Loading...
1998-05-21 SP (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 21, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ROBERT PALING MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE STARK SENIOR PLANNER -SUSAN CIPPERLY PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 16-98 TYPE: UNLISTED KILLER AUDIO RANDOLPH WINSLOW/TOM O’HARE OWNER: RANDOLPH WINSLOW ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 60 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TURN EXISTING GARAGE INTO A MOBILE ELECTRONICS INSTALLATION FACILITY. RETAIL BUSINESS IN A CR ZONE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 20-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-3/ LOT SIZE: .51 ACRES/SECTION 179-24 MR. MAC EWAN-It’s my understanding this was in front of the ZBA last night and they tabled it without coming to a decision? MS. NOWICKI-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think the appropriate thing for us to do would be to open up the public hearing. We’ll table it as well, until the outcome of the ZBA meeting. Is that fine with you? Okay. MS. NOWICKI-Can they be heard next Thursday, then? MR. MAC EWAN-When is the ZBA meeting again on this? MS. NOWICKI-Wednesday. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s when they’re going to re-hear it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll add you to next Thursday night’s agenda. Okay. So we’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-And what I’ll do is I’ll leave the public hearing open, and would someone please introduce a motion to table this until next week. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 16-98 KILLER AUDIO , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) th Until May 28. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Everyone hang on to your stuff, all right. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 17-98 TYPE: UNLISTED OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. OWNER: R.D. 2 TRAILS, LTD. ZONE: PUD LOCATION: OFF NORTHWEST ROAD WEST APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL TWO ANTENNAS ON EXISTING COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND A RADIO ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT CABINET ON THE GROUND, PLUS ALL ASSOCIATED CABLING AND ACCESSORIES. TAX MAP NO. 124-2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 424.09 ACRES SECTION: 179-73.1 JACQUELINE MORGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 17-98, Omnipoint Communications, Inc., Meeting Date: May 21, 1998 “The applicant proposes co-location of a telecommunication antenna and associated equipment. The applicant has complied with all of the required items from the Local Law #11 and site plan application. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-Are you representing the applicant? MS. MORGAN-Yes, I am. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jacqueline Morgan. I’m with TEA Group based in Atlanta, GA. I’m here this evening on behalf of my client, Omnipoint Communications. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you give us a little bit of an overview of what your plans call for? MS. MORGAN-Certainly. Omnipoint Communications is one of the newest entrants in the wireless communications business coming to the Upstate New York market. Omnipoint Communications is very similar to traditional cellular, similar to Bell Atlantic and Cellular One, but a little bit different. We’re kind of the next generation of wireless communication services. Omnipoint is currently building out their network of facilities to provide digital wireless communication services to the greater Capital District and Upstate New York. Currently, Omnipoint Communications has service on air and subscribers in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and the Miami areas. Within the next three to six months, Omnipoint would like to be launching service in the Capital District. The site that we propose to co-locate our antennas for our required facility in the Queensbury area is one of many sites in the Greater Capital District area, to provide our service for our subscribers. Basically, what we propose it to mount two panel type antennas, which are approximately 58 inches tall, about eight inches wide, and approximately two inches deep. They feature a nonreflective, fiberglass casing to an existing wireless communications facility that is located atop West Mountain Ski Center, right adjacent to the top of the triple chair lift. This tower has been in use for several years. We are very pleased to offer a co-location, as Omnipoint will not require the construction of a new facility. We will be mounting the two antennas at a height of approximately 100 feet above ground level to the existing tower, and from those antennas, we will be running co-axial cable, down the tower to the ground where we will have a radio electronics equipment cabinet. The equipment cabinet is the size of a small refrigerator. It opens up so that our technicians can access the radio electronics equipment that is associated inside. This evening, we seek approval for a zoning permit as required by Sections 178- 73.1 and 179-105, as well as Article 14 of the Ordinance, and also we’d like to see a negative declaration under the SEQRA process, and we also seek approval this evening from this Board of Omnipoint’s site plan. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about, maybe, the specifics of the mechanisms to the units themselves and how they operate, voltage and so on and so forth like that? MS. MORGAN-Well, in my packet of submissions, I did provide to you what are called cut sheets of our antennas as well as our radio based station electronics units. We operate well within the guidelines set forth by the Federal Communications Commission. Our emissions for radio frequencies are well within those guidelines. With regard to the voltage, I am not an engineer, and I apologize for that. I apologize for not knowing the information with regard to the output and the voltage. Basically what we require is 200 amp service, which we will be running from a nearby power transformer that’s adjacent to the chair lift. So minimal trenching is required to bring the power and electric facility. In addition, there’s already on site telephone service which we will be using as well. MR. MAC EWAN-The antennas are really small, aren’t they? MS. MORGAN-They really are. MR. MAC EWAN-A curious question for Staff. Why couldn’t this application have been treated to a modification to the previous approval for the tower? MS. NOWICKI-I don’t believe there is, it’s part of a PUD that was never approved under site plan, and I have no record of that cell tower ever having a building permit. MR. BREWER-There probably never was one because back when they did them, there was no process for approval, or whatever. MR. MAC EWAN-So that explains it. Okay. Tim, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. BREWER-Yes. I see on your inspection, there’s a number of things that you found, and in your conclusion, you plan to correct those faults, or whatever you want to call them? MS. MORGAN-Absolutely. MR. BREWER-Does somebody from our Town inspect after they make these corrections? In other words, we wouldn’t even know there was something wrong with it if they didn’t go up there and inspect it themselves. I mean, bolts undersized and loose bolts and rusting. MS. MORGAN-Omnipoint’s standard operating procedure, whenever we’re attaching to an existing structure such as a tower, is to conduct a structural analysis, for our insurance purposes, to make sure that, Number One, it meets our structural capacity and will have the integrity to withhold our installation. This is a very minimal installation, only two antennas, as opposed to our standard installation of six to nine. Primarily, the weight that is associated with our installation comes from the co-axial cabling. Based upon the results of our structural analysis, it is part of our construction to go ahead and make the modifications to plumb the tower as well as include all the additional bracings and bolts that are missing and have, perhaps, come off the tower over the years from antennas being mounted and dismounted off the structure. MR. BREWER-I guess what my concern is, it says somewhere in here that you really didn’t, a detailed inspection of walls, bolts, and apparatus was not performed, and then you go through and tell me about all the things that are wrong with it. I guess I’m wondering, what would you find if you really did inspect it? MS. MORGAN-We actually had a tower climber come up and physically climb the tower to make the inspection and therefore produce this structural analysis. When they say a detailed analysis, they do caliper testings. We did not do that. This is more of a visual inspection, and based upon her expertise, she drew this conclusion. MR. BREWER-Okay. So my final question is, does somebody re-inspect this. Your people do? MS. MORGAN-We construct the tower in accordance with the State law set forth upon Omnipoint for towers that are constructed and used throughout the State. Additionally, I don’t know what the Town of Queensbury’s requirements are for building inspections, but we certainly plan to be in full compliance with not only the results of our structural analysis, but any inspections required by the Town. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, this would be issued a CO, right? Even though it’s not really totally going to be occupied, it’s going to get a CO. MS. NOWICKI-It’s going to get a building permit. That’s it. MR. BREWER-That’s all, not a CO. The only way it would get a CO is if somebody’s going to live there, or work there. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I realize that, but as the final document to basically sign off on the thing as complete like you’re looking for. What do they do? MS. NOWICKI-We don’t have someone that inspects towers. MR. BREWER-That’s what I’m asking. MR. VOLLARO-I think she has to certify this to the FCC, don’t you, this tower? MS. MORGAN-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Because if the tower moves, in any way, it’s not guide properly, your frequency’s going to drift around anyway. So you’ve got to have an FCC certification to that tower, I believe. MS. MORGAN-You mean an FAA certification. MR. VOLLARO-No, Federal Communications Commission certification, FCC. MS. MORGAN-Yes. We have our FCC license. MR. VOLLARO-No, but don’t you have to certify to the FCC that that tower is structurally sound before you go on the air with it, with the new antennas? MR. BREWER-See, that’s my concern. It’s on top of the mountain, on a chair lift. MS. MORGAN-Yes, I believe so. MR. VOLLARO-Because I’ve got a little familiarity with this thing, and so I understand a little bit about what you’re going through, but I know you need an FCC certification. MS. MORGAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-To ensure that your frequency doesn’t drift around, if the tile starts to shift in the wind. MR. MAC EWAN-So that solves that. MR. BREWER-I guess. I just envision somebody’s building a tower, putting a tower up, and nobody inspects it, I don’t understand it. MS. CIPPERLY-In past cases where we had being constructed, the building inspectors would go out and inspect the footings for the tower to make sure that they were done according to the design that was submitted, but if the tower’s already in existence, they don’t climb up and look at how things are attached. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Well, I guess we’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone wish to comment or address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is Short okay? MR. MAC EWAN-They did a Short one. MS. MORGAN-Yes, it is a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 17-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. , 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. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-98 OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As per the prepared resolution from Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. 17-98, OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. to install two antennas on existing communications tower and a radio electronics equipment cabinet on the ground plus all associated cabling and accessories; and 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/28/98, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map - TZ-1, C-1, CZ-2, CZ-3, EZ-1 dated 4/27/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 5/21/98 - Staff Notes 2. 5/6/98 - Supplemental Information requested by L. Nowicki Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/21/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 17-98, OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MS. MORGAN-Very good. Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Premier Car Rental has withdrawn its application. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-98 TYPE: UNLISTED AMERADA HESS CORPORATION OWNER: GERALD & ROGER HEWLETT ZONE: HC-1A, LI-1A LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF QUAKER ROAD AND DIX AVENUE, WEST SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE. ALL USES IN HC AND LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 10-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/8/98, 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.7 LOT SIZE: 2.29 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 179-26 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LA BOMBARD-And we had a public hearing back on April 28, which has been tabled. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-98, Amerada Hess Corporation, Meeting Date: May 21, 1998 “Site Plan 11-98 was tabled at the April 28, 1998 meeting so the applicant could submit updated information requested by the Board. Attached is correspondence to the applicant’s agent outlining the information requested. Information was received and distributed to Rist Frost Associates, Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation, and Warren County Planning. Previous concerns identified in the staff notes have been completely addressed, the updated drawings do indicate one (1) phone booth, but the placement of a bicycle rack was not identified. The application was forwarded to Rist Frost Associates, Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation, and Warren County Planning Board for review and comment. Staff has no other concerns.” And I was notified that there would be no bicycle rack. MR. MAC EWAN-You also have County here. MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to go through? I’ll start with Rist-Frost comments. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed Environmental Design Partnership’s letter of May 4, 1998 and revised drawings submitted in response to our comment letter of April 24, 1998. The response satisfactorily addresses our comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MS. NOWICKI-County was to approve the project. There was no additional comments. MR. MAC EWAN-The one from the Transportation Council, I saw something in here from them. th MS. NOWICKI-May 5. MR. MAC EWAN-Was that read in to the last meeting? th MS. NOWICKI-The May 5 one? MR. MAC EWAN-No this wasn’t. This came afterward. That came after the last meeting. Would you read that one in, please. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council “Dear Chris: I have received the revised site plan information for the Amerada Hess Corp. project at the intersection of Quaker Rd. and Dix Ave. All of A/GFTC’s earlier comments on this proposal have been satisfactorily addressed with one notable exception. The westernmost entrance/exit in the revised plan still does not align properly with the entrance to the Super K-Mart across the street (see attached copy of earlier comments). This proposed design will cause turning conflicts between westbound vehicles turning left into K-Mart and eastbound vehicles turning left into Hess. The recommended change is to make the center line of the Hess entrance align directly with the center line of the K-Mart. Further, this entrance to Dix Ave. should be at a 90 degree angle to the right- of-way, as opposed to the angle that is now shown on the plan. This will facilitate both left and right turns onto Dix and give vehicles exiting K-Mart a clearer view of opposing exiting traffic. Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you need any additional information. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Scott E. Sopczyk” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that everything? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Could I ask a question, before we get started on this? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-I’ve got two prints. They’re both site layout plan, issued on different dates, but there’s no changes in the revision column. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the stamp, Bob, the May 01/98. There’s a stamp on your drawing. It says May 1, right, it says not for construction. th MR. PALING-I’ve got one that says April 28 and one that says May 1. MR. MAC EWAN-That one’s down farther under your hand, underneath your hand or your elbow. MR. PALING-Okay. Why have we got two of them, if they’re identical? th MR. VOLLARO-This is the other one that says April 20, but this is the latest drawing. MR. PALING-Yes, but what’s the difference between the two? I think we have identical prints issued, but the only question is why? MS. NOWICKI-No, Bob, you do not. You have one that shows a numerous amount of phone booths. The recent print that you have only shows one phone booth. MR. PALING-Well, why don’t they put it up in the modifications, up top? MS. NOWICKI-I don’t know. MR. PALING-You look at this, and the modifications, or the revisions are the same date. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, why don’t we see if we can find an answer to that. Good evening. MR. O’CONNOR-Good evening. I’m Michael O’Connor from the firm of Little & O’Connor, here on behalf of the applicant. With me is Kendall Gilgor who is a representative for Hess, and Dennis MacElroy, who is a member or a representative of the Environmental Design Partnership, which is the design engineering firm for this particular project. I think basically the question that you are raising right now is that this is a continuous moving target, and every time somebody makes a comment, we try to amend the plan to accommodate that plan. It sounds like they didn’t catch up with the amendments they were making in the legend box, although they were substantively making the changes. I think the comment was made by Staff before that maybe one of the phone booth locations was not visible, and when the people from Hess actually looked at it and said, why do we have three, and somebody said somebody else started with three, and the fellow who’s in charge of Hess said we only need one. We’ll put it where it’s visible, and I think that was one of the changes. Dennis, I don’t know if there were other changes made between those dates. Are you aware of those? DENNIS MAC ELROY th MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I’m just looking at the dates of revision, the 28 of April. It relates to the comment from the Town and County review. Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design. th There are revision dates on the plan which indicate an April 28 date of revision, in general, as per Town and County review. th MR. PALING-Yes, but your April 28 on both prints. There’s, and this is the First, but I’m looking up here, looking for revisions. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, because that was issued first, let me see. This version, after that, there st should be a May 1. MR. O’CONNOR-I apologize if we’ve caused confusion to the Board by the changes. In fact, I think there is another dated revised map on the easel over here, that you have only a photocopy of a portion, and I would ask you, if you would, to make your determination based upon what’s on the easel. The main difference between that and what you may have there is that the two entrances that the Greater Glens Falls Transportation Board talked about were lined up. So that the exit or entrance from our property is at right angles to Dix Road or Dix Avenue, and it is center lined directly across from the center line of the K-Mart building. MR. PALING-Okay, there’s that, and there’s a telephone booth. Those are the two things? MR. O’CONNOR-There are a couple of others. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. PALING-Others, too? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Go right down the checklist. How’s that? MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. On the Staff Notes, I think Laura has correctly stated, there is no intention for the bicycle rack, so we do not have any indicated. Rist-Frost was a sign-off, and the Planning Board approved without condition. We did send in to the Board, we hope, a better worded explanation of the difference on traffic, although I think it’s a matter of interpretation as to even reading the latest version, as to whether we’ve said it plainer or not. The other couple of things, and I apologize for them, is that apparently, and there’s two ways we probably could have done this. I think they’re minor and insignificant, and we could have waited for construction drawings when we got a building permit and asked the Building Department to approve them, with your site plan, but I’d just as soon run through them with you. Okay. There are a lot of people that oversee this thing, and before it’s signed off within our own organization, apparently, there are a number of different people that have to do it. When we sent down the latest version, even though some of these people had seen this before, they changed this a little bit on us. They eliminated the sidewalk that’s along this side of the building. It’s on the north side of the building, they said it wasn’t necessary, and suggested that it be eliminated. MR. BREWER-That would be the south side, wouldn’t it? MR. O’CONNOR-No, north side, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-The north side. MR. BREWER-I’m looking at it backwards. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay, and just to be as purely, as close as we can. MR. MAC EWAN-Will the plantings remain over there, that are culled out on the plan? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-It’s just a matter of there not be a sidewalk. I’m not sure where it lead to. Okay. The other thing, we changed the water intake line from an inch to an inch and a half line. The next thing, in the legend, all throughout all the maps they were showing an air station, or legend for an air station. It was never located on the map, and it’s been located on the map in this island in this area, right here. I’ve got to look to see. It’s far enough away not to interfere with something, but it wasn’t shown, and one yard light was removed, because there is a light that’s on that. In this area here, this kerosene tank, which is the smaller of the tanks, on the earlier versions of the map was shown on the other side. So they just flip flopped the tanks, which are underground tanks, and I’m sure really don’t have a significance. Right here. MR. VOLLARO-My drawing doesn’t show the kerosene being any different than diesel, premium, regular or any of those. It’s just labeled kerosene, isn’t it? MR. O’CONNOR-This kerosene here seems to be shorter on this map. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, I have the kerosene on the north side of. MR. O’CONNOR-And that’s the change. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s the change, they’ve moved this. MR. O’CONNOR-They’ve put it to the south side. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s now there, and it is smaller. Then we’re all looking. Okay. This is May 21. I’m looking at a May 1. MR. O’CONNOR-This is where, my apologies. They’re more construction details that were changed at the last minute. The other change is that the drainage from the roof was captured 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) before, and it was run out to this area here, and the engineers are now telling us that because of all the plumbing and wiring that were going to the tanks, we are better off establishing it here, which we have done. MR. MAC EWAN-How does that change your stormwater management plan? MR. MAC ELROY-It doesn’t change the quantity of discharge. It directs the roof runoff from the building to this basin, and over to a recharge area here. Previously, it went out to a basin through the pump island into this recharge. MR. MAC EWAN-But that other retention pond you’re now adding to the site plan to the north of the building, that was on the plans that we had previous to that. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s a change in your stormwater management plan. Right? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff feel, is that a significant enough change? MS. NOWICKI-I mean, now he has less piping going from the building to their original detention pond. To me, it would be a better solution to have it a shorter one. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-If my memory serves me correctly, Rist-Frost made a comment on that, on your initial submission. Didn’t they talk about the fact that the wastewater wasn’t, the pipe wasn’t shown on the drawing, or am I wrong? MR. MAC ELROY-No. It was a different comment. There was a comment related to stormwater, but it was related to an elevation, as depicted in the report, versus on the plan, and the orifice detail. MR. MAC EWAN-If Staff feels comfortable with it, lets move on. MR. PALING-Would you point to where the pond is going to be. MR. O’CONNOR-It’s to the north of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-You see it right there? Right there, yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. PALING-Now that’s right close to the wetland. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. BREWER-I’d say between the wetlands and the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff re-considering, or do you still feel comfortable? MS. CIPPERLY-I’m just looking at this for the first time tonight, but I was just wondering of the capacity of the one north of the building was the same or more than the other one? MR. BREWER-If we approve it, we can with the condition that Rist-Frost signs off on the calculations going to that. MR. O’CONNOR-We have no objection to that, and I have no problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s totally doable. Okay. Lets move on. MR. O’CONNOR-The one last change that I’m aware of, and I’m not sure what detail was shown on the other plans, is that the trash enclosure, they’ve sent us a detail of it, and it will be a vinyl trash pad enclosure, and I’ve got a sketch of it. It’ll be vinyl fencing around the fence enclosure. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have a copy of that? MR. O’CONNOR-They will. I just received it as I came in, and I also will stipulate that we will give whatever number of copies of anything that is not presently in their possession to Staff that is required. MR. BREWER-Dennis, do you have new calculations to give Rist-Frost, with the stormwater movement or whatever you want to call it? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The original retention pond is remaining at the same size. You’ve just added another one to the site. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Right. We didn’t reduce it. It’s a relatively insignificant number, but we will provide those figures. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I just wanted to be sure, that’s all. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. O’CONNOR-No. I think that’s everything that we’ve been able to discern. MS. CIPPERLY-Could I just make a comment about bike racks, I know it seems a small thing, but I don’t think the intent was to get rid of the bike rack. It was just more of a locational thing, but the Feeder Canal Bike Trail is right down on the other side of K-Mart, and this could, since it has food and air and all that stuff, it may be a place where bicyclists would tend to go. So I just didn’t want to have it, like, you can’t have a bike rack. I just wanted that understood. MR. MAC EWAN-Why was it removed, though? MS. NOWICKI-They never proposed one. MR. O’CONNOR-We never proposed one. Somebody was asking, maybe you’ve seen them at other places and somebody was asking where were we going to do on this site, and it’s not their practice to encourage that type of. MR. MAC EWAN-As a nice corporate neighbor gesture thing, could we maybe persuade you to put one in? You’re making a nice statement coming into the community. MR. O’CONNOR-I’ll tell you, they’ve been more than accommodating on almost everything, and I don’t think any of the requests have been unreasonable. I think probably they, at least my reaction that I get is that this is more detail than they show for most permit applications, which is a compliment I think, one way or another, and they don’t have a problem. If the bike rack is something that you think that we should have, we can find a place to put it on there. MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. We left the public hearing open. Would anyone like to come up and comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. Short. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: AMERADA HESS CORPORATION , 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. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think there were only really two stipulations, but there were six, the retention pond, is that one of them? MR. VOLLARO-One is a one inch pipe to a one and a half inch. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ve got like eight things, then. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, everything that we’ve talked about, those changes I’ve brought to your attention, are all shown on a plan with a certain date. If you want to just refer to that date, the only thing that’s not shown on that plan, that I’m aware of, is the potential bike rack, and we’ve agreed to get a sign-off from Rist-Frost. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, all the other things, like the elimination of the sidewalk and the kerosene tanks and the drainage from the roof, that is all on the map, you know, intake pipe, that was all changed already. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a copy of the map, of a new revised map you can leave with Staff tonight? MR. O’CONNOR-It’s right on the table there, yes, there’s two there. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll leave those with Staff. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. O’CONNOR-I think it’s a map dated 3/24/98, last revised 5/21/98. MR. PALING-Is the sidewalk eliminated on this one? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It’s out. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-98 AMERADA HESS CORPORATION , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: st With all the approved conditions that are on the map issued May 21, but there are two stipulations. One is for installing a bike rack in a good, convenient serviceable location on the property, and that Rist-Frost will sign off on the calculations for the wetlands and the stormwater management. As per the prepared written resolution. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 11-98, Amerada Hess Corp. for construction of a gas station/convenience store with associated parking, lighting and signage, and; Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/25/98 consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Maps - S1-S3 dated 3/24/98, A-2P dated 2/18/98 3. Traffic Impact Study dated 3/27/98 4. Stormwater Management Report dated April 1998 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 3/27/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from M. O’Connor 2. 3/31/98 - Memo to K. Grant from L. Nowicki 3. 3/30/98 - Fax to L. Nowicki from M. O’Connor - changes in daily water usage from 1100 to 1600 gal. Per day. 4. 4/1/98 - Memo to L. Nowicki from K. Grant 5. 4/8/98 - Warren Co. Planning Board resolution 6. 4/17/98 - Letter to S. Sopczyk (A/GFTC) 7. 4/20/98 - Response from S. Sopczyk 8. 4/21/98 - Notice of Public Hearing 9. 4/22/98 - Memo to M. O’Connor from L. Nowicki 10. 4/22/98 - ZBA resolution 11. 4/28/98 - Staff Notes 12. 4/6/98 - Beautification Comm. comments 13. 4/24/98 - Rist-Frost comments 14. 4/21/98 - New maps received at 5/21/98 Planning Board meeting Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/28/98 concerning the above project, and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to Approve Site Plan No. 11-98 Amerada Hess Corp. 2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. Issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. Engineering Fees to be paid prior to a C/O being issued. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 20-98 TYPE: UNLISTED GALVIN ELACQUA REAL ESTATE OWNER: HOWARD & DORIS ORNSTEIN ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD NORTH OF UPS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FOR AFSCO FENCE SUPPLY CO., WITH EXTERIOR STORAGE AREA, PARKING AREA, LOADING AREAS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/11/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-3.4 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-98, Galvin Elacqua Real Estate, Meeting Date: May 21, 1998 “The applicant propose to construct and operate an office and warehouse facility for AFSCO Fence Supply. All uses in LI-1A require site plan review. The application has been sent to Rist- Frost Associates and Warren County Planning for review and comment. The use is consistent with the surrounding uses. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County. MS. NOWICKI-Warren County approved with the following comments. “With the following modifications: that the northern driveway will be eliminated, the green space will continue along the road and the signage will be moved slightly north. Also they will leave the existing trees along the Northway that are within the 30’ setback and would stop the crushed stone surface at that setback line.” Rist-Frost Associates, “Dear Mr. Round: Nace Engineering’s letter received May 18, 1998 along with a revised stormwater management report and layout plan satisfactorily addresses the stormwater comments in our letter of May 1998.” MR. MAC EWAN-We ought to read in the Nace one, too. You have two from Rist-Frost, is that not correct? th MS. NOWICKI-I have one from May 15, and I’ve got May, and I can’t read the rest of it. It thth came on the 18, faxed to you on the 18. MS. NOWICKI-I have that one, too. That’s the one I just read. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Right. That was the short one. Actually, what I’d like you to do is read in the Nace Engineering and the other Rist-Frost letter. MS. NOWICKI-Nace Engineering from 5/18/98? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So it’s part of the record. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “Dear Chris: In response to item #2 of Bill Levandowski’s 5/15 letter, I offer the following: The original stormwater report was completed prior to the site plan being finalized. As a result, there were some inconsistencies. I reviewed these prior to the site plan submission and did not believe that they would significantly affect the conclusions of the report. However, subsequent to the submission there has been the additional change of eliminating the northern driveway. Therefore, I have revised the drainage report to conform to the present site plan and am enclosing a copy for your records. The changes are as follows: 1. The pavement areas for subcatchments #2 & #3 have been adjusted to conform to the current plan. 2. The number of drywells in pond #2 has been increased from 3 to 4. The perforated equalization pipe between the drywells is not used in the calculations but adds an additional safety factor. 3. The length of infiltration trench in pond #3 has been increased from 250 to 260 feet. 4. Reference to a depressed area in the lawn between the parking lot and road has been removed. 5. Eave trench has been added along the north side of the paved truck access at the west side of the building. This adequately handles runoff from the small amount of pavement which does not drain into the th drywells (pond #2).” The letter from May 15 from Rist-Frost. Is that what you want me to read next? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please. MS. NOWICKI-“Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced application and have the following comments: 1. The entrances are subject to the approval of the Town Highway Department, and the water system is subject to the approval of the Town Water Department. 2. The stormwater management report is not totally consistent with the plans. (a) The paved truck access area immediately to the west of the building does not drain the drainage system as stated in the report. (b) The depression in the lawn area between the parking lot and the road mentioned in the stormwater management report is not apparent on the plans. (c) The report includes three (3) drywells while the plans have four (4) plus 260 feet interconnecting infiltration pipe. These inconsistencies should be resolved.” MR. MAC EWAN-And just read in the Beautification Committee’s review of the site plan. MS. NOWICKI-From the Beautification Committee “1. Committee recommends any storage of inventory materials be in storage yard or rear of building out of site from Big Boom Road and parking lot. 2. No dumpster proposed in present plan. Committee recommended that any future dumpster installation be put in rear of lot behind building. 3. Committee approves plantings with no substitutions or reduction of plantings from proposed plans. 4. Committee recommends Certificate of Occupancy not be issued until plantings completed.” MR. MAC EWAN-I’m curious about that. Why would they put that in there? MS. NOWICKI-I didn’t ask her about that. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see it in any other one they’ve reviewed. MR. MILLER-I could answer that, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead and answer that. MR. MILLER-Just before us at that meeting, Jim Miller, Miller Associates, at that meeting, at the Beautification Committee, Enterprise Rent-A-Car preceded us. MR. MAC EWAN-Say no more. MR. MILLER-Okay. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Give us an overview, would you, please. MR. MILLER-Okay. This is. JIM ELACQUA MR. ELACQUA-Jim Elacqua. I’m representing Galvin Elacqua Real Estate as a partner and AFSCO Fence Supply as a partner also. MR. MILLER-What Jim’s proposing to do is they operate a fence supply installation business. They’re located down in Latham. They’ve been doing some work in this area, and they’re looking to branch into a new location here in the Queensbury area. The facility they’re proposing to build is a combination. It would house showroom for various types of fencing, wood, vinyl, chain link, metal, picket type fence, wrought iron type fences, and it would also house some offices, and some warehouse and fabrication space. The proposed building is for 8,000 feet. The site, and if you’ve been there, we’re between the Susse Chalet and UPS distribution center, and what we’ve proposed, similar to the people who preceded us, I’ve got a drawing that’s been revised, based on some of the comments. I’ve also got the old plans, but I’ll go over what those changes are. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have a copy of your revised drawing? MR. MILLER-What we did is we faxed a revision drawing of the parking lot, eliminating the driveway, and the only other revision we have has to do with the additional green space along the Northway that was brought to our attention at the County meeting. I will bring stamped and completed drawings up tomorrow with these approvals, or if there’s any more tonight. What we’ve tried to do, locate the building toward the motel, basically using the building to screen any of our truck traffic and outdoor storage area. A large portion of the site, about 50,000 square feet, is an outside storage yard that’s completely enclosed with chain link fence for security, and it’s a gravel surface area, and they receive large shipments of material, and anything that can be stored outside will be stored in that area. Between the storage area and the building is a truck circulation area. There’s numerous overhead doors to the building. It’s located in a way to allow truck traffic to come in and circulate either to the service area or to the various overhead doors, keeping the truck traffic back away from Big Boom Road and screened from the motel. Actually, this side of the motel is where they park tractor trailers. So it’s not even the main customer lot, and toward UPS we’re right against the back of their building where it’s all overhead doors and a fuel station there, on that side, and this will just be a chain link fence along here. The parking requirement that applies to us is one per two employees. They have a maximum number of employees is 20. This includes not only employees at the facility, but people who will be in the field doing installations. Plus, they have two company cars required, 12, we have 18 spaces, plus one handicapped accessible space, and the reason for that is to provide some additional spaces for customers, since it is a showroom. We original had proposed two driveways. Because we didn’t have a 150 foot separation between our driveways, we eliminated the north driveway and relocated the sign slightly to the north. We would have a main driveway that you would access into that parking area. There is also, we’re located in a Light Industrial One Acre Zone, but we also, there’s, this heavy line here is the Commercial Residential Zone, and we had a meeting with Chris Round, and it was determined that we would be required to do a buffer 50 foot from that line, so you can see where we’ve shown the buffer line, offset from that area, where that would not be disturbed in that area. MR. VOLLARO-Does that line stop at your property line, that 50 foot buffer line you just? MR. MILLER-Well, no, it should continue. MR. VOLLARO-It should continue. MR. MILLER-But I mean, we obviously have no control past our property line. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. MILLER-The one comment you saw from the County, they were concerned about visibility of the storage area from the Northway. There’s a fair amount of trees on the Northway side. Our original proposal, the plans you first had, showed our storage area going back to the fence. The owners agreed that what they would do is keep that gravel area back 30 feet from that fence and any trees that fall in that area would remain. So we have a buffer 30 feet plus what’s on the Northway property along the back. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s good. MR. MILLER-Landscaping, what we tried to do is provide some screening along Big Boom Road, although nobody else down there seems to be doing it. We pulled the service area back a ways. There’s a mound here with some big existing pines. So by pulling the service area back, there’ll be substantial natural screening there. Along the UPS, they’ve actually mowed back, they have grass back onto our property. So what we’ve done along that side, at least up in the front where it’s visible from the road, is to plant some pine trees along that service area to soften that view. The rest of the landscaping is along the front entrance, to just accent the entry to the building, and then we’ve maintained a low berm and some shrub planting along the parking area to partially screen any parked cars in that parking area. All the drainage on the site, there’s good sand soil there. There’s a stormwater report and the engineer’s comments talk about, we have, in the crushed stone area we have infiltration trenches that the water will drain to these low areas and will infiltrate into the ground. We’ve used a series of drywells in the paved areas to collect water off those areas and infiltrate it, and in addition, along the back of the building, in the back paved area, there’s a stone infiltration trench to collect roof water. Some of the comments between the engineers was really my fault. Tom Nace did the stormwater report, and after he did it, I started changing the grading plan. So they didn’t match. I added some drywells and rerouted some things, and Bill Levandowski caught the discrepancy. So Tom had to change his stormwater report to respond to the plan. Site lighting, the facility won’t operate a night. So there will only be some lights that would be mounted at the doorways in case there was someone there at night. There’s no security lighting in the storage area. Their theory is that if it’s dark, the thieves can’t see either. So they don’t light them, and basically that’s it. Are there any questions? MR. MAC EWAN-I like that last comment. MR. MILLER-Well, there’s two, I always wondered, when we deal with these kinds of things. There’s two ways people approach it, either to completely light it, to try to scare any thieves away, or the other extreme is you leave it totally dark and then they can’t see anything. They go with the dark option. MR. PALING-I’ve got two questions. Is the storage area for new fencing material only? MR. MILLER-No. It’s primarily new fencing, but some of their business is installation of fencing, like around construction sites, but what they do, and you know, I’ve seen their yards down in Latham. This material, it’s good serviceable material. When they remove it from a job, it’s rolled, and it’s stored in the same neat fashion that the new fencing would be. So they maintain a certain amount of this material that they do as a rental type of an operation. Any older fence that’s removed, that’s not usable, that’s taken away as salvage. It won’t be stored. It typically goes right from a construction job to a salvage or a waste site. MR. PALING-Okay. It may be a dumb question, but what do the circled letters mean? MR. MILLER-Those are the detail symbols. If you look at the fourth page, you’ll seed the site details, and they refer to the various detail symbols. MR. PALING-I see what you mean. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have a dumpster on that new drawing? MR. MILLER-We didn’t locate a dumpster. They don’t generate a lot of waste. Any waste they have tends to be metal, which goes for salvage, or they have some paper products, which is recycled. The Beautification Committee talked about that. If there was a need for a dumpster or some type of trash storage, we’ve agreed it would be put in the back area here behind the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t that a requirement? MR. BREWER-Only if they have a dumpster. Don’t they, they have to screen it. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it a requirement? MS. CIPPERLY-To have a dumpster? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, on their site. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. MILLER-No, but if you do, you’ve got to screen it. MR. MAC EWAN-Screen it, okay. MR. VOLLARO-So, are you planning to put one in or not? MR. MILLER-No. MR. VOLLARO-The answer is no. MR. MILLER-If they need to put one in, they could do the screening fencing pretty easily. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think this is a nice facility. MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to make a comment, when you were referring to your landscaping efforts along the front portion of the building and the street, it’s nice. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It is. MR. MAC EWAN-I wish more businesses would do it, and I know that it’s an effort of our Board that any time we have an opportunity to address that, with someone either modifying a site or a new site plan, we really strive to get it done. So you’ll be the trend setters. MR. MILLER-One of the things I’m starting to see all of a sudden is I think Code Enforcement’s putting a little more pressure on people to do planting, because people are coming back and asking me, do I really have to do this, and they’ve never asked me that before, and I’d say, of course you have to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s nice. MR. MAC EWAN-It is. I mean, simple things like a few trees and a few shrubs here and there go a long way in dressing up a site. MR. MILLER-Well, I certainly agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, anybody else? We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone who’d wish to come up and comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I have it. Is the Long one in there or Short? MR. VOLLARO-Short. MR. MAC EWAN-Short. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 20-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) GALVIN ELACQUA REAL ESTATE , 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. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? th MR. MILLER-You might want to, the revision date on the, that show those changes is May 20, if you wanted to add that to your resolution. MS. NOWICKI-You’re going to give us those drawings? MR. MILLER-Yes. I’ll bring them up tomorrow. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-98 GALVIN ELACQUA REAL ESTATE , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Submitted in accordance with the information provided by Staff as written, and including a revision date of May 20, 1998 for the site plan plat. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. 20-98, GALVIN ELACQUA REAL ESTATE for construction of office/warehouse for AFSCO Fence Supply Co. with exterior storage area, parking area, loading areas and associated site work; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/29/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/Stormwater Man. Report 2. Maps - SP1-SP4 dated 4/29/98. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) 1. 5/21/98 - Staff Notes 2. 5/13/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 3. 5/18/98 - Letter to C. Round from T. Nace in response to RF comments 4. 5/15/98 - Rist Frost comments 5. 5/8/98 - Beautification Comm. comments 6. 5/11/98 - Copy of revised driveway 7. 5/18/98 - Rist Frost comments Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/21/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 20-98, GALVIN ELACQUA REAL ESTATE. 2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. The applicant shall pay all engineering fees prior to issuance of a C/O. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. ELACQUA-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 21-98 THE MICHAELS GROUP OWNER: HP HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. ZONE: PUD LOCATION: HUDSON POINTE PUD THE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNITY DAY CARE CENTER BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE WORK. TAX MAP NO. 148-3-99 LOT SIZE: 6.6 ACRES SECTION: 179-58 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 21-98, The Michaels Group, Meeting Date: May 21, 1998 “The applicant proposes to construct a community day care center within a PUD. This project was part of the Phase V approval of Hudson Pointe. The application was forwarded to Rist Frost 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) Associates for review and comment. The project is consistent with the original proposal. Staff has no additional concerns.” MS. NOWICKI-It was previously approved from an amended PUD. So it is now part of Phase II. If you want me to go further into that, I can. th MR. MAC EWAN-No. Just the Rist-Frost comment letter of the 15. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “We have reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced application. The entrance/exit arrangements will require the approval of the Town Highway Department and the water connections will require approval of the Town Water Department. We have no further comments. Please call if you have any questions.” MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MILLER-Yes. Jim Miller, Miller Associates, representing The Michaels Group. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s new members up here. So give us a quick overview of what we’re doing. MR. MILLER-Okay. This area we’re working in is part of the recreation facility that the first phase was built. It’s a 6.6 acre site. This site’s going to be owned by the Homeowner’s Association. The first phase that was constructed was a gravel parking area, basketball court, a tennis court, and a softball field. This was a previous borrow pit area that existed before the subdivision was constructed. As part of the original approval of the PUD, there was a proposal that a day care center would be constructed and provided to the residents of the community, and that’s what this portion of the plan is. This is a corner of the 6.6 acre site. The Hudson Pointe Boulevard comes through here. The old Sherman Island Road came down to the west, and you could see the back stop from the softball field and the basketball court. So we’re off to the side of the recreation facility. These trees and things you see here, that was the berm and the planting that was done as part of the first phase to provide some buffering against the lots across the street. What the Michaels Group is proposing to do at this time is build a day care center. It’s a 1700 square foot building. It’s a simple building that’s got like a hallway down the center with a large room on one side. The other side has some offices, bathrooms, and a small kitchen facility. What we’ve shown is an area for a fenced in play yard. The building is sized to accommodate 20 to 25 children, which would require a maximum of five staff. So for parking, since this doesn’t really fall into any of the requirements in the Ordinance, we’ve provided the five Staff parking, plus an additional handicapped parking space. Most of the parents, it’s going to be sort of a drop off function. So what we did is we designed this as a driveway loop, one way enter and exit, so that parents can come in, dropped off, there’s a sidewalk, a curbed sidewalk along that area to drop the children off, and provided six spaces along there to provide that drop off function and pick up function. In the islands, we have located, again, some planting to screen the parking from the lots across the street. We’ve bermed the area where there would be a wood carved type sign similar to what they have over there and the other Hudson Pointe signs, with some screening of this area. There would be a septic system, and a leach field would be located up in the back. Storm drainage, again, good sand soil. We’re using infiltration trenches along the building. Actually, the sand play area becomes an infiltration system, and the paved area drains into this front island, where the would be a depressed lawn area with a drywell, to collect drainage in that area. This facility will be turned over to the Homeowners Association. The Michaels Group has a day care operator right now. The State has reviewed this building. It’s a licensed day care operated by the State has reviewed this facility, the design of the building, and has approved it for day care use, and I believe The Michaels Group has a meeting next week with the Homeowners Association to discuss this whole operation. What would happen is the day care operator would enter into an agreement with the Homeowners Association, well, whether it’s a lease or a contract, and run the facility, but it would be owned by the Homeowners Association. If, at some point, the Homeowners Association, there’s not enough children in the community to support it, they decide that it would not be a day care center, the building is designed in such a way that it would become like a community building. So the office, bathroom and a meeting room would still function. It would still be owned by the Homeowners Association. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. VOLLARO-I’m curious on something. Does the Homeowners Offering Plan contain, mention this in the Offering Plan, that there will be a day care? The reason I ask the question is that the Homeowners Association now takes on the responsibility of maintaining this area. MR. MILLER-That’s right. This whole area has been, as a matter of fact, there’s a substantial area of trails and green space within the Hudson Pointe project, also, and that’s all been in the Offering Plan, and I don’t normally review the Offering Plans in detail, but I know the Offering Plan does talk about a day care center that will be owned by the Homeowners Association, and if they decided that they didn’t want the day care center, they could also eliminate it, but original, it was planned and the project everybody thought was a good idea. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that it’s been very favorably received by people buying into the community. MR. VOLLARO-I would assume that the maintenance fee, is that going to be the maintenance fee has to be adjusted now? MR. MILLER-No, it’s already been planned into it. MR. VOLLARO-It’s into it? Okay. MR. PALING-I have one question. Curbing, you’ve got a six inch asphalt curb on an asphalt sidewalk, and we’ve had kind of bad luck with asphalt curbings, if you will. We’d go either concrete or granite, and I wonder what your comment on that is. MR. MILLER-The change was made for budget reasons, and The Michaels Group had a set budget to construct this whole facility, and they opted to put the asphalt in. MR. PALING-But that’s going to deteriorate with cars running up on it and over it and the ones that we see, it’s not good. Couldn’t we do something to get that either concrete or granite? MR. MILLER-I think you could, you know, you have that prerogative to make that. MR. MAC EWAN-Generally speaking, how much of a difference in cost are you talking between a concrete and asphalt curbing? MR. MILLER-Well, not a lot, eight to ten dollars a foot, maybe, at the most. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because concrete is something that’s going to last for a very long time, versus, like Bob is saying, with your winter months and the frost and the heaving and snowplowing and it makes good sense. This is a practice we’ve been doing. So I think that’s a good point, Bob. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second. So those are the curbs that come up like that. They’re not the swale? MR. PALING-No, it’s not a swale. That’s a real curbing you’ve got there, yes. It would be even at right angles, and they’re very susceptible. MR. MILLER-I agree. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think it takes more time to build the others. MR. MAC EWAN-The older section of the Mall has some of those asphalt curbings, and they get dug up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-This has nothing to do with the construction or the site plan. I’m just curious, back to this day care center. Will the Homeowners Association be the employers for the teachers and the workers? MR. MILLER-No. They will only own the facility, and then they will probably contract or lease the facility. MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, if I had a license to run a day care center, and I could employ, you know, so many pre-school teachers, then I would rent it from the Hudson Pointe people. MR. MILLER-And you would have to have the license. That’s right. All they are is the landlord. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gotcha. MS. CIPPERLY-Could I just ask kind of a logistical question, I guess? This building, we’ve had some comment in the office from homeowners in the area that were not necessarily that keen on the day care aspect, but would this building be built, no matter whether it was a day care or a community center? MR. MILLER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-It’s going to be built, and will it be turned over to the Homeowners before contracts, do you know this, before they contract with the day care thing? MR. MILLER-Well, what will happen is the homeowners are going to be involved anyway. The Michaels Group is anticipating that the number of sales, and it’s going to be, all the lands will be turned over to the Homeowners Association probably within a year. So it’s hard to tell. Day care may, you know, the contract may be let, and it may start working or functioning before it’s turned over, but what will happen is they’re having ongoing meetings with the Homeowners Association. So that they’re not going to do anything that the Homeowners Association would object to, or they’re going to be unhappy receiving. MR. VOLLARO-That’s got to be approved by the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association. Anything that goes on has to be approved by the Board of Directors. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. There was just some concern the sort of interim period, I guess, before it gets turned over to the homeowners, you know, if you were going to do a five year contract with a day care person or something and then turn it over to the homeowners, that they might be stuck with something they didn’t want. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it depends. I mean, the homeowners association, the Executive Committee of the Homeowners Association would have to approve whoever they hire. In other words, they’d have to review the operator of the day care center, and they would have to approve that first. So it would be an approval, and then they would go out, usually the Homeowners Association hires, like Cathy was saying, would go out and hire somebody to run the whole operation, and that’s got to be in the minutes of the Homeowners Executive Committee. MS. CIPPERLY-But this building will be constructed either way? MR. MILLER-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was Phase V, it was part of. MR. MILLER-That’s right. This is part of the project and it would be turned over to the Homeowners Association, but it was set up so that the Homeowners Association had the option whether or not to have the day care center. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And they’re also maintaining like the surface on the tennis courts and taking the nets in inclement weather and all that. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s kind of neat. MR. MILLER-And there’s another playground on the other side of the property. Well, the maintenance of the Boulevard is the Homeowners Association property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that right? Who changes the bulbs on the lamps? MR. MILLER-The Homeowners Association. MR. BREWER-The Homeowners Association doesn’t take care of the trails? MR. MILLER-Yes, not the, the Open Space Institute, the trails, but they have their own trails that link into the Open Space Institute trails. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Now we’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. No, we don’t need to do a SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s been done. It’s completed. MS. NOWICKI-No, you don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-We need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-98 THE MICHAELS GROUP , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As written in the resolution, with the exception that the curbing on the asphalt walkway should be either granite or concrete. Whereas, the above mentioned application, dated 4/29/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/Stormwater man. Report 2. Maps - SP1-SP4 dated 4/29/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 5/21/98 - Staff Notes 2. 5/15/98 - Rist Frost comments Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/21/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 21-98, MICHAELS GROUP. 2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. The applicant shall pay all engineering fees prior to issuance of a C/O. st Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: MR. PALING-As written in the resolution, with the exception that the curbing on the asphalt walkway should be either granite or concrete. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/98) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think we need to put that in the motion. MR. PALING-Why? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve been doing that. MR. PALING-We’ve got to put it in there, Cathy. MS. CIPPPERLY-We would appreciate it, as Staff who have to go out and do enforcement. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve been doing that with applications. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What I’m saying is, I don’t really, do you really feel that for the amount of traffic that that facility is going to get, that we would need to change that curbing? MR. PALING-Yes, I do, strongly feel that. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with him. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s not as if it’s a shopping plaza. MR. PALING-They have snow plows going across there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s the big thing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Snow plows, okay, all right. MR. VOLLARO-They wreck stuff. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, did you say concrete on that, that’s what you wanted, concrete? MR. PALING-Yes. I said concrete or granite. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a five to one cost, I think, granite is five to one over concrete. MR. PALING-That’s all right. Granite or concrete. MR. MILLER-Thanks very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re welcome. Anything else? That’s it? Meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 25