel is required prior to site plan review. The proposed lot configuration may satisfy Stewart’s site requirements, however, the configuration could be improved upon. Section 179-66.1 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Board to require internal connection of commercial parking areas. The proposal identifies a drive common to the remaining lot. Development of a concept plan for the lot will allow analysis of this proposal. We anticipate receipt of the site Stormwater Management Plan two (2) weeks prior to the review of the Site Plan. There is a meeting with the Town’s Wastewater Department set for December 22, 1998 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss Stewart’s sewer connection. This may be an appropriate time to address questions or comments about the planning review process. Please call if you have any questions.” MR. MAC EWAN-Read the Warren County one in, too, would you, please? MRS. MOORE-Craig, I have two letters from the County, this one, and then an additional response. th MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got November 18’s. MRS. MOORE-Yes, there’s a new one. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s one since then. th MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read this original one in from November 18? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and then if you’ve got a newer one, because I don’t have it. MR. VOLLARO-No, neither do I. MRS. MOORE-All right. November 18, 1998, Warren County letter, “Upon review of the plans for the Stewart’s Shop proposed for Bay Road (County Road # 7) Warren County has the following comments: 1. Bay Road along with the travel lanes has an 11’ shoulder and a 10’ bike lane. The turn radius at the Bay Road driveway needs to end at the edge of the travel lane not at the inside edge of shoulder. Please see attached sheet. 2. There needs to be consideration for bicycles utilizing the path while crossing the driveway. The bike path needs to be easily distinguished by vehicles using the driveway. Also if the grade of the driveway is different than not that of the path it will require a curb-cut ramp. 3. Warren County will permit water from the site to enter the storm drain along Bay Road. The recommendation is to store water in a retention pond with overflow to the county drop inlet.” I have a December 16, 1998 letter from Warren County, it’s addressed to Chris Round. “The original plan submitted for the proposed Stewart’s along Bay Road showed the sites storm water entering a Warren County storm drain along Bay Road. After an on site meeting with Jim Gillespie of Stewart’s Warren County has decided to allow use of the storm drain if an Oil Water Separator is used prior to the water entering the Warren County catch basin. Also during a phone conversation, Jim Gillespie agreed to add striping as per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for the bike lanes crossing of the Stewart’s driveway along Bay Road. Could you please send our department a copy of any updated plans submitted by Stewart’s? As always thank you for your information and for allowing our comments.” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? Okay. Good evening. MR. GILLESPIE-Good evening. I’m Jim Gillespie from Stewart’s Ice Cream. This is Tom Lewis, also from Stewart’s. ROGER BRASSEL DR. BRASSEL-And Roger Brassel, I’m the owner. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re dealing with a subdivision only tonight, right, gentlemen, just so we’re understood. MRS. MOORE-We’re only doing subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. GILLESPIE-Well, before you are the plans for the construction of a 2400 square foot Stewart’s Ice Cream Shop. We are proposing the subdivision of an existing 7.7 acre parcel. We’re proposing subdividing 1.1 acres from the 7.7 acre parcel at the intersection of Bay and Cronin, just down the road here. The lot and access was configured to provide future access to the property, in anticipation of Brassel’s future development, and that’s pretty much it. We’d like to ask the Board if they have any comments on the site plan issues, maybe we could address them at this time, also. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So, basically, you’re looking for just taking a small chunk out of that, and your hopes are to have entrance and exits on both Bay Road and Cronin Road? MR. GILLESPIE-Bay and Cronin, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Roughly, what is the distance from the Cronin Road intersection to your Bay Road entrance? MR. GILLESPIE-We’re roughly 250 feet from Bay Road to the Cronin Road entrance, to the center of it. MR. BREWER-244, yes, it’s 250, because the lot’s 244 deep, right, and the center line’s right to the. MR. GILLESPIE-To the center of the access. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s a little insert on the blueprint there, too that shows that. The thing is, I have no problem with the subdivision of 1.1 acres, but then my problem goes into the next step. That doesn’t seem like much land for a Stewart’s store with all the parking. I mean, my lot at home is that big, and I can’t imagine putting a Stewart’s store, and I mean, I’m trying to make a comparison to what 1.1 acre is with something that I know the boundaries of, which is my own lot, where my own house is on, and it just doesn’t seem like that is enough area for what you’re using it for, but, I mean, I guess. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, I guess I should point out, it is going to require a variance. There’s a 75 foot setback from Bay Road, a buffer for any construction, so it would require a variance for the canopy, the future parking, and the freestanding sign. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, in other words, you’re even thinking about future parking down the line. Why can’t you just increase the subdivision to 1.8 acres? Because then you still have lots of land left over to do something with down the line, or is there, that two story house a factor that’s on the northern part of the lot, or the other part toward the golf course? TOM LEWIS MR. LEWIS-Probably of the past 50 sites we’ve done, this is like the second or third largest one, almost all of our stores really only need 13 parking spaces, including the spaces at the pump. Now this Board has an ordinance that says, well, that might be in other towns, and we have other rules, we understand that. In terms of the lot size, it’s even large enough that we’re very comfortable asking for a rental unit. Now, if the parking has to be addressed, as the Board sees fit, then we’ll have to do that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know, this is a compliment, take it this way. Stewart’s store in Saratoga that’s toward the high school, I almost got dinged coming in and out of there last week. The Stewart’s store on Aviation Road, I never have a place to park. The Stewart’s store on Broad Street, where the “V” goes down toward the Post Office in Glens Falls, my gosh, that one right there, I don’t even go into, unless I am really in desperate need of milk, because you are taking your life in your hands. So, I’m just saying, you’ve got so much business going on, that I think you’re going to be in sooner than you think for that future parking, and I’m just wondering if you really do, I mean, you’re running your business, and you’re the, you know, you’re in Management and you know what you’re doing, but I’m one of your customers that, I’m starting to hold my breath when I go in and out of your stores, and the one in Luzerne I go into three days a week, and that one I very seldom, I’m lucky, there’s usually one spot left for me. So, I’m just telling you, it’s supposed to be a compliment, but I’m just wondering if you really are going to have enough room down the line. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Why would you want to put yourself in a situation for doing a subdivision of such a small lot where the next step you’ve got to do is to go seek variances, three variances that you need to make the lot usable? MR. GILLESPIE-Well, I mean, we are restricted in the back here, by the Social Security building. So, I mean, that really can’t change. MR. BREWER-How much, between your lot line and the lot line of the Social Security building? MR. GILLESPIE-There’s 40 feet. MR. BREWER-Why are you not going back to the line? MR. PALING-It’s not part of this lot. MR. BREWER-It could be, though, couldn’t it, or not? MR. GILLESPIE-Well, the 40 feet is required for the future access. It’s my understanding that you need 40 feet of road frontage to have it. So for Brassel to develop his property in the future, he would need that. MR. BREWER-So why couldn’t you make your access, bring the lot line, make your access there and then the access to the other lot be on Bay? DR. BRASSEL-I had wanted to retain the 40 feet on Cronin Road, thinking that it would help traffic flow and facilitate gaining approvals for whatever future development may occur on the residual property. MR. BREWER-But the other existing property is how much, six times bigger than this? DR. BRASSEL-Yes, and it would have. MR. BREWER-Why would you want to go between the Social Security building and Stewart’s to access that property? Why wouldn’t you go on the? DR. BRASSEL-For ease of traffic flow, and because the Town sewer line is on Cronin Road. MR. BREWER-To me, you’re going to make more congestion on Cronin by trying to access that, by trying to get in that 40 feet, whereas Bay Road is more accessible, and you have a bigger frontage on Bay. DR. BRASSEL-That’s true, but Bay Road is a much busier. MR. STARK-He’s got access on both. MR. BREWER-Yes, but what I’m saying is, George, he could make the Stewart’s lot 40 feet deeper, move the store back, not have to get a variance. MR. STARK-Maybe in the future, he still wants to retain access to the six acres off of both roads. MR. BREWER-That’s his option to put it that way, but that doesn’t mean we have to approve it that way. That’s what Sketch Plan’s for. MR. MAC EWAN-It would seem to me, from a planning standpoint, that an idea to think about would be, so that you’ll have future access to that back undeveloped parcel, is to have one entrance off Bay Road, where you can internalize the traffic on the sites. That way, they would be able to do their parcel, and get the maximum usage out of it, without having to go the route of variances. You would keep traffic internalized on your parcels. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-And make it even safer for traffic coming out onto Bay Road because it would be stacking up, primarily, on your site. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) DR. BRASSEL-Right, but it would be entering on to a much busier road. I had thought that traffic entrance on both Bay Road and Cronin Road, entrance and exit, would facilitate the smoothness of flow back into the general traffic patterns of the community, and the 40 feet, I discussed this matter with the consultant from the community, and he advised me that the 40 feet would be the minimum, I should retain at a minimum in order to gain access to the ancillary services that are available, water, sewer, on Cronin Road, and we have discussed this, and perhaps we can work something out for you. MR. MAC EWAN-Just looking at it from this standpoint, if you were to, what’s the distance, basically, from the intersection of Cronin Road to the edge of your property at the farthest point, up by the house? Isn’t that roughly, at that point, probably close to 600 feet? DR. BRASSEL-No, it’s not that far. I think it’s, it’s marked on that map. I think it’s more like 200 and something, 196 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, no, no. I’m talking. DR. BRASSEL-To the far north part? MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s 20 from here to here. Up to the northern side of the house. MR. MAC EWAN-Right about where your finger is, what’s that distance? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, what’s that? DR. BRASSEL-That’s 190 plus 160, about 350 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-About 350. DR. BRASSEL-Yes. Well, as you know, and you well know, Bay Road is a pretty busy road. You think you got dinged down at Ridge Street, try this. I would want, in order to utilize residual acreage of the property, I would want access on Bay Road, and I felt that access on Cronin Road would smooth traffic flow and provide access to the services. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If we give you the access on your subdivision of your parcel, plus the 40 feet that you’re looking for on Cronin Road, plus the access they’re looking for on they’re site onto Bay Road, do you see the congestion you’re causing? DR. BRASSEL-No, I don’t follow you at all. Could you explain? The number of people that are going to use. MR. MAC EWAN-You said you wanted to retain access for your big, large parcel right there, right there, and you also on Bay Road. DR. BRASSEL-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-They want to have access to their site on Bay Road, as well. DR. BRASSEL-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-Which would put a driveway that they would have probably in the neighborhood of, what, 100 feet, 125 feet away from your access where you would want? DR. BRASSEL-It could be that, or we could share. We have. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m trying to get you to do. DR. BRASSEL-Well, that’s what’s drawn here. MR. MAC EWAN-Move your access up there for all parcels. DR. BRASSEL-Do you want me to bring it over for you? MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. Right where you’re talking about, right there, up a little bit, where you’re talking about wanting to have, retain your access, right there. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) DR. BRASSEL-Well, I’ll have an access, we’ll have common access here, all right, and we’ll have common access here. MR. PALING-You’ve got a two story house in one place. DR. BRASSEL-That two story house is coming down. MR. PALING-It’s coming down. So you could share at that point. DR. BRASSEL-Yes, we could. MR. PALING-If that two story house is coming down, then sharing at that point, makes a lot of sense. MR. GILLESPIE-This is proposed as a joint access. Maybe this plan will show it a little clearer. Our access and his access would be one in the same. That’s the proposal. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, we were just thinking of moving it up a little bit north, like almost to the point where that house is now. I’m thinking about just bringing it up here, making the access a little bit up here. MR. BREWER-I’m just thinking about it. I don’t know. I just think there could be a better way to do it. If he’s going to tear down the house, and he’s just waiting to get variances to do this, I just think it could be moved around a little bit. Because we have no idea what, suppose he gets another high traffic business in the six acres. You’re going to draw from Cronin. You’re going to draw from Bay. That’s 200, 250 feet from the corner of Cronin, you’ve got the restaurant on the corner. Do you realize what that traffic is going to be like there? It’s going to be absolutely terrible. It’s going to be very busy. The Harvest is packed every. DR. BRASSEL-I think the Stewart’s is going to (lost words) That’s why they’re putting it there. MR. BREWER-Understood, but why couldn’t they enter and exit from Bay, and shift things back? DR. BRASSEL-There is an entrance on Bay Road. MR. BREWER-But what I’m saying to you, doctor, I, like Cathy, go to Stewart’s every day. I mean, I know the traffic they generate. They’re going to generate, hopefully, a ton of traffic there. I’d probably go there, and I’m going to get out of there the easiest, fastest way I can, and like me, everybody else is going to try to do the same thing, and when you’re going to try to cut out Cronin, go down Cronin, cut out Meadowbrook, for me to go to work, there’s going to be traffic from the restaurant, who knows what you’re going to put in the other six acres, what kind of traffic’s going to come out of there. Controlled traffic is what I’m trying to suggest. DR. BRASSEL-Well, that’s what I thought we were doing. MR. BREWER-In my mind, I don’t think it is, the way it’s set up. That’s just my opinion. DR. BRASSEL-Would you suggest that we just have entrance on Bay Road only? MR. BREWER-I don’t know. I think you could change things, maybe move the store back. I honestly don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d be leaning toward access on Bay Road only and internalizing that access, not only to service, obviously, the Stewart’s, proposed Stewart’s shop, but your undeveloped parcel, as well. So when you develop that, that you’ll have all the traffic internalized on the site, instead of coming out onto Cronin Road. MR. LEWIS-May I ask you a question? Is what you said just now, in terms of the Stewart’s shop, to only have access on Bay and nowhere on Cronin? That’s not what you said? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m saying. MR. BREWER-That’s what he said. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. LEWIS-Yes. That’s an absolute deal killer for us. We have no project. We must have an entranceway here, and we must have one here. If what the Board says, in terms of this parcel and the larger parcel, that there be one joint entrance, which I think I heard, here, so that customers coming in here can go here, when this larger parcel is then developed, they come in here and they go this way, and if I heard the Board earlier say that there should be only one access on Cronin, where they either go in here, or they go here, that’s doable, but we should face up to the hard fact. Now, if the Board says, there can only be an entranceway in here, and not here, we have no project. Because we’ve done a lot of these stores, we know how our customers operate, and are able to, even if it’s a little difficult, we know how our customers function in and out of our lot, we must have two entrances. That’s real basic, especially here, with relatively we have a large parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-If I remember right, you have a store in Saratoga where you only have one entrance. It’s not even on a main road. MR. LEWIS-I don’t know where that is. MR. MAC EWAN-Just off 9, right there, off the arterial. MR. LEWIS-Where 9 meets 50? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. LEWIS-No, there are two. MR. MAC EWAN-You can get right on to 50 from there? MR. LEWIS-Yes, but, I mean, this is a simple one for me. With all respect, if we cannot have an entranceway here also, we have no project. Our customers have to be able to have different opportunities, if they’re driving down here, they could go in here. The average smarter driver would go here, and they could come up this way where it’s easier, because there are more cars coming up this way. Also, there’ll be people who will be going north who know the store, and they’re going to turn in here. The internal circulation is just much, much tougher with only one entrance, and we would walk from the site. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll tell you, I’m also apprehensive of the fact, giving consideration to a subdivision which would have to automatically kick you in to go see the ZBA to get three variances in order to develop the site. That’s not good planning. MR. LEWIS-I understand that, and in terms of parking requirements, is it the Planning or Zoning Board who deals with if they allow waivers of parking, if we made that case? Is that this Board or that Board? MR. MAC EWAN-You’d have to go get a variance from the ZBA, from the zoning requirements, right? MR. SCHACHNER-It depends which requirement. MRS. MOORE-Yes. If he has enough available space on the lot, to demonstrate enough parking for that building, the Planning Board’s able to do that. If he’s asking for, the size of the building doesn’t compare to the amount of parking spaces required, then he needs a variance from that. MR. SCHACHNER-From the Zoning Board. MRS. MOORE-From the Zoning Board. MR. LEWIS-And if the Zoning Board says, well, no, this is our requirement, X amount of parking spaces per square foot, and we have two options, we either have to make our rental unit smaller, or we have to see whether we can’t buy more land. So I would ask the Chair and the members if we’re able to resolve those issues, satisfactorily, that we, you know, we have to have a curb cut here and here, under the assumption that the doctor will accept if he develops up here, this has to be a joint access, you know, whether it’s here or it’s here, and there be only one access here going off of Bay. So, our parcel and these other parcels, this and anything here, would have only one curb cut here, and only one curb cut here. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) DR. BRASSEL-That would be, I think, very doable to utilize that 40 feet, as you brought up initially. I don’t see the logic in restricting access to the entire piece of property to Bay Road, and foregoing the safety valve relief, if nothing else, of having additional entrance and exit on Cronin Road. It seems to me that that would make things much more fluid, in terms of traffic that goes into and out of the property, and we can do that. MR. BREWER-You mean move the property line back so that it just comes back further and we can try to eliminate the setback variance? DR. BRASSEL-Yes. We can move the property further along Cronin Road, through the 40 feet, as long as we can share and entrance into the property. MR. BREWER-Absolutely. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-Doctor, if you shift things around, does that eliminate the need for a setback variance from Bay? DR. BRASSEL-I think it does. MR. BREWER-How much do they? MRS. MOORE-The 75 foot issue, 75 feet there should be open space, is defined, no storage, no pavement, nothing within that 75 feet. That’s the way the Travel Corridor Overlay reads. I can read it to you, if you want me to. MR. BREWER-You mean it has to be wide open 75 feet, no parking, no nothing? MRS. MOORE-That’s specific for Bay Road only. MR. BREWER-Well, that’s the dumbest thing I ever heard of. MRS. MOORE-That doesn’t relieve them from that variance. MR. BREWER-I mean, is there any way around that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I think it’s a provision of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. LEWIS-You have to go to the Zoning Board to get around it, right? MR. BREWER-So what would be the setback if we shifted things back, anyway? MR. LEWIS-If we were able to make an agreement with the property owner, which I heard what the Board said. I understand about the 40 feet. It’s reasonable that you’d show that. If we could come to an agreement, because he’s not going to want to give it away, and we are very land cost. MR. BREWER-Even at Christmas time you don’t think he would? MR. LEWIS-So, with the assumption that the property owner and Stewart’s come to terms on the 40 feet, the answer to your question is that would eliminate the need for asking for a variance on the front yard setback in the 75 feet. That’s the assumption that the President of our Company, who really pays a lot of attention to every new store, accepts the fact that there’ll be a sizable distance between the visibility here and this’ll be even further back, but lets assume that that can be resolved, but I think that I really have to get back to, I’d rather face the tough issue up front. If there’s an objection to having a curb cut here, you know, we should pack it in, because. MR. BREWER-I think, in my own mind, I’m just one of seven, but if you can move things back the 40 feet, and make that an adjoining driveway, I don’t have a problem with it. Forty feet’s a lot when you’re talking about traffic in and out, and I’d like to also see the alignment, if we could, with the Harvest Restaurant, their curb cuts, where they come out. When you come back for site plan, I’d like to see the alignment, if we could. MR. STARK-Tim, you wouldn’t want to do that. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. BREWER-Why wouldn’t I want to see it? MR. STARK-No, no. Where the Harvest comes out is very close to Bay Road. They want to go further back. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. LEWIS-Yes. See, the other curb cut you’re talking about is here. MR. BREWER-Right. I just want to see in relationship to where they are. That’s all, George. MR. STARK-No, you don’t want to align with the Harvest. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. BREWER-I don’t want to align it. I just want to see where they are. MR. LEWIS-I think the Harvest is over here, sir. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s right there. MR. LEWIS-So now I’m hoping that your other six members on the Board will agree with you about that, that remains to be seen. MR. BREWER-They could not agree with me. I could be turned down. MR. VOLLARO-Your proposal is to increase the size of this lot by 40 feet? MR. BREWER-Yes, and move that drive down so that, it just make sense to have. MR. VOLLARO-It goes further away from Bay. MR. BREWER-It goes further away from Bay. MR. VOLLARO-And further away from the Harvest curb cut. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-Just for a footnote, 179-66 is the linking of commercial and industrial parking lots and internal roads, encourages the Board to do that whenever possible in subdivisions, and commercial development. MR. BREWER-It requires us to, doesn’t it? MR. MAC EWAN-The word “require” I don’t see in here. MR. BREWER-I thought we had to, like we did with some other ones we did, maybe not. DR. BRASSEL-I have a question. I want to be sure that if we do that I will be able to use that curb cut to access the balance of the property, and will not be harming my ability to utilize that property. MR. BREWER-You just stipulate on the plan that it’s a shared access to both properties. DR. BRASSEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-It’s pretty simple, isn’t it, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly right. It’s what we call reciprocal easements, but that’s correct. Yes, it’s not a complex thing to make sure that you can preserve that right. DR. BRASSEL-Yes. Well, see, we were told we needed 40 feet, and the curb cut probably won’t be 40 feet wide. MR. BREWER-No. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) DR. BRASSEL-But we will maintain a right-of-way across that, through that curb cut into the back of the property. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Just so I understand this, after listening to this, if they get the 40 feet, no matter what they do with the store, they’re still going to be susceptible to that 75 foot setback from the Overlay Zone. Is that correct? Okay. MR. BREWER-But physically, if they move it back the 75 feet, I think whomever gives them the variance, if the building is moved back, it’ll be easier, I’m just guessing, it’ll be an easier granted variance than if it’s right out on the road, if you see what I mean, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I do. The more you narrow that down, the easier the variance will be to grant. That’s true. MR. BREWER-I think it’s a pretty ridiculous thing to have a free, open clear space of 75 feet there anyway. MR. RINGER-I think they do need an entrance on Cronin and an entrance on Bay. If we can move it back 40 feet, even better. Just for the type of operation of a gas station, I think you need something, as the doctor described it, as the man from Stewart’s described, they ought to have two ins and outs. You can’t have it one way. MR. VOLLARO-I tend to agree with that. I think you do have to have an entrance, even though I know that Cronin Road is well traveled and always, I come through there a lot. I just live up the road a way, and Cronin Road has a lot of traffic on it. Every time I go by there, I look at it, since I’ve gotten this application, and I have never gone by when there is not three or four cars waiting to get on to Bay Road. MR. STARK-I’ve never seen that. Bob, the only time there’s three or four cars on Cronin Road waiting to come out onto Bay is when Monday night BINGO gets out of the Elks Club. That’s the only time I’ve ever seen three or four cars there, and you don’t want to go up against me with that, because I’ll go down there right now, and lets go down there any time. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not trying to go against anybody, George. MR. STARK-Bob, I think you’re full of it on that, plain and simple. MR. PALING-I think we should recognize that a quick in, quick out business like this does need that kind of circulation. I can understand why they need two entrances, and I agree with Tim and Larry that as long as they’ve got two shared accesses, then they should be allowed to have it, and moving the building will enhance that, and I don’t have any problem. MR. MAC EWAN-By moving the building, so they’re going to be actually not having to have one variance requirement, right? MR. PALING-Well, yes. I’m a little confused there, because I’m looking at this lot, and I’m seeing 44 parking spaces, which may be the requirement, but if they limit the business that goes in there, they’ll never use those parking spaces. MR. BREWER-No, but I think we can get around that, Bob, simply by the way we did with Barrett’s, for an example, with the, if they show us that they have the capability of providing this parking, then they don’t need to really actually stripe it or whatever. MR. PALING-I agree. MR. BREWER-We did it with Barrett’s. We did it with the Mall. MR. PALING-As long as they can do it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Larry put it nicely, and I concur with Larry and Bob. MR. MAC EWAN-Now with that, I guess everyone’s leaning toward moving that building back the 40 feet. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. LEWIS-If we’re able to. MR. BREWER-Come to terms. MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much, come to terms on the remaining 40 feet, my assumption is that this, this and this, the whole thing will just move down, so we don’t need any front yard variances, and the 75 feet’s there. It sounds like this Board feels very strongly, you don’t want us asking for any front yard variances. Is that what I’m hearing, I mean, don’t even ask? Okay. That being the case, I’d like to make two points. I think we do understand our business, and have fairly good success locating new stores. We know, with certainty, and we think can prove that it’s necessary. Eighty percent of all of our business is through traffic, by-pass, cars that are on the road. This is very, very typical of that. One out of five of our customers says, I’m going to Stewart’s for ice cream. Four out of five, they’re on the road on their way to work. They’re on their way back from work. They have to go here. They want to go to Lowe’s. They want to go to the restaurant. So I don’t think we’re traffic generators. There’s no question about it, we have a lot of cars that are going to go in and they’re going to go out. I’m not going to say a lot of cars aren’t going to enter the site. They certainly will. Item Two is, I think we have a fairly good hold on our parking needs, especially where there’s a larger lot, and this is much larger than most of ours, and we would certainly like to ask the gentleman at the end said to show the space for the parking lot requirements, but not pave it over. If the time comes that it’s needed, it’s in our interest. Why would we want to not have our customers be able to park there? Now, I know, you know, there are a lot of shops where it looks like it’s all full, but the average person’s in and out in about a couple and a half minutes. So, it’s working against our own interests if we don’t supply adequate parking. MR. PALING-I’d like to make one more comment, though. Stewart’s shops I don’t think are known for their beauty of landscaping, but you’ve got an opportunity here, for when we see a landscape plan, to put in some shrubs and trees and grass, that’ll make it look good and I, for one, as going to ask you to do that, when the time comes, and to maintain them. MR. LEWIS-And we will say, thank you. We will do it with a smile. It’s a lot easier, with the new stores, and we’ve also learned it’s in our business interest if it looks nice, and why we want to waste the money in putting in there and not maintaining it? So we have no problem with that. We’d like to have the store look nice, have people drive by it and say, gee, that’s a nice looking Stewart’s. It’s in our interest to do that. DR. BRASSEL-It’s in the contract of sale, also. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. This is Sketch Plan. So there’s obviously no approval tonight. So I think we all know where we’re going with this thing, what we, what the Board’s expecting. So we’ll see you next month. MR. GILLESPIE-I had one more thing. I understand as part of the subdivision approval, we need topo, two foot contours, is that correct? MR. MAC EWAN-When you make application for subdivision, to get on the agenda next month, any waivers that you’re requesting from the Subdivision Regulations, put it in the form of a letter to Staff, because some things, obviously, you might not need, like two foot contours. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-But you need to put it in the form of a letter asking for the waivers, and submit it with your application. MR. LEWIS-In the unlikelihood, but I’ve seen it happen, that we aren’t able to come to terms on the extra 40 feet, then what I think I heard is, we need a smaller rental unit. The point is, you don’t want us going to the Zoning Board, right? We shouldn’t be asking for? MR. BREWER-We don’t have any right to tell you that. MR. MAC EWAN-We can’t tell you what to do, but philosophically, from a planning standpoint, it would not make good planning sense to approve a subdivision that would automatically kick you in to have to go to see the ZBA to get variances to utilize the subdivision we just created. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. LEWIS-I understand, Mr. Chairman. Understood. I agree. If it turns out that we can’t get the 40 feet, I’m not saying that’ll happen, then it sounds like I heard that in order to not have to seek variances, the rental unit has to be smaller. That’ll mean a smaller parking requirement, and we won’t have that problem. I think I also heard, if that were the case, that there’s only one entrance that has to be shared, across easements, from Cronin heading north. So Stewart’s has two different options. We’re going to try, I will try to negotiate the extra 40 feet. There’s only two people who have to agree with me, the President and the property owner. So, thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Good luck. DR. BRASSEL-Thank you. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 64-98 TYPE: TYPE II WILLIAM HARRINGTON OWNER: BIRNEY WILLARD ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 68 MASSACHUSETTES AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A CONVERSION OF A GARAGE INTO AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT IN A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. ALL PROPOSES USES IN MR-5 REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCES: BUILDING PERMIT NO. 93-490 TAX MAP NO. 128-3-1 LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 BILL HARRINGTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 64-98, William Harrington, Meeting Date: December 22, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to convert an existing garage into a dwelling unit. Multiple dwelling projects require Planning Board review in MR-5 zone. Staff Notes The applicant has complied with the site plan review application requirements. The Building Dept. has indicated that the building would need to be upgraded to meet NYS Building Code. The site of the proposed project has frontage on two roads. The project does not appear to have an impact on neighborhood character. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. HARRINGTON-My name is Bill Harrington. I’m the owner of the property’s son-in-law. BIRNEY WILLARD MR. WILLARD-And I’m Birney Willard, the owner of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could you tell us a little bit about your anticipated project, here? MR. HARRINGTON-The existing garage, back in ’73 I believe, was converted into an apartment, so to speak. It had four rooms and a bathroom, and back in ’80, the early 80’s, it was converted back into a garage, and our intention is to change it back into an apartment, so to speak, for my brother to live in. He’s single, doesn’t have any intentions of getting married. Most of the stuff needed for an apartment from a garage is already there because if it being transformed into an apartment in the past, and so we’re just going to reconnect into the things that are already there. It already has an electric box and it already has septics and all that kind of stuff in there, and it has its own heat. MR. MAC EWAN-Is your drawing to scale here? MR. HARRINGTON-Yes. There should be a block up on the top right hand corner that says the size of each square. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HARRINGTON-I gave you all my drawings, so I don’t have any to look at myself. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You can take mine, if you want. I can look on with George. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess before we start asking questions, there’s a question to Staff. What do you mean, when you refer to that the Building Department has indicated that the building would need to be upgraded to meeting New York State Code? How far out of Code are things? MRS. MOORE-When I talked, I talked to John O’Brien about this, and I mentioned it to Dave Hatin again, and, Number One, it’s frost walls and footings, that would be one. Insulation of walls, what type of insulation are current. MR. MAC EWAN-Frost wall and footings? What’s it sitting on? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know, it’s sitting on a slab. MR. HARRINGTON-It does have a slab, like a regular garage floor, and visibly, you can see some concrete blocks that are footings. It’s like a wall. They’re all cemented together and everything, and then the building structure is on top of those. MR. MAC EWAN-How old is the garage? MR. WILLARD-It was built in, I believe, ’73. MR. MAC EWAN-’73. Why wouldn’t it have gone down four foot then? MRS. MOORE-I’m saying it may have. I’m saying that it hasn’t been inspected yet, but these are issues that are going to need to be addressed, through the Building Code. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-If it doesn’t have the proper footings, is this a no go? MRS. MOORE-No. He just has to upgrade it to meet those. MR. HARRINGTON-Does that mean we have to dig down in the ground and put? MRS. MOORE-The way it was described to me, yes. That would be the case. MR. PALING-You’d have to dig in, put footings in. MR. WILLARD-It seems like it stood for years. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but that’s not the New York State Building Code. MR. WILLARD-Okay. I know my house sets close to the property line, because like a grandfathered clause. Wouldn’t this kind of be a grandfathered? It’s existing. It was made closed when it was put there. If we didn’t come before you now, it would still work. MR. HARRINGTON-Yes. It would still be a garage. MR. PALING-If it hasn’t tilted yet, I don’t know, maybe that’s not for us to say. MR. WILLARD-Yes, but every winter. MR. MAC EWAN-What else? MRS. MOORE-I have electric survey, and finished with the insulation. MR. WILLARD-Okay. It’s well insulated. MR. HARRINGTON-It has like (lost word) insulation in it. MR. WILLARD-The walls and the ceiling. MR. MAC EWAN-And when was, originally, this, when did it originally go from a garage to an apartment? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MR. WILLARD-Okay. It seems like for three or four years during the eighties, it was where the owner’s daughter, her husband lived in the garage while they built a home in Fort Ann, Hartford, wherever, and they lived there for about three or four years, as far as I could gather, and they had it divided like a box inside, which was taken out when I bought the house, and it’s back to a garage, but they had lived here previously. MR. MAC EWAN-And as far as you know, the existing septic tank and drywell were installed at that time, when they did the apartment? MR. WILLARD-Yes, and we tried to find out, from your, you know, if they had any records of it, which they said the records didn’t go back that far. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. WILLARD-But I’ve had the existing toilet out there, since I have a pool, and we’ve used that toilet all summer long, every summer, and it works great, that’s as far as I know. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. RINGER-It seems to me, though, that he would have to get building permits, and the Building Department would determine if he met all the requirements. So it shouldn’t be a concern, necessarily, of ours, because he’d have to meet them. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I agree with you. MR. VOLLARO-All I can see here is that he has to, and I guess it’s the Building Department that says to come up with a conforming septic system for that secondary apartment, since what I see is an existing tank and a drywell that was installed in 1973. It’s 25 years old. MR. WILLARD-Well, I don’t know if it was quite in ’73 or not, but. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s the installed date on the drawing. MR. WILLARD-Okay. It could be. We’re guessing that date. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, I have to go along with Larry on this. If the Building Department allows you to run on that system, and they consider it a conforming septic system, fine. They’ll tell you if it has to be replaced or not. I guess that’s where we are on that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t see any problem, as long as everything’s up to Code. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets open the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Type II and we don’t need to do a SEQRA. All right. Does someone want to put a motion up on the table, then? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-98 WILLIAM HARRINGTON , Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: With the understanding that the Building Department will make sure that all the requirements are met, to be utilized as a dwelling unit. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Can I ask one question before we vote? Has the Building Department looked at this? Apparently they have. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/22/98) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Is there a wish list that they need to have done? MRS. MOORE-No. I mean, it’s the applicant’s turn to discuss with the Building Department what he’s going to need to supply to show that he meets the insulation, wiring, all that issue. MR. BREWER-So he’s had a basic inspection? He doesn’t? MR. WILLARD-We’ve had a sign on the window saying this is it. MR. BREWER-No, but I’m saying, have you talked to Dave Hatin? In other words, you’re not going to have to re-build the whole thing? MR. HARRINGTON-Well, when we first decided we wanted to do this, I went in to Building and Codes, and I paid for a building permit, and everything, and I thought everything was going that way, and then they said, well, wait a minute. We can’t give you a building permit yet. You’ve got to go get approved through zoning first. So then they refunded by building permit, and sent me over to see the Planning Board, and this is where we’re at now. MR. BREWER-I guess my only question, there’s no big foreseen problems? MR. HARRINGTON-No. MR. BREWER-That’s the only question I had. MR. MAC EWAN-So our only condition is that the building, the renovations have got to conform with current State Code. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BREWER-I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HARRINGTON-Thank you. MR. WILLARD-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MR. BREWER-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 32