Loading...
1998-05-28 SP (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 28, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK ROBERT VOLLARO ROBERT PALING LARRY RINGER MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LA BOMBARD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -CHRIS ROUND PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 12-98 TYPE: UNLISTED JEWEL’S DONUTS, INC. OWNER: MARK R. LA POINTE ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 22 MAIN STREET THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A DUNKIN DONUT SHOP WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITEWORK. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 76-1997 AV 23-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 131-5-1, 34, 33 LOT SIZE: 0.516 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 th MR. STARK-The public hearing, April 28, has been tabled until tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Is anyone here from the applicant? Did they know they were on tonight? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How about we hold off and move them toward the end of the agenda. MR. STARK-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 22-98 TYPE: UNLISTED GOLUB CORPORATION OWNER: R. FIELDING/J.P. KOKOLETSOS ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF FOSTER AVE. AND NYS RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONFIGURATION OF PARKING AREA WITH PROPOSED ENTRANCE TO FOSTER AVENUE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 102-2-4, 102-2- 13.1 LOT SIZE: 18.68 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 VINCE GIACALONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-98, Golub Corporation, Meeting Date: May 28, 1998 “The applicant proposes to provide an access to Foster Avenue, and modify the existing access points. The proposed access change is subject to site plan review in the PC-1A zone. The applicant has been informed of several site development issues. The Staff requested the applicant address stormwater management on site. Currently, the drawing indicates no on site management. Clarification regarding the area of new pavement (impermeable surface) compared to the amount of existing pavement is also requested. The site development data indicates no gain or loss, staff 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) feels this is questionable. The applicant should be aware of the Town sign regulations. Price Chopper has submitted a sign permit application that meets the zoning requirements for a sign on Route 9. The sign on Foster Avenue does not meet the front or side setback from property lines (fifteen feet minimum). A directional sign maximum of four (4) square feet does not require a permit , but is required to meet the setback.” MS. NOWICKI-Did you want me to read Warren County? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Add Warren County to it, if you would, please. MS. NOWICKI-Warren County approved contingent upon acceptable numbers from New York State Department of Transportation, and that it not impose additional tax costs to the Town or County. MR. MAC EWAN-I would like you to add, if you would, the State letter. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. This is from the New York State Department of Transportation, “Dear Mr. Faith: We agree with the recommendation in your February 13, 1998 letter to Ms. Laura Nowicki, Queensbury Town Planner, that scenario 2 is the best way to accommodate traffic entering and exiting the expanded Price Chopper site. This will also addressed the existing high frequency of accidents at the existing Price Chopper drives if left turns out are prohibited. We look forward to working with you, Golub Corporation and the Town of Queensbury on this project. If you have any questions on this, please call Mark Kennedy of this office at 474-6377. Very truly yours, William E. Logan Regional Traffic Engineer” MR. MAC EWAN-And if you would just enter into the record Dr. Welch’s letter, if you would just read in the section pertaining to the Golub Corporation. th MS. NOWICKI-Okay. From David Welch, “The second item is scheduled for Thursday, May 28 meeting listed as Site Plan #22-98 by the Golub Corporation also at its Glen Street site in which the applicant proposes to reconfigure the parking area and proposes an entrance to the parking area from Foster Avenue. This project has two areas of significant environmental impact. Number One, again, there is the potential problem of surface runoff into Halfway Brook. The current parking lot configuration allows a great deal of surface runoff into the Halfway Brook corridor again just as it gets ready to pass under Glen Street. This is the low point of the parking lot and, again, any change to the reconfiguration of this parking lot should take into consideration efforts to relieve the stresses on Halfway Brook by further curtailing the amount of surface runoff into the Brook. The second significant factor is that the back end of this parking lot, behind the current Price Chopper building, serves as an access to Cole’s Woods area for vehicular purposes. This is of a critical factor to the Queensbury Central Fire Department as well as to the Police Departments that need access to Cole’s Woods area. It also, however, has been an area in which unwanted vehicular traffic has entered the Cole’s Woods sector and has presented significant problems. This also should be part of any plan to modify or reconfigure this parking lot structure. We also would like an opportunity to review where and how the proposed connection to Foster Avenue is being made. As such we would like an opportunity to review this project before it goes to completion as well. If it would be possible we would like to review this project at our next scheduled meeting on June 1, 1998. Very truly yours, David G. Welch, Chairman Queensbury Environmental Advisory Committee” MR. MAC EWAN-And last but not least, Glens Falls Transportation Council’s comments. MS. NOWICKI-This is from Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council. “As requested, th attached are comments on two site plans for the Town’s May 28 Planning Board meeting;”, and I’ll skip to the Price Chopper expansion. “This plan calls for the reconfiguration of on-site parking and vehicle access in connection with the expansion of a Price Chopper Supermarket. Includes modification to existing entrance/exits on Rte 9 plus the addition of a new entrance onto Foster Ave. 1) Overall, the re-direction of left-turning traffic exiting the Price-Chopper to the traffic signal at the Intersection on Foster Ave. and Rte. 9 should improve traffic flow in that area and reduce the safety hazard currently created by these movements without the aid of a signal directly on to Rte 9. A/GFTC notes however, that site geometry does not naturally facilitate movement of vehicles from the main parking area to Foster Ave. The owner should install clear signage on-site to encourage northbound traffic to use Foster Ave. and help ensure that it is adequately used. The timing of this signal may also require adjustment to account for the change in traffic pattern. 2) The site plan makes no apparent provisions for pedestrian traffic from Rte 9. Currently, this location is frequently patronized by public transit users who board and exit the bus in front of the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) store between the two existing driveways. The site plan does not identify the location of any sidewalks along Rte 9, nor does the landscaping provide any pedestrian walkway from the curb to the parking lot. This forces pedestrians to either walk across the landscaping or enter via the driveway(s) along with vehicle traffic; this will particularly be a problem during winter months and poses a safety concern. Provisions for a sidewalk along Rte 9 must be ensured, and Greater Glens Falls Transit should also be consulted about the continued location a bus stop between two driveways. Provision of a bench there would also aid passengers with groceries waiting for the bus. To allow pedestrians safe entry to the site year-round, there should be a maintained walkway across/around the landscaped green area at the Rte 9 entrance.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourselves, please, for the record. MR. GIACALONE-My name is Vince Giacalone. I’m with Price Chopper Supermarkets Real Estate Department. JIM KEHRER MR. KEHRER-And my name is Jim Kehrer, from Clough Harbour and Associates. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you give us a little bit of an overview of what your proposed project entails? MR. KEHRER-Sure. The project itself is basically the reconfiguration of the parking area along with the reconfiguration of the two entrances that are currently on Route 9. As you well know, New York State Department of Transportation has had some concerns relative to some accident data that they have within the vicinity, right out in front of the existing Price Chopper. Clough Harbour was hired to do a traffic analysis, and identified two scenarios to help alleviate any accidents that may happen along Route 9. Basically, as Laura pointed out, DOT liked the scenario 2. Scenario 2 shows the Foster Avenue connection. What this actually does is the northern most entrance, which is right adjacent to the liquor store, will be a full use access/entrance, it will allow one lane in along with two lanes exiting, one that will exit to the north, the other that will allow exiting to the south. The southern most exit will be a limited access. It will not allow left hand turns out of this site. You will only be able to leave this site by taking the south, by heading south, and it will be full access in. Foster Avenue was identified as alleviating some of the left hand turns that currently exit the site, that will have to cut across two lanes of traffic. It’s proposed to be a full access. You’ll enter onto Foster Avenue, take a right come down to the existing signalized intersection, and either have the option of heading north or heading south. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why don’t we start, I think probably the best way to start is with Staff Notes, and some of the concerns that have been raised in their review of the project. Lets start with stormwater management. MR. KEHRER-Sure. Presently, the stormwater proceeds across the site in a southerly direction, and currently discharges into the Halfway Brook prior to going beneath the road. We’ve met with Chris out in the field, along with a member of the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, and what we’ve identified is providing a stone line swale, approximately three feet in width and three feet in depth, along the entire length of the southern property, southern parking line. What this swale, the volume of this swale will basically contain the first half inch of runoff, which is basically what you treat for (lost words) of any rainstorm, that will allow any of your every day rainstorms to fill up the swale itself, allow all the floatables and non-floatables to settle out and be discharged to the Halfway Brook, i.e. during. MR. MAC EWAN-Back up just for a second. Will you describe that swale one more time for me? MR. KEHRER-Sure. The swale itself will be located on the southern edge of the parking area. If I could go up to the board. MR. PALING-Are you showing that swale on these prints? MR. KEHRER-No. The comment that we got after, well, we spoke with Chris Round, it was after we submitted the plan, so what we did is we met with Chris and updated the plans to reflect what 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) we had discussed out in the field. The swale proposed will extend from this point all the way across into the furthest part of the parking area located closest to Route 9. The swale will extend, just by eyeball right now, will be about 10 feet across the top, have a depth about three feet, be filled with rock, but you’ll still have the defined swale, defined ditch. What’ll happen, since the natural slope of the ground is in this direction, what we’ll do is provide rock dams, approximately 50 feet on center, that will allow the water to pond and filter as it proceeds down the swale, prior to discharge into the Halfway Brook. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you do maintenance of that thing, after a period of years, from snow removal and road dirt and driveway dirt and everything else, and sediment filling into that swale, how do you maintain it so that it’s going to work properly? MR. KEHRER-With any protection that you’d have to do along that property area, there would have to be some type of maintenance. The reason that I chose rock is that rock has the ability to reduce velocities, and you wouldn’t have any sediment loss further down stream. There’s going to be a maintenance hazard, whether you put in a detention basin, whether you put in a large shallow swale. Definitely a grass line swale, in the way of maintenance for Golub Corp., would be a lot easier, because you wouldn’t have the removal of rocks, but what will happen is with these stone dams, as you proceed down toward Route 9, the sediment will be pocketed in those areas. So that will be a place where you could actually concentrate on removal of the sediment for the maintenance along that stone line ditch. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the slope on the grade? MR. KEHRER-In the parking area itself? MR. VOLLARO-No, where you’re building the swale. MR. KEHRER-From here to here? I’m going to say about three percent. MR. VOLLARO-Running toward Route 9? MR. KEHRER-Running toward Route 9. MR. MAC EWAN-Has Rist-Frost reviewed this? MR. ROUND-No. They haven’t made a submission with these details on it yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess basically you’re addressing also Dr. Welch’s concerns from the Environmental Committee as well, with that response. As far as actually, what plans do you have along the entire southeast border of the parking area along the store, and toward the back parking lot, you know, where the shipping and receiving ends, for catching runoff and sheet water running in that direction? MR. KEHRER-Basically, all the runoff does tend to go to the rear of the parcel. Our plans didn’t identify anywhere to the, it would be to the west. What we did is our concern was concentrated on the Halfway Brook. MR. MAC EWAN-But all along that property line, it’s all kind of like a wet, marshy area that’s, you know, associated with Halfway Brook. So what gets in there is going to get in the Brook. MR. KEHRER-The way that I’ve looked at it is that you do have a large grassed area that’s heavily vegetated. Along the southerly property line, the Halfway Brook is pretty much in the immediate vicinity of parking area, and you do have a large quantity of water that does flow south across the parking lot. When you head west from the building itself to the green area that’s actually depicted on the drawing, you have a flat area that’s very heavily vegetated, that there’s really no defined streams. So that natural vegetation acts as the filter, the buffer itself. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the average distance between the edge of the parking lot, say back there in that southwest corner, to the Brook? I mean, how much vegetation are we talking? I’ve been up there right along, right parallel with the store there, and it doesn’t seem like it’s all that great of a distance, maybe 25, 30 feet, before you hit the wetlands in there. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. KEHRER-I was going to say that it was going to be, for a defined stream, I was going to say more on the lines of 100. I didn’t note any defined stream when we were out there. If the Planning Board wishes that we look further at that area, we can. MR. ROUND-Can I add, I walked that area with Dave Wick, and in concept we were satisfied that sheet flow to grassy area would work, but it does bear further examination, and it’s a pretty significant separation distance between Halfway Brook and the edge of pavement there. It’s probably 100, 150 feet, 120. MR. MAC EWAN-My main concern here is their snow removal practice, because they do pile snow up along that southern edge of the parking lot, and, you know, that’s going to get in. MR. KEHRER-What’ll happen in snow removal, the snow removal, as per the construction, since we are putting a stone lined ditch on the southerly edge. There will be a barrier that will have to be installed. So the snow will have to be piled on the other side of the barrier, which will actually fill in the Brook itself, but you have snow, you’re not going to have to worry about runoff. When you get runoff, you’re going to have the snow melt. The snow’s going to do the exact same thing that the runoff actually would. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why don’t we move on to. MR. PALING-Now there’s going to be further discussion and work on this, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-We’re not? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. KEHRER-No, what we did is we did meet with Chris and a representative of Warren County out there. The plans were generated based on that meeting, as part of our re-submittal. We’ll address Chris’ comments, and, you know, that’s when the design will actually be brought forth. MR. PALING-And you’re going to include Dr. Welch in that? MR. KEHRER-Sure, if I could get copies of all these letters, that would be great. st MR. PALING-Well, they’re trying to make, for their June 1 meeting they’d like to have the information. MR. KEHRER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else on the topic of Halfway Brook, while we’re here? MR. RINGER-No. We’re going to get more information on it from Rist-Frost. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, yes, I mean, it’s going to have to go to Rist-Frost for their blessing on this as well, to make sure that. MR. STARK-I was going to ask about how we’re going to drive up Foster Avenue, why should I drive there instead of out Glen Street? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re moving there next. We’ll address the Transportation Council’s comments. Did you get a copy of it, of the Glens Falls Transportation Council’s? Give us an idea, if you would, how this proposal using Foster Avenue, I guess, is going to end up being a benefit and ease traffic concerns. MR. KEHRER-What will happen, the Foster Avenue connection immediately, it’s not probably going to be used as much as it will in the future. What will happen is people that are used to leaving the site, taking a left hand turn out of the entrances, are used to a certain amount of delay during the peak period, during the, between 4:30 and 5:30 in the evening. I think the delay is somewhere between 15 and 30 seconds per car, actually to exit and head northbound on 9. What’ll happen is, as people realize that you can get to Foster Avenue and leave the site via the stop light, 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) the signalized intersection, the ease of taking that left hand turn out improves the overall efficiency of the site itself. The accidents, based on the State accident study that was done between 1992 and 1995, don’t quote me on the dates, for a three, three and a half year period, shows that the majority of the accidents, I believe there were 17 accidents recorded, that were right angle accidents, people leaving the site, to head north bound, being right angled by individuals heading south bound. So what this will do is it will allow the people that don’t want to wait in line to leave, to shoot across Route 9 and head north bound, to head out to Foster Avenue, go to the light, and take a left. MR. RINGER-You’ll still have the left hand exit, though, on the north end. MR. KEHRER-Yes. What happens is the site itself has a 50 foot right-of-way that’s governed for a parcel in the back. So you cannot eliminate the use of that right-of-way. So we still had to show the full access for leaving the parcel, along with the adjacent liquor store, they need to be provided a full access to Route 9. The key thing that really makes this work is I know Vince has been working with the adjacent landowners, the liquor store people, and the closing of their entrance. So what you do is you’re starting to have access management over a good 400 feet of a very poor section of Route 9, where there’s a very high accident, incident reporting. So you’ll be closing one. The southern one you’re going to limit the amount of people that can actually use it, i.e., you’re going to eliminate the left hand turns out, but you’re also closing the northernmost entrance, which is the liquor store, and allow them to use either, one, the new configuration of the north entrance, or allow them to go out and use Foster Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Larry? MR. RINGER-The liquor store is going to have to come in to your parking lot and go up to your exit and then out to the left? MR. KEHRER-Their entrance is located probably, I’m going to say 30 feet just to the north of ours. MR. RINGER-There’s several accidents at Foster Avenue at the light, also, because those lights aren’t aligned. Did you get any study on that from the? MR. KEHRER-The agreement that I had with Mark Kennedy, I won’t call it the agreement. I met with Mark Kennedy on the traffic study, on this proposal, and what Mr. Kennedy wanted to see in the way of permitting the entire area. The way I left it with Mark was that we were going to survey both right-of-way, and, right-of-way of Foster Avenue along with the right-of-way of Route 9, along with a topographic survey. The entire intersection from Foster Avenue all the way down to Route 9, along with LaFayette across the street, and based on that, what the survey actually shows is when we’re going to decide on which geometry we’re actually going to use at that intersection, but at the same time, it’s going to allow the New York State Department of Transportation to look at the overall impact Foster Avenue may have, along with the possible expansion of Aviation Mall, which, who knows how that may effect Foster Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you back up for a second. What did you mean by the statement that we’re not sure which geometry we want to use? MR. KEHRER-What happens, Mr. Kennedy wasn’t sure that if we’d actually come out and keep the existing intersection as it exists right now, or add some pavement striping that would allow a left hand turn lane and a right hand turn lane as you come to the light, i.e. a three lane type of intersection. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t you think that should be decided before you get here and present your plans? MR. KEHRER-No, I don’t think so, because what happens is the New York State Department of Transportation wants to take a look at the overall area. As they said in their letter, that they agree with scenario 2, which is the Foster Avenue connection. The Foster Avenue connection is going to be dependent on the entire impact on Foster Avenue, not just the Price Chopper impact, but also the impact of Aviation Mall. MR. MAC EWAN-Did they give you a time frame when they want to do that? MR. KEHRER-The Aviation Mall? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-No. Well, are they tying in the review of your potential impact on that road with what may happen at Aviation Road? MR. KEHRER-Not at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Is he going to review your project in any given time frame here? MR. KEHRER-As soon as we complete the site specific survey, and since the details are pretty much complete right now, I wanted to go back to Mark with the full set of plans, i.e. everybody’s comments, both the Town’s, and. MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds to me like you’re trying to get an approval from this Board without knowing all the facts, and how it’s going to impact that intersection up there. MR. KEHRER-No, I don’t think so. I think because the way that the traffic analysis has been completed, it identified the impacts at that intersection. The only thing that is left, that needs to be done, is what striping needs to be done at that intersection. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s pretty significant, isn’t it? MR. KEHRER-I don’t think so, because based on the study itself, it’s not going to matter what the level of service is going to be. The level of service is still going to remain B and it’s still going to remain B at the site. What needs to be done is to identify the geometry that’s going to go, that is currently going on at that intersection right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a traffic study that supports that? MR. KEHRER-That, when Mark Kennedy identified scenario 2, that was the traffic study that he was identifying, he was pointing to. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s a little confusion up here, at least with me. The letter that recommends scenario 2, dated February 13, 1998, this scenario 2 here that’s part of the Glens Falls Traffic corporation’s plan review does not talk to Foster Avenue at all. I’m just looking at it, and it doesn’t hang together. So I have never seen, or I don’t know what is said in the February th 13 letter, as far as scenario 2 is concerned. If you look at what you have in front of you, you’ll th see what I mean. We’re looking for a February 13 letter that talked about scenario 2. th MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have it, Laura, the February 13 letter? MR. KEHRER-From Clough Harbour and Associates, to Laura Nowicki. MR. MAC EWAN-The mystery letter. Do you have any other questions at this time? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Hold off. George has been chomping at the bit for the last 10 minutes. Go with your question. MR. STARK-What percentage of the people that go to the Price Chopper do you think will be turning left there, or going north on Route 9? MR. RINGER-Quite a few. MR. STARK-That must have been identified in the traffic study. MR. KEHRER-Yes. Exiting, during peak hour, was estimated to be, the total traffic would be 125, 45 people entering Foster Avenue, 80 people leaving Foster Avenue. MR. STARK-No, no, no. I don’t mean about Foster Avenue. I’m talking about right now. MR. KEHRER-I’m sorry. The current scenario would be 716, during the peak hour. It would be 339 entering, 377 leaving. MR. STARK-Fifty/fifty, and what percentage do you think, or does the traffic study think, will be using Foster Avenue to go north? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. KEHRER-About 12%. MR. STARK-That’s all? Out of the 50% that’s going north, only 12% of that 50% will be going north? MR. KEHRER-I believe the total number was 125, 45 entering, 80 leaving. MR. STARK-Forty-five coming from the north, and then, on Foster Avenue, and 85 leaving that way? MR. KEHRER-During the peak hour, yes. MR. STARK-And the rest will still be going out the old way going north? MR. KEHRER-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Did we ever receive a copy of this traffic report in our packets? I didn’t have one in mine? MS. NOWICKI-I don’t have in this packet that letter that was dated, that you just mentioned. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have that letter? MS. NOWICKI-Not in this packet. It may be in the office somewhere. th MR. KEHRER-Is that the February 13 traffic study from Clough Harbour and Associates? MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know. MR. ROUND-We did receive a traffic study, and it was forwarded to A/GFTC, and that was the same traffic study that went to DOT, and I don’t know why it’s not in the file that we have here tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. George? MR. STARK-How do you plan on enticing more people to use Foster Avenue once they’re in the parking lot? MR. KEHRER-The plan right now is just to sign the Foster Avenue entrance. I think what’ll happen is people realize the savings in time, the delay that they’re going to not experience at the light at the intersection of Foster Avenue. It will be a learning experience. You’re still going to have the same clients, they’re still going to have the same people that are going to be using Price Chopper, but they’re going to be trying to use the northernmost entrance to head north on 9, but if, as they try Foster Avenue, the delay that they experience will be less at the Foster Avenue entrance, i.e. making it more amenable to them. MR. PALING-I don’t think we’re ready to move on this tonight, though, with the traffic, okay, the traffic study and the stormwater management left a lot of questions to be answered, though. MR. VOLLARO-In the site plan review comments from Glens Falls traffic commission, they do talk about the timing of that signal, the timing of this signal may also require adjustment to account for the traffic pattern, and that ought to be included in whatever geometry you use for that intersection. MR. KEHRER-That is correct, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else that you wanted to add? MR. KEHRER-Mr. Chairman, what we wanted out of tonight was to basically bring the Board, you know, come with a concept level plan to identify what the improvements were that we were proposing for this site, i.e. the modifications to the two entrances located on Route 9, the closing of the liquor store entrance, along with the Foster Avenue connection, and then take any other comments the Planning Board may have. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-While you’re mentioning that front portion of the store, I think that the Glens Falls Transportation Council brought up or raised a good point about the public transit users and I have seen them there in all kinds of weather standing out there. I think that it would be a good idea, in community spirit, to consider an idea of a shelter type arrangement out there, for a bus stop, because it does stop there regularly. MR. KEHRER-What we did, Mr. Chairman, is we did speak with DOT. We have provided sidewalks along the entire frontage, I know, that aren’t there right now to help ease it. What we’ll also do is take their recommendation to provide access into the interior parking area. Then we can go from there. MR. MAC EWAN-I think they were talking about a shelter in here too, weren’t they? MR. RINGER-They said a bench, but a shelter would be nice. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Board would be inclined to see that in the plans. MR. MAC EWAN-A question for Staff. I’m at a loss to the comments by Warren County Planning. Could someone elaborate on that? MR. ROUND-We’ve asked for clarification. I don’t know. We haven’t received their minutes yet. They haven’t been transcribed, but exactly what that means, I don’t know. It’s not unusual to receive those kind of comments from Warren County, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s something else to hold over, then, and find out what their comments are, what they mean by that. Anything else? MR. KEHRER-No, just any review letters or any comments that we have received, if Laura could just forward them on, we would appreciate it. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What I would like to ask you to do right now, if you would mind giving up the table for a few minutes, we’ll open up the public hearing, get some public comment. We’ll open up the public hearing. If anybody wants to come up and comment on this project and ask any questions, you can direct them toward the Board. We’ll get the questions answered or take your comments. Please identify yourself when you come up and make your comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JAY MAYER MR. MAYER-My name’s Jay Mayer, One Foster Avenue. I own the building there. I’m very much for the proposed situation, except for the fact of the traffic light. I very strongly feel that traffic light at Foster Avenue and Route 9 needs to be totally addressed, in the way of arrows, left hand turn arrows, both heading north and south, doing away with the green light, the second green light. If you make a right out of Foster Avenue, when Foster Avenue is green, the second light is also green, and when that turns green, traffic seems to look at that light up ahead and try to jump the light. They don’t see the back light, which is still red, and I’ve seen many accidents in that situation, in that area, and I very strongly feel that that light needs to be totally re-worked if this is going to work properly and work in the right fashion. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? ABE RUDNICK MR. RUDNICK-My name is Abe Rudnick, and I also live on Foster Avenue, for the past 40 years, and I know everything that’s gone on there. There’s a letter written to you by my son, Marvin. I want you to read it in public. MR. MAC EWAN-It will be read into the public hearing. MR. RUDNICK-And that’s what I want everybody to hear. I’m not against doing anything, so long as it’s done right. Foster Avenue is only 40 feet, and there’s not enough room for three lanes of cars. If they make it the right way and have proper lanes, I’m not against it. The biggest 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) problem isn’t the light. The light can be straightened out, just like you proposed on the road before. So, read my son’s letter and you’ll know exactly what I’m after. MR. MAC EWAN-We will. MR. RUDNICK-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Could you read that letter in, please, or all your letters? MS. NOWICKI-All letters. This is from Katherine Peaslee. “I have received the notice of the th May 28 public hearing on the Golub Corporation request referenced above, with 2 days notice, and am unfortunately unable to attend this meeting. However, I wish to make my comments in this letter part of the consideration when making the decision. The Golub Corporation wishes to expand or reconfigure the parking areas for their business and, if they have demonstrated a sincere need for this, I can see no problem arising from that expansion which would adversely affect the residents of Foster Avenue. I am, in fact, happy that Mr. Kokoletsos has this financial opportunity, and I believe my parents, who are both deceased, would agree. However, I do take strong exception to the proposal for an entrance to Foster Avenue from the Price Chopper property, until such time as a complete environmental impact study has been completed as to the affect this change would have on the residents of Foster Avenue, many of whom are elderly and have enjoyed Foster Avenue for the past 50 years! The use of Foster Avenue as a service entrance to Price Chopper is not a decision to be taken lightly, as this change will impact every resident of the street in a negative manner, and will forever change the quality of their lives. The speed limit on Foster Avenue is not observed now; there are many speeding cars on the way past our house, either heading for the apartment complex at the end of the road, or “cutting through” to get to Price Chopper. The water table has also changed; each time it rains, torrents of water now sweep down Foster Avenue – currents strong enough, I am told, to carry a small child or dog along with it. Basements are now flooded that never in the past had these problems. This is a very dangerous situation, and I would ask why it has not been corrected? A study certainly seems in order before this decision is made: The increase in traffic at the light, more debris, cigarettes butts and litter. Will the Golub Corporation be responsible for maintaining the cleanliness of Foster Avenue? The aesthetics need to be considered, as well as the quality of people’s lives. Why would the residents want to put up with 18-wheelers day and night making deliveries to Price Chopper? As usual, those who stand to profit from this change are only affected by the change in their bank accounts – they do not live on Foster Avenue. Would they move to Foster Avenue if this change were to take place? My parents, the original residents of 3 Foster Avenue, are deceased, but I am sure I speak for both of them when I request that NO access road be thrust on Foster Avenue, and that alternative routes of access be explored. At the very least, out of respect for those who must endure this change inflicted on them, a complete study should be done, and some tight restrictions put in place on those who would change the area surrounding Price Chopper. Personally speaking, and from a business point of view, the proposed entrance would make it difficult for me to continue to rent out 3 Foster Avenue; it would become a less desirable location in which to live. And, with the proposed introduction of 18 wheelers, I am sure I would not want to live there, myself. A balance needs to be struck with this proposal. The proposal, as it stands, favors only Golub and the property owners. What about the other residents? The proposal seems to have been allowed with very little regard for the residents of Foster Avenue. I notice that Queensbury advertises itself as a town of “natural beauty and a good place to live” – it can continue to be both, but ALL Queensbury residents must be considered; not just those who stand to profit financially.” This letter, the second letter, is from Marvin Rudnick, “Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board and Staff: This shall serve as Queensbury Gardens, Inc.’s formal opposition to Golub Corporations’ application to use Foster Avenue as an exit for its northbound customers. Foster Avenue is a 40 foot wide street designed for residential purposes, not for commercial traffic. To permit Golub to use Foster Avenue without widening the street from its new entrance to Glen Street will create terrible traffic jams and violate state environmental laws. It is my understanding that Golub planned their expansion of Price Chopper operations in Queensbury without first seeking Town approval. Now they ask the Planning Board to approve their decision after the fact, pressuring the Town to accommodate their business interests. Golub did the same to us last winter. Rather than seeking prior approval of the use of our fifty foot right-of-way running along side their building, Golub built a new north entrance with a concrete ramp on the right-of-way. When asked about it, Golub’s contractor asked us “(W)hat do you want, people to burn to death?” No, we said, we want you to respect our legal property rights. Later, after threatening a lawsuit, Golub destroyed the ramp. Now, similarly, they are seeking to take the rights of all the residents of Foster, Rudley and Angel Lane to satisfy their financial interests without having sought the approval of the residents. Golub’s plan to use Foster Avenue is based on a flawed traffic study by Clough 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) Harbour & Associates. Although a respected firm, when I called them to discuss their study, Peter Faith, their principal engineer, claimed that he did not know that there was substantial and chronic blockage of Foster Avenue caused by trucks and cars parked near the Glen Street traffic light. Rather than marshaling the facts, Mr. Faith claimed that I could not have witnessed this condition since I lived in the “626” area code. Before I could tell him that my Father, who had lived there for almost 40 years, had submitted photographs of this condition to the Town Planning Department, Mr. Faith hung up the phone. As a traffic consultant, Mr. Faith is obligated to provide the Town of Queensbury truthful and accurate appraisals of the proposed traffic conditions of Foster Avenue created by his client, Golub. They did not do so. The Planning office has had knowledge of the Foster Avenue blockage and has been shown photographs which we request be made part of the record before you. If Clough Harbour failed to account for a basic fact, the Planning Board has discretion to discredit their study. However, regardless of Golub’s traffic study, common sense shows that Foster Avenue must be widened to accommodate the new traffic. We have requested that Golub construct three lanes from their new entrance to Glen Street. We feel this is the least Golub should do to create such a significant effect on the neighborhood traffic. Also, State laws require Golub to mitigate it’s dramatic change to Foster. Absent Golub’s compliance with the State law on this issue, it seems difficult to believe that the Town Planning Board would consent to their application without a strong factual basis for their plan and support from residents in the neighborhood. The best indication of Golub’s attitude toward the Town is that they have made no effort to resolve neighborhood concerns about their project. Even though Queensbury Gardens has made the effort to discuss their project, Golub has not returned our calls after their traffic consultant hung up the telephone on me. Golub has not responded to our letters, not made any effort to respond to our requests. Golub seems to be banking on the Planning Board’s naked approval of the project. Golub’s attitude and intransigence on this issue should not be tolerated by the Town. If Golub wants to profit in Queensbury, they should invest in its infrastructure. Finally, Queensbury Gardens has offered to set aside, for one dollar, a fifty foot wide road to the Town of Queensbury connecting Aviation Mall to Foster Avenue. Of course, Foster Avenue would have to be widened from its existing forty feet. But that is the point. Queensbury Gardens cannot expand as a residential neighborhood with the encroaching commercial development of Price Chopper and Aviation Mall. Without Golub cooperating in the project, they will seek to profit by the availability of Foster Avenue, without properly investing in its improvement. Simply, we ask that you require Golub to widen Foster, a cost well within their financial capabilities for the business they will generate from their expansion. Thank you for including this letter and the photographs in the record. Very truly yours, RUDNICK & KADISH Marvin L. Rudnick” This letter is from Leslie Kendall, property owner, 5 Foster Avenue “Please be advised that as a property owner on Foster I am solidly opposed to the request of the above applicant for reconfiguration of the parking area with a proposed entrance to Foster Avenue for the following reasons: 1. Foster Avenue is a quiet residential neighborhood which will be adversely affected by the additional traffic which will accrue. 2. Safety for children, senior citizens, pets, and all others will be greatly decreased due to the traffic especially as related to commercial large vehicles and drivers to and from the arcade and stores. 3. Foster Avenue has suffered considerable rain and ground water damage to properties for many years as water no longer drains naturally through the brook at the rear of the properties on the north side of the street due to rerouting and building being conducted around and east of the brook area north of Foster Avenue. Any slope from the reconfigured parking area and driveway/road onto Foster will move more water onto the street and onto properties on the north side of the street. Impasse will become more dangerous and further damage to our basement may occur. 4. Owner occupied homes and rental properties will suffer devastating property devaluation due to the additional traffic and noise associated with this request. 5. Individual property owners will be adversely affected by this reconfiguration in terms of personal response. Our Foster Avenue property has been in the family since the mid-fifties. This family home is a haven for my parents, myself and ultimately any children when we return to the Queensbury area. Under no circumstances do I see that anyone benefits or profits from the requested reconfiguration besides the applicant and owners R. Field, B Fielding, and J.P. Kokoletsos. Such individualized profiting is not fair to all affected other parties, nor is it appropriate in the spirit of win-win conditions. PLEASE LOOK IMMEDIATELY TO OTHER POSSIBLE REMEDIES FOR THIS APPLICANT’S NEED, WHICH APPARENTLY IS BASED IN PART ON DESIRE FOR ACCESS TO ROUTE 9 AT A SIGNAL LIGHT INTERSECTION. JUST PUT A SIGNAL LIGHT FURTHER SOUTH OF THE FOSTER AVENUE INTERSECTION ON ROUTE 9, EITHER AT THE EXISTING ENTRANCE TO THE CURRENT PRICE CHOPPER SHOPPING CENTER OR SOUTH AT THE LOWER END OF THEIR PARKING LOT. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT RECONFIGURATION AND ENTRANCE ONTO FOSTER AVENUE OTHER THAN TO PROVIDE PROFIT FOR SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS AT THE PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL RISK OF ALL OTHER PARTIES. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT I AM VEHMENTLY OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND I URGE THE PLANNING BOARD 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) AND TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO REJECT THIS PROPOSAL. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Kendall Property Owner 5 Foster Avenue, Queensbury, NY 12804” The next letter is from Richard Smith. “I am representing the property at 7 Foster Ave. This property is opposite the proposed entrance way to Foster Ave. from the Price Chopper parking lot and I have several concerns. 1. Environmentally, I see this making a bad situation worse. Due to previous development in the area, water from rain storms run down the street 6 to 8 inches deep, rather than down the two brooks on either side of the street. A driveway from the parking lot will only dump more water onto the street. 2. The noise and smell of diesel trucks on the street at all hours of the day and night will destroy the residential appeal for those who have homes or rental homes on the street. There are two businesses at the end of the street on Glen Street and another business in the old Firehouse. Beyond that, the street has only homes or rental homes and apartments. By the way, do I lose the parking in front of my house to allow the 18 wheeler’s room to turn onto the narrow 2 lane street that Foster Ave. is? 3. Excess wear and tear on Foster Ave. due to the increase traffic (especially truck traffic) – who pays for this, me or the people making a profit from this, and for that matter, will it be kept up? 4. Trash and Shopping Cart cleanup. Since I am at the end of the proposed driveway, the bulk of the discarded shopping carts and paper trash blowing out of the parking lot will collect on my property. It would be a shame to turn this once remote country area into a back alley urban area with old shopping carts and trash everywhere. 5. With the new additions to the Price Chopper, it will become an attraction for kids and I foresee them utilizing the driveway onto Foster Ave. for access and egress. Although most kids are good, large groups of kids often become loud and unruly. Until these issues are addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the residents of Foster Ave., especially those residents most effected at the beginning of the street, I hope this proposal will be rejected. Richard Smith” The following letter is from Lucille Badore “Gentlemen: Since I do not have any means of transportation to attend meeting at 742 Bay St. at 7:00 PM on May 28, 1998, I am sending you this letter and request it be reviewed with other property owners on Foster Ave. Attached is a map of Price Chopper parking lot and Foster Road areas referred to herein are marked with red numbers. Nos. 1 and 2 - This area is rarely used for parking and could be utilized. No. 3 - Parking lot in front of Store. This is the main parking lot. I have never seen all slots occupied at one time. There are always a few spots as cars are coming in and out. Possibly on Saturday it may be full briefly. The south side of liquor store has parking spots #3 = The entrance to the liquor store is in middle of store Have never seen more than 2 cars at once at this area. #4 Parking space - The spaces are very rarely used for parking. This road is used primarily for trucks, to deliver at rear of Store. #5 Green grass area. This property can be converted to parking - There is an entrance from Glen St. right there that services Price Chopper and the liquor store - never have I seen more than 2 cars at the liquor store - There is a delivery truck here at times. It appears that Price Chopper wants this property in their control. There have been rumors that a road will be built for Aviation Mall down through Foster Ave. I have no confirmation from the Town of Queensbury on this. The Kokoletsos property faces the road running in front of their Store and this would be the obvious route of the road onto Price Chopper that they are proposing. My bedroom windows face the Kokoletsos property, fumes blowing into my bedrooms can cause cancer. If I get cancer because of the health hazard of gasoline fumes, I will consider this attempted murder - I will also sue all parties concerned for ten million dollars. It will be noisy to sleep day or night and will cause other damages to my health. If I die from these ailments, it will be murder. The light at Glenwood Ave. was installed to lessen congestion in this area. We do not need any more roads or congestion. You will kill any hope I may have of ever selling this house for its full value. Nobody will want to buy a house up against a stinky, noisy road and run the risk of health problems. There are a lot of small children on this street - at #5 Foster Ave. and next door to me a lot of small children are taken care of. It would be dangerous for these children getting on and off buses and walking. There are parking spots at the south east and north of the front of Store and a loading dock to the west. They had tenants (stores) before their expansion and there was no trouble with parking. The acquisition of the Kokoletsos property is to gain control of property if the rumored road from Aviation Mall occurs. There is no need for any more roads going into Price Chopper or Foster Ave. Very truly yours, Lucille Badore 14 Foster Ave. Queensbury, NY 12804 P.S. I also get too much trash thrown into my backyard now from their customers now and another road will be another target, especially windows.” That is it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Please come back up. Does Staff have anymore questions or comments? Anyone up on the Board? MR. RINGER-Will the trucks be using Foster Avenue, or would they be coming in the regular entrance? MR. KEHRER-They’ll be coming in the regular entrance. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. RINGER-And there’ll be no trucks? MR. GIACALONE-The trucks will continue as they have in the past, using the Route 9 entrance/exit configuration, primarily because of the residential nature, as currently exists on Foster Avenue. MR. RINGER-Will you be posting signs, no truck entrance? MR. GIACALONE-Our truck drivers will be instructed to continue as they have in the past. MR. RINGER-Your truck drivers, but what about soda, bread, your outside, your (lost word) deliveries? MR. GIACALONE-I have no control over vendor operators, unless the Town would like to post signage of weight limits. I understand there’s already truck traffic along that road, that parks along there, a tractor trailer. I haven’t figured out how they turn around to go back to Route 9 yet, but I know they do it, but as far as I’m concerned, within my control of my traffic, I’ll continue to use the Route 9 entrance. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Larry? MR. RINGER-No. The water problems, have you done any studies on if there are problems on Foster? I remember when the firehouse was there, in a heavy rain storm, we used to get two or three inches of water right there in the road in front of the firehouse. Have you looked at that at all to see whether? MR. KEHRER-No, we haven’t, but the topography is such on the Price Chopper parcel that everything does flow south across the parking lot. So Price Chopper, the expansion itself, will not be impacting the runoff or the drainage conditions onto Foster Avenue. When we do design the entrance road, that entrance road to the best of our ability will be designed to keep the same drainage patterns as in existence right now, i.e. keeping it going across the parking lot. MR. RINGER-I have nothing else. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. STARK-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-No. I think when we have a further explanation that there is going to be more questions, though. I’m not comfortable with the stormwater runoff, nor am I comfortable with some of the aspects of the traffic on Foster Avenue. So I hope that there’s good answers for all of the questions that have been raised. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’ve come up with a list. I don’t know if anybody else has been writing, but I’ll tell you what I think we need to get some items addressed here. I think the Board would be interested in seeing the DOT traffic report that you keep referring to for counts and such. th MR. KEHRER-The February 13 Clough Harbour report? th MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s on my list, too, the February 13 letter. I would be interested, and I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but I want to know what Mark Kennedy’s recommendations are for the aligning or redoing the striping at the intersection of Foster, Lafayette and Route 9, along with any reconfiguration of the traffic signals there. Rist-Frost’s obviously to review your revised site plan drawing, making sure that the stormwater plan that you have in there is adequate. For Staff, to get an interpretation of the Warren County Planning Board’s comments, so that we can address them at our next meeting. Obviously, revised site plan drawings for our Board. Do you have landscaping, I see, on there, too, new landscaping. Have you been to the Beautification Committee? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. KEHRER-No, we have not. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll need to make a visit there before you come back here. Other than those concerns, the only other concerns I see right now, that the Board is questioning, is a proposed truck delivery/entrances, where you’re using them. If your proposed site is going to be for customer vehicles only, going in and out on Foster, you should have signage or some sort of notation on there so that it’s delineated that commercial truck/delivery truck traffic is prohibited from there. Has anybody got anything else? What we’ll do is we’ll leave the public hearing open. With your permission, gentlemen, we’ll table this thing. We can put you on first or second meeting of next month, if you get all your information to Staff in time for them to review it, which is going to be th the cut off date would be, if we have our first meeting on the 16, our second meeting is on the rd 23. So it would have to be, if it was the first meeting, it would have to be by the preceding Wednesday, right? thth MR. ROUND-Yes. A week’s lead time. So if you got it to us the 10 for the 16’s meeting or the thrd 17 for the 23 meeting, that will allow an engineer’s review. So anything above and beyond that (lost words). MR. KEHRER-That’s fine. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MS. NOWICKI-Craig, do you want to make a tabling motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Would somebody put a motion up on the table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-98 GOLUB CORPORATION , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until the first meeting of next month, and information that has been requested is obtained, a copy of the traffic report that was issued to DOT, DOT’s comments in regard to re-configuration of the geometry of Foster Avenue/Route 9, Rist-Frost Associates review of the revised site plan and stormwater issues. Planning Staff’s interpretation of Warren County Planning Board’s comments, and submittal of the landscaping plan to the Beautification Committee. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: MR. RINGER-And new site plans for the Planning Board. MR. ROUND-Yes. That’s part of that. MS. NOWICKI-You also made a mention, earlier on, to the Environmental Committee? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. ROUND-I’m hesitate to refer. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. What did you mean by the June meeting that they were having? st MR. PALING-Well, Dr. Welch has asked if the information could be to him for the June 1 meeting. MR. ROUND-The information that we have is available to them for review. I’m just hesitate to get another Committee involved in project reviews. MR. PALING-Well, you’ve got to answer the questions in his letter, though. MR. ROUND-Yes. I think they can specifically address. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re addressing that, and Rist-Frost will address that and say whether that’s an adequate stormwater management plan. MR. ROUND-I can make the information package we have available, and then make sure that they can provide timely comments to the applicant, that the applicant can address those, but again, it’s 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) just a, it’s another advisory committee that I’m just hesitant to get bogged down in multiple committee reviews. st MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Are you going to get information to his committee for their June 1 meeting? st MR. ROUND-I will have that information available for the Environmental Committee June 1. MR. PALING-All right. That’s all we’re asking. MR. ROUND-Okay. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Now we can go back. MR. KEHRER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 12-98 TYPE: UNLISTED JEWEL’S DONUTS, INC. OWNER: MARK R. LA POINTE ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 22 MAIN STREET THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A DUNKIN DONUT SHOP WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITEWORK. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 76-1997 AV 23-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 131-5-1, 34, 33 LOT SIZE: 0.516 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MR. STARK-And the public hearing of the 28 was tabled until tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-98, Jewels Donuts, Inc., Meeting Date: May 28, 1998 “Site Plan No. 12-98 was tabled at the April 28, 1998 meeting so the applicant could obtain additional information requested by the Board. Attached is correspondence to the applicant’s agent outlining the information requested. An updated drawing and traffic study was received, and forwarded to Rist Frost Associates and Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation for review and comment.” MS. NOWICKI-I’ll read the Rist-Frost comment. “We have reviewed the Richard E. Jones Associates’ letter of May 8, submitted in response to our comment letter of April 24 and 27, 1998. The responses are generally acceptable but we would recommend that an additional distribution box be utilized at the septic tank outlet to insure equal distribution to both halves of the tile field.” th MR. MAC EWAN-Your April 29 letter just basically reiterates why we tabled this thing the last time. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, then? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O’CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I am Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I am representing the applicant this evening. With me at the table is Lawrence Levine, or Larry Levine, who did a traffic study for the applicant and is here to discuss that with you or any questions that you have on the traffic study, and Richard Jones, who is the design firm 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) for the site is also here, and Rob Lindsell, who is a principal in the applicant is with us here in the audience. I am a late comer to the application, but I did take a look at your minutes that you had before, and maybe even before I go to those, as to the comment by Rist-Frost that we have received, we have no objection to that, and would be agreeable to make that amendment to the septic system. It is not a significant change, apparently. As to the comments that we’ve generated at the last month’s meeting. I think the main concern was traffic, and we have provided to you a traffic study, which basically says that the level of service on Corinth Road, prior, and after our project is up and running, is the same, is unchanged, and the level of service at the intersection of Corinth Road and Catherine Street would be the same, prior to the project and after the project is up and running. We gave quite a bit of detail, as to some existing sites, to give you an idea of some actual traffic counts, based upon what the industry had already told the applicant. I’m told that those counts bore out exactly what, and pretty much what had been said to you at the last meeting. I’m not sure how you want to proceed. It seemed as though traffic was a great concern, and maybe we would proceed with that. I do note that there was a letter submitted to you that there is only one child currently picked up between, I think, Catherine Street and the City line for school bus purposes, and the letter is detailed to the point when they pick the child up and when they bring the child back. This is a part of the Glens Falls City School District, even though it’s within the Town of Queensbury, and they do not, apparently, provide transportation, other than on special circumstances. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, why don’t we start right off with that traffic study. MR. O’CONNOR-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s as good a place as any to start. Maybe you can give us an overview of your findings. LAWRENCE LEVINE MR. LEVINE-Okay. My name is Lawrence Levine, and actually my first knowledge of this location was several years ago, investigating an accident which happened at Richardson Street, at the traffic light. So I was somewhat familiar with the location and the problems that exist there now. I was also aware that there was a, and there is an ongoing traffic study being done at the present time, and as part of my traffic study, first I went down to DOT, got all the traffic counts that they had and information that they had, and I talked with Shelly Johnston, over at Creighton Manning, called Warren County and I obtained counts from whoever and anyone I could, called DOT, got accident information from, general accident information in the area, for a three year period, and then I obtained what accident information Shelly Johnston had, at Creighton Manning. They didn’t have any plans for me as of yet, as to what was planned for Corinth Road, but they were able to give me some balance counts that they had projected out, and they gave me accident history. So I had a total accident history for four years, altogether, and some in quite some detail, and that’s attached to the report. In order to evaluate this site then, I asked that counts be taken at the three Dunkin Donuts site, one is Route 9 Glen Street in Queensbury. That’s a full service store with no drive thru. Also on Route 9, Saratoga Avenue, South Glens Falls, now that’s a full service store with a drive thru, and the Route 4, Broadway, Fort Edward location, which is a satellite store, similar to what is proposed at this location, in terms of seating and size, and that also had the drive thru as well. From this information, and speaking with owners, I garnered some indication of what I would expect from this location on Corinth Road. The peak highway period on Corinth Road occurs, per the counts, at five o’clock in the morning. It goes from four, five, six, seven, then at eight it starts to level off and go down. The peak hour for the store, I estimate would occur between the hours of eight to ten, and during the earlier hours, I don’t expect that there’d be very much left turns into the site. It’ll be difficult to do, and in fact, based on the counts from the other stores and observations, most people going into these Dunkin Donuts are turning right in, 70%, they’re turning right into the locations, and then right out. It’s not a, at least at the peak times, peak hours of operation and corresponding to the peak highway periods, people are not going to the Dunkin Donuts as a destination. It’s a destination on their way to somewhere else. That account for the right turns in and right turns out. If it’s an inconvenience to get into and get back onto the road, like a left turn might be earlier, I don’t think people will do it, and that’s what the other stores are experiencing as well. As a result, I’ve had discussions with the architects on the project, and the site plan pretty much follows what I would want to see, in terms of keeping the traffic away from, and I agree with the residents in the area. Everything should be done to keep the traffic away from the residential streets in that area. I would not like to see people using them and actually I don’t, the signal at Richardson and Corinth has such bad sight distance, at that location, and the signal is not coordinated or it isn’t even actuated at that location, from what I found out earlier. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Bad sight distance from which direction, east to west or north to south? MR. LEVINE-Just about all directions, okay. When you pull up to that signal, there’s a building on either side, on the south bound approach, and on the north bound approach. So coming back to Corinth from the residential neighborhood, it’s a tough situation, because you can’t see the cars waiting there. I observed earlier, you know, cars go, at a traffic light, people try to make the light, and you end up with serious accidents. At an intersection without a signal, many times you have lesser accidents or lesser severe accidents, because people aren’t trying to beat something. So, what I had recommended was that a no right turn sign be placed opposite the exit, and cars be encouraged, go back to Corinth Road, and then I went out and did a gap study of what’s actually happening out there, because the signals are timed, and there’s a lot of traffic on that road, and what’s happening is it is being handled quite well, actually. A lot of cars are moving through. They’re moving through in groups, groupings, platooning of cars, what we call. So between the groupings of cars, there are actually gaps every signal cycle. That happens out there, for Caroline Street, and I counted the number of gaps that were available. Actually, on a conservative basis, based upon, assuming five and a half seconds for a right hand turn, and people are making that turn in two seconds, three seconds. Then I assumed for a left hand turn, six and a half seconds, and again, people are making it in much less than that, and I counted the number of gaps, and every signal cycle there were gaps, for right hand turners, and left hand turners, except when you get back to seven o’clock, six o’clock, what have you, and that’s, even then you have gaps because it’s such a, the flow is in toward the City. It’s a very directional flow. MR. MAC EWAN-When you did your counts, exactly where were you positioned at the Corinth Road, right at the intersection of Caroline Street? MR. LEVINE-I was right at the intersection of Caroline. I had taken counts, like I said, a few years earlier, down at Richardson, and observed that signal for an accident investigation I had done. That’s where I sat was right at the intersection, and you can pretty much see, have very good sight distance there to the left and to the right. The signals, the signal at Western Avenue and Thomas is, it’s almost an equal split, distance wise, between Thomas at Western and Richardson, which is excellent for signal timing, and that’s why you get these gaps in between, because it’s right in between. If it was off set at all distance wise, you wouldn’t have this situation, but you do have adequate gaps, you have more than adequate gaps thereto get people in and out. Now you will have to wait on Caroline to make a left hand turn. I found that the average wait there, for actual cars coming out, was about 15 seconds to make a left turn, 15 to 20 seconds, max. Making a right turn, maybe five seconds. There were enough opportunities to just scoot out of there, there wasn’t a problem. So I really don’t see that people would use Garner Street and Third Street, and I really wouldn’t want to encourage that at all. As far as the pedestrians in the area, I didn’t see any small children, other than the one that’s picked up in front of their house, which is, right across the street, I saw him picked up by the, it’s a small bus. There are no large buses that I saw, just small buses, the van type, and they pick up, there’s one child across the street from the site, to the west, and he gets picked up, I think it was, I forget what time it was, but he gets picked up, and just one child. Everyone else I saw walking on Corinth Road in that area, was across the street from the site where there is a concrete sidewalk, and obviously, you know, there are plans being drawn up for Corinth Road at the present time, and I would suggest continuing that and cross the kids at the light which apparently is what’s happening, and then up the concrete walk. I didn’t see anybody come up Caroline. Maybe I was there on an off day, I don’t know, but I didn’t. There were bicyclists on Third and Garner. There are no sidewalks. It’s a narrow street. The sight distance at, if you were to come in Caroline and go down south bound to Third, there’s very limited site distance looking to the left at that intersection, and then if you go back toward Richardson, there’s very little sight distance at the intersection of Garner and Richardson, and Feeder Dam Road, I’m sorry, to the left. So, it’s a residential area. It should stay that way, and I was just concerned whether there would be a problem coming out from our site, and what I did was I took the traffic numbers from the three other sites, compared the sites, and the traffic volumes on the highways there, and came up with what I thought were fair numbers for what this site would do. MR. MAC EWAN-How could you do that? MR. LEVINE-Kind of crystal balling, in a way, because there’s no way to know for sure. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you’re comparing South Glens Falls site and Fort Edward site? MR. LEVINE-Well, you can’t really, none of them are going to be exactly like this one. It just won’t be. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-No, because those two sites have much better road facilities, and they’re much busier roads. MR. LEVINE-Right. Exactly, but I still, I came up with 36 cars an hour, okay. There’s going to be about 250 cars up to noon time, and that’s an error in my report. I think I say 250 per day. It’s 250 up to noon. About 60% or more of the traffic at these Dunkin Donuts is before noon, is what we found out, and taking that 36 cars and doing a capacity analysis at that intersection. I took it and I had the gap study. So the gap study is what’s going on with the signals. The capacity analysis really does not take into account the signal timing. So it’s going to look a lot worse, but I took the worst hour, which is five o’clock in the morning, on the road. It’s just like 1100 cars one way and 800 another. It’s much less at eight to ten, but I took the absolute worst hour, and ran a capacity analysis and ran a capacity analysis at Caroline, and came up with a Level E on Caroline, which is really the only number that’s really significant, and that’s basically saying you’re going to be waiting 30 seconds, maybe 40 seconds, to get out of Caroline to make a left turn, at five o’clock in the morning, and as I said, at eight to ten, it’s going to be a lot less, maybe 20 seconds, 15, 20 seconds, to make a left turn. Now I don’t expect too many left turners out of this site, okay. The movement of traffic is to the east, in the morning. It’s very directional, and cars are going to go right turn in, right turn out, and even on the roads on the other sites where, as you said, the roadways are a lot better and more accessible, it’s still right turn in, right turn out, 70 plus percent. So that plus, and then the next thing I looked at, I looked at the accident history. There was one pedestrian accident. I could not find out too much about it, except that it was down at, by Luzerne area, or Western Avenue. That’s all I could find out, and that was, I think, three or four years ago. I don’t know any more about it than that, and I couldn’t find out any more about it. All of the accidents, there are no accidents at Caroline Street that I could find. There are some accidents at either of the intersections, either side. Gary Spondor at DOT gave me, there were a couple of accidents on the linking roadways. Shelly Johnston did not look at the intervening roadway. She only looked at the intersections, and the intersections, there are some serious accidents, and as I said, those intersections need work. They’re signal head affairs. They’re old. Sight distance problems at both of them. They’re not actuated at all. They’re not coordinated, except that they’re fixed timed with one another, and that’s pretty good. They’re moving the traffic through there, but I imagine that will be improved, safety wise, with the improvements to the road, that occur later. MR. MAC EWAN-On Page One of your report, this is the traffic counts that were done at the proposed West Glens Falls site? MR. LEVINE-Page One at the bottom, Page One? MR. MAC EWAN-The entire Page One, I guess, I’m looking at. I’m kind of confused by it. MR. LEVINE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There’s two of them, which one? MR. MAC EWAN-The top heading on it says “Center for Micro Computers and Transportation”. MR. LEVINE-Hold on a second now. MR. MAC EWAN-This one right here. MR. LEVINE-Okay. That’s a part of the capacity analysis, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s marked “Page One - Corinth Road”. MR. LEVINE-All right. That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-On your east bound and west bound counts, you have volumes on the east bound of 1181, through? MR. LEVINE-Right, that corresponds with the five o’clock numbers. MR. MAC EWAN-So these counts were taken at five o’clock in the morning? MR. LEVINE-Right. These counts are the highest that occur. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. O’CONNOR-That was a peak hour of traffic on that (lost words). MR. LEVINE-That’s the absolute peak, well, per, if you look back, there’s another Page One that says “Warren County Counts”, and it looks like this. MR. MAC EWAN-I want to know the counts that you took. Which counts did you take? MR. LEVINE-I did not use my counts. When I went out there and counted, I didn’t come up with high numbers like this, and neither did Creighton Manning. Creighton Manning’s counts are reflected on, but I wanted to look at worst case. Creighton Manning’s counts, there’s a fax sheet attached, and it has the circles. There’s a sheet with circles and traffic numbers. Those were faxed to me by Shelly Johnston. She’s doing the Creighton Manning study, and they are much, much lower numbers that she has than the Warren County automatic counters had. So I used the Warren County numbers. MR. BREWER-How come there’s no circle, there’s circles on most every street except Caroline Street? MR. LEVINE-That I can’t answer. They didn’t look at accidents there or, they didn’t look at the linkages either. So I don’t know what stage they are in their study. This is a, the Creighton Manning information here, I called them, asked if she could send whatever they had. There is no study out, and she very generously, you know, faxed this information to me, which she lead me to believe it’s the 1988, 1998 balanced hourly volumes for that corridor, and you can see that at Richardson and at Thomas the through traffic she has is 540, and, well, it’s up to 660 versus 640, okay, and I’m using 1128 hundreds, so. MR. MAC EWAN-So your Page One then, your counts were taken at five o’clock in the morning? MR. LEVINE-Right. Well, the counts that I used, they are 24 hour counts. Warren County had two 24 hour counts done. One was on a Thursday and one was on a Saturday. The Thursday was the highest morning count, and that occurred at five in the morning. I could have used the eight to ten, but I used the worst numbers I could find. That’s all there is to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know when the Warren County counts were done Thursday, when, what date? MR. LEVINE-Yes. They have a date on them. September 5, 1996, and it’s a 24 hour period. That was a Thursday, and I’ve attached also Saturday September 7, 1996, and that’s also a 24 hour count. So I used the Warren County counts. They were the highest ones out there. I can’t account for why the others are lower, but really I just wanted to see it work. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you attribute the five o’clock in the morning as the most traffic on that road, just it’s kind of perplexing to me, seeing I travel that road every day. MR. LEVINE-It’s kind of perplexing to me, too. I can’t account for it. They had it in their numbers. I checked at DOT. They have high numbers then, too. MR. BREWER-I can’t imagine that road being busier at five in the morning than at seven thirty or eight o’clock. MR. LEVINE-I absolutely agree. MR. ROUND-I can only add that that’s what Creighton Manning, with their preliminary presentation, the numbers, that they found that to be the peak hour on that road. MR. LEVINE-It’s busy. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, the only thing you could try to attribute it to is shift changes at the Mill and the Hospital. MR. ROUND-Commuter traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-But it’s all going east bound. It’s all going into the City. MR. LEVINE-Well, 800 is going out. There’s still a significant number going out. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. ROUND-It’s an hourly, you know, when they say five to six. MR. MAC EWAN-Five to six. MR. LEVINE-Right, but it continues, too. It’s just at five to six. It’s four to five, five to six, six to seven. I mean, it’s a continuous flow of traffic coming in. MR. O’CONNOR-My understanding is that, Laura, you also gave this to the Greater Glens Falls Transit people and you discussed it with them? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, I did. MR. O’CONNOR-And he didn’t have, did he have comments to you? MR. ROUND-There’s no written comments from Scott Sopczyk at A/GFTC. He indicated that there was nothing technically in error with the report, and that he deferred the applicant’s information. MR. LEVINE-I can’t account for why people are up so early in Glens Falls. I’m from Saratoga. So, we don’t get up that early, except when the track is running. MR. PALING-Where is this one covered, the rough, the original? MR. LEVINE-Those were counts that were taken at the Dunkin Donuts. They’re summarized on. MR. O’CONNOR-They’re summarized in type written form. MR. LEVINE-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. That doesn’t bear out, that area doesn’t bear out five a.m. traffic. MR. LEVINE-Those are only in and out of the Dunkin Donuts at the other locations. That has nothing to do with, it’s a very unusual traffic pattern. I don’t disagree with that. It’s definitely directional, and it’s business related, I imagine. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we hang on the topic of traffic for a minute and start right with you, Timothy. Have you got any questions? MR. BREWER-Not yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I do. Let me ask you, before I got into starting to look at the numbers, I started to look at your Page Five on data collection, transmitted by fax on 5/20. Okay. Go into your Dunkin Donuts traffic study for Jewels Donuts, Inc. dated May 28, 1998. MR. LEVINE-Okay. You’re looking at the fax copy with the page at the top. I’m looking at the page at the bottom. MR. O’CONNOR-The fax number is page five and the bottom is page two. MR. LEVINE-Okay. Yes. I don’t have the fax number on mine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and it’s entitled “Data Collection”. MR. LEVINE-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And you say the following information was obtained for purposes of Staff. On thth Monday May 25, which was Memorial Day, and again on Wednesday, May 27, I conducted gap th studies for Caroline Street to determine the number. May 27 was yesterday. I looked at that and I said, something’s not hanging together here, you know. Those are the first flags I looked at. A little further down you talk, during the peak hour, there are sufficient gaps. We were talking about the peak hours here, there are sufficient gaps when traffic does not back up too far. It says, there 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) are sufficient gaps when traffic does not back up too far. Now, you know, that’s an interesting statement. In other words, there are not sufficient gaps when traffic backs up far. MR. LEVINE-To make a left turn into that site. MR. VOLLARO-What is the repetity of too far? I mean, how many times does too far happen? MR. LEVINE-Well, I didn’t see it happen at all, and I’ve got to correct, those dates are wrong here. It was last Wednesday. That I made a mistake. I was out there. There are no, because of the timing of the signals, okay, no one is coming out of Caroline, okay. There’s just nobody coming out of there, and what happens is as cars approach this signal, which is 750 feet away from Caroline, at Western/Thomas, okay, you can see that the light has already changed, turn red, all right, and what happens is everybody slows down. They don’t barrel through. So the slow down and they gradually bunch up, okay, and then you have gaps to make your left turns, but while that is happening, I considered that to be a back up. It never actually backed up past Caroline, but they slowed down so much that in essence, it was backed up. MR. VOLLARO-Whenever I see a study that qualifies itself by words like “too far” it just concerns me. MR. LEVINE-I understand, and, hey, from five o’clock, six o’clock, I won’t say that it never does. Seven hundred and fifty feet is a long distance, but as I said, I considered it backed up, because cars were slowing down when they saw the light change, and you couldn’t make a turn out of there because they were creeping through at the intersection. MR. VOLLARO-Just to get your study organized correctly, where you have gap study analysis, go to your gap study results, and there’s no page number there, but it’s Page One. It starts out with “Total Gaps Available” These are the three, the left turns, the right turns, and the pedestrian. MR. LEVINE-Okay. Just in the data portion of it, right. MR. VOLLARO-When you get down to the second one, you really meant the number of right turns per hour, and observed average right turn delay, not left turns. The first one is your left and the second one ought to be right. MR. LEVINE-The first one is, lets see, you’re on the second, there’s three different sections there. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. LEVINE-Okay. So the total gaps for right turning out of there was 1494 seconds total, a five seconds come out with 299 cars per hour. That’s correct. The number of left turns anticipated is about 30 lefts per hour. That’s right. MR. O’CONNOR-I think you’re saying you should have changed this word to “right”. MR. VOLLARO-It should be number of right turns per hour, and observed average right turn delays per vehicle. In the first instance, you’re giving us the position on left turns. In the second one you’re talking about total gaps available for right turning vehicles. That’s how you start out the premise of your statement. MR. LEVINE-That’s correct, and it’s not 30 lefts per hour, then. Yes. Well, no, okay, number of left turns anticipated, yes, that should be “right”. MR. VOLLARO-It says total gaps available for right turning vehicles, and that’s how it starts out, and that’s how the mind gets pre-set to what you’re going to say. MR. LEVINE-Okay. All right. MR. VOLLARO-And it should be “right”, both of those. MR. LEVINE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-When I see studies like that, with all of this detail computer, a lot of it computer generated back up, I get somewhat concerned about the quality of the data. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. LEVINE-Well, the only data in this study that is mine, the only data, is the gap study. Everything else is from others. Warren County provided the 24 hour counts, which are the highest, and I accepted. Creigton Manning. MR. VOLLARO-This is really your study. MR. LEVINE-Yes, but I’m using other people’s data. Okay. I’m not going to re-invent the wheel for this stuff. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but you’ve got to filter that data as well when you present it to somebody else. You’ve got to check it out. I mean, you can’t just transfer it from one page to another. I don’t have any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. STARK-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-Not right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have any questions or comments regarding traffic at this point? MR. ROUND-No. I noted several date inconsistencies, and I think you’ve identified those. The question I had relates to actual Dunkin Donuts satellite shop and estimation of the number of trips that you’re going to have to the site. I’m looking after the Creigton Manning, insert in your appendices and prior to the Glens Falls School District. It’s entitled “Dunkin Donuts Satellite Shop 22 Main Street”. MR. LEVINE-Okay. You have the typed sheet. MR. ROUND-The typed sheet. It’s anticipated traffic volume comparisons. MR. LEVINE-Well, actually, just actual test comparisons, those were the counts, I just asked the people at the stores to take counts. MR. ROUND-Okay. Well, it’s indicated Route 9 Glen Street Queensbury is at $9,000 average weekly sales, average daily says $1257, and then you go to Route 9 on Saratoga Avenue South Glens Falls is $7,000. Neither of these two shops are satellite shops. They’re full service shops. MR. LEVINE-That’s correct. MR. ROUND-And then the proposed shop at 22 Main Street indicates $5,000, and then you go to determine the average daily vehicles at 256 or 250 vehicles to your store, and I didn’t know how you derived that number given that Main Street is the busiest corridor in Warren County, and I just didn’t know how you got from full service to satellite, how you projected a 250 number. MR. LEVINE-Okay. The traffic volumes on Route 9 and so forth are pretty much per DOT or pretty similar. It’s not the busiest corridor, but it is a busy corridor. That’s for certain. I think I said earlier, these numbers were developed by Dunkin Donuts for me, and I thought that 250 was the daily total, and I corrected that earlier. It is just ‘til noon. There will be more than 250 over the 24 hour period, but again, it’s the hourly turning movements and when they occur that’s going to be the critical feature, and that’s what I was pretty much concentrating on. MR. ROUND-I realize that, but when you take that 256 before noon, that’s how you got your 11 per hour. MR. LEVINE-No, 11 left turners, 25 right turners. MR. ROUND-Right. Total count. So, I mean, you’re taking that number and you’re deriving the other number. So I just. MR. LEVINE-Well, no, I didn’t do it that way. I went back to the actual traffic count comparisons, and if you look from eight to ten, okay, you’ve got your full service store in the middle on Route 9, of 59 total and 41 total, each hour, and then for the satellite store, Route 4, 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) you’ve got 41 and 30 each hour, and based on the differences in the traffic patterns and so forth, I chose 36. Now I could have used 60. It really wouldn’t have made any difference in the results, and the capacity analysis, if you look at how many more cars it would take to change the level of service for the side road, it’s so many that it’s off either of the charts. So I didn’t go any further with that. MR. ROUND-I’m not questioning the ability to get in and out of the site, but it’s important for residents to know how many people are coming to the site, because that’s the impact to them, and it is access onto Main Street, and you’ve demonstrated that they’re not going to have significant waits on Caroline Street to enter onto Main Street, but you’ve derived that number from a projected number, and like you say, I know you really have to project that, and I’m just looking for a further additional comfort level with that 256, and I think that’s a franchise generated number. MR. LEVINE-Yes, as a total, I mean, figure that’s 60 plus percent of the traffic coming in before noon. So, you know, projecting that out might be a couple hundred more, but per hour, if you’re talking, lets say, I used 36. Lets say 60 an hour even, I mean, that’s one a minute. So that’s two cycles of the traffic signal each time. MR. ROUND-Yes. I realize that, but it’s just to know how busy a store this is going to be and what the traffic impacts, above and beyond the level of service and access to Main Street, is how many people are coming to the site, how busy a place is this, in a general sense, and that’s all I was looking for, because it’s a number that’s pulled out of the air. MR. LEVINE-Yes. I can’t really say how busy it will be, except looking at the traffic volumes on the road, and how the directional traffic compares to the other sites, and what the numbers are at the other sites, and that they are bigger, busier sites, and they’re a lot of seating. This isn’t going to have seating, as much seating. MR. ROUND-I understand. MR. LEVINE-Also, this isn’t going to have large trucks there. As I understand it, it’s just going to be, they’re not going to make anything on site. They make it elsewhere, and they bring it there, and it’s by small vans, or what have you. So there won’t be any, I think that was a concern of the residents as well. MR. BREWER-I think the tractor trailer traffic was a concern. MR. LEVINE-Right. See, there won’t be any tractor trailers at this particular site. MR. BREWER-How can you prevent it? MR. LEVINE-You mean driving into it? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. O’CONNOR-I think the applicant spoke last time at the other sites, he just doesn’t experience that, and he’s got three other sites in the immediate area. MR. BREWER-In my mind, the reason I think that there would be, Mike, is because it’s so close to the Northway. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know. RICHARD JONES MR. JONES-The counts that were done at the other three sites were done over a six to seven hour period, and during that period of time, there were no tractor trailers on any one of the three sites. MR. BREWER-Neither one of those are within 1,000 feet of the Northway either, well, 700, say if it’s 3,000 feet. MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t think, I’m more familiar probably with the bagel place, which is in closer proximity to the Northway than what this is going to be, and very seldom do you ever see a tractor trailer. I don’t recall a tractor trailer which I would identify as a customer either on either side of the road, waiting there. Sysco makes deliveries there with a tractor trailer, and I’ve seen that. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-When and where are you referring to? MR. O’CONNOR-At the Lox and Bagels. MR. MAC EWAN-I know that personally, because I drive that road every day, there is a tremendous tractor trailer problem up to Cumberland Farms, Subway, Pizza Hut area, they park right along side the road. MR. LEVINE-I think if you look at the site plan, and if I’m not mistaken, I’m pretty familiar with the turning path of tractor trailers, I don’t think they can get in and out of this site. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not so much maybe them getting in and out of the site. It’s just parking on Main Street in front of the site. MR. LEVINE-There’s no parking. There’s only a three and a half foot. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no parking in front of Cumberland Farms, either, but they do it. MR. LEVINE-Well, there’s a three and a half foot shoulder there right now. So if they did, they’d block up the whole road, and I don’t think there’s room for them to make their turn because the road is only 21 feet wide, plus the three and a half foot shoulder, and then you’re going into the turn. I’d be surprised to see any tractor trailers there. MR. O’CONNOR-Can I go back to the number, if you still have a concern, as to the numbers that Chris was trying to verify as to the potential number of customers. If you actually use what they have for their industry standards, and you take a look at the traffic on the other roads, on Route 4, there’s a count of 15,500 daily, and they go from one and a half to two percent, and the number of customers that they have works out right within that percentage. The Saratoga/Route 9 thing is 21,000 traffic, and I think on Route 9 they have a 20,000 traffic. You apply that one and a half to two percent of potential customers that stop, you come in to the figures that they show, based upon the receipts that they have. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but those numbers get modulated by the capability of the road. Those numbers that indeed really get modulated by the way the road handles the traffic, whether it’s crowded, narrow, whatever, people parking and so on. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Those roads that you’re talking about probably would be more encouraging to the people to stop at those stores, because it would be easier access, the way that the roads are constructed. There’s a couple of turning lanes on some of those sites in front of the sites. On this particular, so that would be probably the best best case scenario, and I think that would be a limiting factor on us, as far as how we made the projection that in our peak morning period we’re going to see probably the 256 number of customers that we’d show that we talk about. The rest of the day, you’re probably going to have $70 to $80 in receipts, what I’m told by the applicant, and the only reason that they stay open until that is that they have to have people there cleaning and getting ready for the next business. MR. PALING-Why don’t you open at four thirty or five o’clock in the morning, if that’s when the maximum traffic is? MR. O’CONNOR-I’m told by the applicant, and maybe, that during the peak hour of the traffic on the road, people don’t tend to stop. You can take a look at the peak hours on the other, because they are there more for destination, and they apparently don’t have the time or take the time to stop. It’s not convenient for them. We pick up our traffic at about eight to ten. We do 40 to 60% of our business between eight and twelve o’clock in the morning when maybe people are just maybe more casually on the road than destination orientated. MR. LEVINE-That’s breakfast time. MR. O’CONNOR-And that’s an actual showing. MR. LEVINE-People go to work, then they stop for breakfast, and take their morning break. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would assume in the four to six peak hours, the people are going to work, they’re traveling east, and I think, Craig, you said probably the hospital shifts were changing and 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) Finch Pruyn was changing and stuff like that. If I was going to work at four o’clock in the morning, and I had a nice easy right turn into this drive thru, I’d probably stop for coffee. MR. BREWER-And I don’t think, in nobody’s defense, at four o’clock in the morning, are those people that live there having a problem getting out? I don’t think that’s a big? MR. LEVINE-The thing is with the way the signals are timed, and the way the capacity turned out, too, even assuming Warren County’s numbers are correct, and, you know, I’ve got 1900 instead of 1,000, I’m not showing real time numbers here. I’m showing absolute worst case. Even then, right turners can make it out without a problem, and I was really concerned. I didn’t want people going on the residential streets anyway, and that’s really what I was concerned. Would they, any time of the morning, noon or night, and so that’s why I looked at the absolute worst time in the morning. So there’s plenty of right turn gaps, any time. The left turn gaps, when it backs up, when people are slowing down, four o’clock in the morning, you might not be able to make a left turn, but I don’t think people are going to be making a left turn at that time of the morning. They’re going one direction. They’re going to turn right in, they’re going to turn right out, and they’re not going to stop some place where they know they’re going to have trouble getting out, not for a donut. They might occasionally, but they won’t do it again. Lets put it that way. I think it would be self controlling. Now the other thing, if someone does stop, a tractor trailer on that road, at any of these times, and traffic backs up within three minutes, all the way back to Richardson, I think there’s going to be a lot of horns blowing, and it’ll be self controlling. I really do think so, just because it’s so narrow, the shoulder. He’s going to be blocking the road. It’s not like Route 9 where you have a. MR. MAC EWAN-The horns are going to be blowing at five o’clock in the morning? MR. LEVINE-Hopefully not, but I can’t see someone parking where they’re literally blocking the lane. On Route 9 and these other roads, you have shoulders that are wide enough to pull at tractor trailer off onto. Now when they re-do the road, I can’t say, you know, if Creighton Manning comes up with a plan that allows for shoulders, on both sides of the road that are wide, you know, maybe you should consider that as a problem. If there’s a lot of tractor trailers, you may not want to have wide shoulders where they can pull off onto. MR. VOLLARO-In my mind, on this site plan, if that road is widened, there’s more problems than just traffic, because I see the setback going to hell in a hand basket and there’s going to be some problems there. MR. O’CONNOR-I think, though, that the setback that was there was designed to accommodate a widening. It’s not a setback that was there for the purpose of being forever in violated. It was intentional. Even the language of that setback indicates that it should be such so as to encourage the ability to widen if it’s necessary on those type of roads. The only effect of the widening, and we haven’t seen any plans, if it’s 10 to 15 feet, is what somebody has probably guessed at or estimated, not even estimated, but guessed at what it might be, is we might lose a couple of parking lots, or parking stalls, but we have more than ample parking on the site already. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that widening the road is going to get into your parking. I don’t see that. MR. LEVINE-From what I was talking to Creighton Manning, it doesn’t look like a problem. They’re not going to touch us. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, I don’t think we know yet. I don’t think, it would be pure speculation to try and figure out what they are going to do or not do. The 75 feet was set up so that they would have the room, so that they could widen if they wanted to. MR. VOLLARO-I can see where it permits the widening of the arterial route. I see the words. MR. O’CONNOR-And that was the purpose of that. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you say we move on here. Rist-Frost comments. They reviewed your site plan, and their only additional comment was an addition of a distribution box, I think. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that shown on the plat, or it’s to be shown. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. O’CONNOR-To be shown. MR. VOLLARO-To be shown. Right now they have it coming out this way, and they’ve got a D box here instead. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any other Staff notes, concerns? Questions, comments? MR. BREWER-Yes, I have one other question. Lunches, you’re going to bring soups and whatever else, bagels or sandwiches or whatever you have every day for lunches? You’re not going to make anything there? ROBERT LINDSELL MR. LINDSELL-Robert Lindsell, Jewels Donuts, Inc. There will be a light preparation of donuts possibly. MR. BREWER-Like just maybe soup cooking or something like that? MR. LINDSELL-Right, or possibly a warming plate, holding plate for soups. There’ll be no production whatsoever on the facility. MR. BREWER-So every day you’ll bring your soups or whatever the case may be? MR. LINDSELL-Correct. Actually, there’s a freezer in the plans. They’ll be stored on site, the small items, in regard to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tim? MR. BREWER-Highway Department, have they looked at this at all? There’s a note on here that the entrance and exit detail are subject to Warren County and Town Highway Departments. Has Paul Naylor or Remington seen this plan? MR. LEVINE-Yes, they have looked at it, but I have not gotten any comment back from them in any regard. MR. BREWER-Is that something we need, Chris, or not? MR. ROUND-They’ll have to issue a curb cut permit for, the County will and the Town will. I think the location’s, and I guess Rist-Frost reviewed them, locations are traffic related and those are designed accordingly. I don’t think they’re going to be a lot of impact. MR. BREWER-Okay. Just a note on there, I thought I’d ask. MR. MAC EWAN-Good note. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one thing, I guess. On the west side of your building, where the drive thru comes through, and I understand that the 50 foot buffer is not required there because apparently we don’t have a zone line there, but I would certainly want to suggest at least that some very adequate buffering be done along that 150 foot line to guard that house or to hide that house or to hide Dunkin Donuts from that house. I’m talking about the west side of the Dunkin Donuts, as we’re looking at it on the site plan. MR. O’CONNOR-There is the planting that is proposed there, which is a solid fence of plantings. They’re going to start at four foot arborvitae, which can be allowed to grow. If there’s a desire to have a hedge, we would consider whatever the Board felt appropriate along that line, though, if you had another suggestion. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, did the Beautification Committee get into this at all? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they did. MR. VOLLARO-They did? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. O’CONNOR-I think the last time somebody suggested no windows on that side, or some place along the line somebody did, and that’s been followed. MR. VOLLARO-That’s in the variance. The variance talks to that. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only additional comment on have on the site plan. MR. PALING-On your print, on the Main Street entrance, that is labeled “enter only”. Why do you have it curved to the north? Why isn’t that a straight corner, because that you’re doing is inviting exit, when you’ve got the curve on there. It’s an enter only, then why is that curved that way? It should be squared off, I would think. Because right now, even though it says enter only. MR. O’CONNOR-You mean the east side of that should be squared off? MR. PALING-Yes, I think, and lets see what anyone else thinks, I think you invite an exit turn to the right, when you curve that curbing. I’m talking about coming from the property on to Main Street, which they don’t want you to do. MR. O’CONNOR-If the Highway Department would approve a straight curb there, we would do it. MR. PALING-And they approved this curb? MR. O’CONNOR-We have not had any comment from them, Mr. Paling. MR. PALING-Well, don’t you agree that that’s kind of an odd shaped curb, if you’re trying to prohibit people from going out? MR. O’CONNOR-No, what we’re talking about, Dick, is the easterly side of that driveway. You think that that should be at a right angle, not at a curb, because you think that encourages people to turn out that way back to even go east. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. O’CONNOR-You’ll have some people coming from the east who will be turning in to that intersection. MR. PALING-That shouldn’t matter. MR. O’CONNOR-But we have no strong feeling, I don’t think it would affect us functionally, if the Highway Department approved it. I don’t know if they would or wouldn’t. They typically want a radius on their entrances. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s County design standards to have the radius. Does that answer your question? MR. O’CONNOR-It typically is. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s County design standards to have that radius. MR. PALING-Okay. It doesn’t seem to serve a purpose, but it seems to bring up temptation to exit there. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand where you’re coming from. So if we were to ask, instead of having the radius on the east side of that drive, and make it a 90, it would be, you know, I don’t know how the County Highway Superintendent would view that, as far as a curb cut. I mean, if you’re going to do an approval, and you think that’s viable, you can put it as a condition of approval. MR. PALING-But they’re automatically saying all drives should be fully curbed on both sides. I think that’s wrong. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s maybe a standard design they have, anticipating that you’re going to have both in and out traffic. MR. JONES-We could reduce that radius on that side, I would think. MR. O’CONNOR-If they allow us, we would reduce that radius. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-What we’ve put on there we think, Mr. Paling, is the standard design that they require to give us the permit that we have to seek. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Gentlemen, I’d ask you to give up the table here for a few minutes, and we’ll open up the public hearing. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll invite anyone who wants to come up and address your comments, concerns about the project to the Board. We’ll get them answered for you, any questions you might have. I’d ask you to identify yourself for the record. Anyone? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JENNY ARONSON MS. ARONSON-Hello. My name’s Jenny Aronson. I live at 28 Main Street. I’d be on the west side of the property. I have a number of concerns. In my opinion, I don’t think this thing should have really gotten past the planning stages, due to the fact that the public wasn’t informed. If you look in the meeting notes of earlier meetings, it was recognized that they weren’t informed, and I don’t think proceedings should have even went any farther than that until the public was there. MR. MAC EWAN-The public’s here tonight, and the public’s informed. MS. ARONSON-Okay. I have a lot of concerns. About the bus report that you asked for, I believe that you asked for the Queensbury bus report, not the Glens Falls. You said you could add that as well, if I remember correctly, and the Queensbury buses go to Richardson Street seven times a day, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-What we were looking for, and what the Board asked, and particularly it was I who asked it, was looking for the bus stops in the immediate vicinity of this location, knowing that there was one there. MS. ARONSON-All right, Richardson Street. MR. MAC EWAN-No, across the street, the Head Start bus stop pick up in the morning. MS. ARONSON-All right. Thank you. The DOT traffic report, I also thought was not right, because of the fact that the higher traffic count I saw said no problems, and the ones through the DOT was considered a problem, which was a lower number from what I’ve seen. I just feel that this business should be on a larger lot. That drive through itself is 20 feet from my house, and I have a lot of problems with this, because I don’t know how it’s figured, but with the influx of traffic that would be going through there, it’s pretty steady flow traffic. It’s almost more like a road, wouldn’t it be, or no? It’s a constant flow of traffic, and it’s only 25 feet from my house. I’m concerned about plows going through there, you know, people, especially if it’s 24 hours, you know, they’ve been out doing whatever, you know, do I have to up my insurance? I’m really concerned about that, plus I have three small children that play outside and, you know, I can just see the ball rolling in the drive thru and something happening. MR. MAC EWAN-There will be a wire fence along the property line, so the chances of that happening would be very slim. MS. ARONSON-Right. Okay. There’s just a lot of things, I’m curious how many delivers a day there are going to be? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question. We’ll get that answered for you. MS. ARONSON-One time it said two times, and now it’s a minimum of two. I’m not sure, and the times of day. I guess that’s it for now. Can I get back up if I think of something? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MS. ARONSON-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? BRUCE ALLEN MR. ALLEN-My name’s Bruce Allen. I live on Richardson Street, Queensbury. I have a number of concerns that I’d like to address tonight. The traffic studies have been done. I’ve listened to the traffic studies tonight. I haven’t had an opportunity to have a copy of these traffic studies. I was actually unaware of these meeting prior to this. One of the concerns that I have tonight about the traffic studies was, and I don’t know if I’m actually correct on this or not, but I believe it was brought up that one of the days that the study was done was a holiday. I can’t say that that would be representative of typical traffic if that study was done, observation was truly done on a holiday. I think that needs to be looked at. th MR. BREWER-Monday, May 25. MR. LEVINE-It was the Wednesday before. MR. ALLEN-Okay. The accident studies were done evidently at the intersections where the lights were. I believe a reason for a low accident rate at Caroline and Main is possibly because there is strictly residential traffic going through there at this time. It is not an opportune area to make a right or a left hand turn out of there, just because there is no control over the traffic. The general traffic in that area, in an attempt to access Main Street, would have a tendency, in my opinion, to attempt to access this through Garner Street, either westerly or easterly, to access these traffic lights at either end. Regardless of whether you put a sign on the exit of the Dunkin Donuts or not, people in a hurry will not take long to realize that there is little traffic in that area. It’s a residential area. They will take it upon themselves, I’m sure, and I’m sure everyone here knows, that people in a hurry do things that they’re not supposed to do. They will take it upon themselves to make that turn, go up through those residential areas, and possibly cause problems in that area. These people that are going to be doing this are probably the most dangerous people that could be doing this. To start with they’re doing this probably because they’re in a hurry. They’re late for work. They had to grab their cup of coffee. They’ve got a coffee in one hand, and donut in the other hand and they’re foot to the pedal trying to get to work. There’s children walking down, going to school, residents exercising, walking, and it poses a definite threat. I feel that the only way to preclude this threat, to get rid of this altogether, is to physically place a barrier denying access to Garner Street and to the residential areas from the business. Now that is very drastic, I do agree. One of the small things that may be done as a suggestion, possibly, is to have both of the entrances onto Main Street from the business. It’s going to change their site plan a little bit. I don’t see a drastic change in it, from what I’ve seen. That’s probably one of the quickest and easiest way I see to do this. Another possible way is maybe make Caroline a one way street toward Main Street, from Garner, and if you really want to get drastic, if you really have to get drastic, physically barricade the road. Cut that end of the road off. There’s nothing but two businesses on that half of the road anyway, and they both have access to Main Street. It would also allow them maybe some additional area to expand their business into that end of the road. It may be good for the businesses themselves, in that area. I don’t think that would inflict a serious hardship on the residents of that area, the reason being most of the residents in that area, myself being one, generally would go to one of the lights or the other to have access to that road, because it is a very busy road. All of the counts and all of the studies have been done, people look at these things, yes, they see this for a couple of hours. I live there. I see it every day. I know what the traffic is like in this area. My major concern, again, is keeping that traffic out of that residential area. I think if they turn that into a high traffic area. It is going to do a number of things. First of all, and most important, it’s going to cause a safety hazard. It’s going to increase the hazards of individuals, children, elderly people that walk their dogs on a daily basis, people that exercise up and down that road. I see them every morning when I go to work, and I leave for work between five a.m. and six a.m. in the morning, and I see these people walking on these streets every day. I’m there. I live it. I see it every day. I don’t care what their studies say. I think that’s going to cause a hazard for 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) these people. Definitely, even with a sign up, because it’s going to be the people that are in a hurry that are going to disobey that sign. That’s my major concern for that. Another concern for that is the property values in that area. If you turn that area into a high traffic area rather than a residential area, it is definitely going to decrease the property values, and that will cause hardships on the individuals who live in that area. The property owners of that area will literally lose money, because they no longer have that value. Their net worth will drop. If that does happen, therefore, those residents who lose that money will also, you will also lose a tax base. You cannot tax someone on property value that they don’t have. I think this is, it’s going to be a problem with that. The ultimate point that I’d like to make here tonight, and my major concern, is to keep the traffic out of the area, and I agree, and I appreciate the studies that have been done, and I agree with their intent to keep the traffic out of the area. I just want a more concrete solution to the problem. I want to make sure that my child doesn’t walk down that street and have somebody late for work running them over when they’re on their way to school in the morning, and, yes, they do walk down that street every morning, and as far as the location adjacent to the homes in the area bordering that area, personally, I cannot say that I have a problem with this. It doesn’t really affect me. I am not within the 500 foot area that was required to be notified of these changes coming in. This started affecting me when the possibility of traffic being routed through my area. I do feel sorry for these people. I wouldn’t want a donut shop next to my house. I wouldn’t want any shop next to my house. I can understand the limousine service. It’s a very quiet service. It’s only run by phone, and there’s a few extra cars in the driveway. It’s not disturbing anyone. There’s no high traffic. A retail shop has high traffic. There’s no way around it. That’s how they make their money. That’s what they do. It’s their business, and I applaud them for that, and I encourage these people to continue to do business in the area. I enjoy their product, and if I was in their shoes, I would be here doing the same thing. I ask of them to please consider my feelings and the fact that I have to live with this. The residents of this area have to live with this, and the people, the children, and everybody who has lived there for years have to live with what they’re going to do. The widening of Main Street is already going to increase the traffic flow, in my opinion. I’m not an expert, but in my opinion, this is going to increase the traffic flow, probably will make it easier for the traffic flow, but we’re going to have ultimately more congestion, more businesses in the area, and right now we’re setting a standard of how are we going to deal with this, how are we going to keep this out of our residential areas? How are we going to protect our children, our elderly, our people who are walking through these streets? I think they have a very good intent to try to do this to the best of their ability, and I appreciate that, and I thank them for that, and I thank you for your attention and your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? HERMAN NEAL MR. NEAL-I’m Herman Neal. I’m the owner of the house right next door, the brown house to the west side. I have many things to touch base on. I know one big thing, when you get into traffic, is a lot of problem I have, if they’re going to have a four foot high hedge, cars are going in and out through the drive thru, 250 before noon, how many headlights are shining through the window of the house? How much noise is going into the house? Does that mean we have to get up every morning at four thirty because the donuts are ready? A lot of garbage, litter and noise from the cars. I don’t feel a four foot high hedge fence is anywhere near a buffer. Another concern I have is also for the trailer in the back. I don’t know who lives in there, but I’m sure all these cars going around that corner, their headlights are not going to start at the back of the trailer and go all the way down it when they turn. Whoever lives there is going to have a constant little flash of light going down their house. That’s pretty much for the traffic, and then the dumpster in the back is a major concern to me. I doubt they probably did any studies on the smell or how many flies are generated from it, but that, to me, is a major concern. I don’t know if you want a dumpster in want a dumpster in your back yard. I don’t feel it’s a great thing to have. Lighting would be another concern. I don’t know how this parking lot is going to be illuminated at light, where there now, the entire side of the house is going to be lit up by lights. I know they do say they’re going to have two 75 watt bulbs, but I would be real curious on what the illumination of those bulbs were, because I know if I take two 75 watt bulbs that I have in my house and stick them out in that parking lot, they’re not going to light it up. Maybe wattage, 75 watt, but what is the illumination off these, what is the reflection factor behind them? How lit is that parking lot going to be? Another thing would be garbage strewn from cars and stuff around. The big thing, to me, is the buffer between the house and the Dunkin Donuts and the closeness of the drive thru to the house. It’s 20 feet. We’re probably sitting, what, 18 feet apart. Now we’re going to have 250 cars, every morning before noon, driving in front of you. Basically, leave your windows shut, lock your doors, put some blinds up. At night, you better get some good blinds, because you’re going to have headlights constantly through the windows, all night turning in there. I think that’s something that 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) really needs to be addressed. Again, deliveries, trucks, I don’t know, it’s kind of endless. I really don’t feel a business of that size should have ever gotten the Area Variance, with having no buffer from the driveway to the adjoining property. It’s right on the line. Maybe the Codes go that way, but to me, it’s too close. They say in their Area Variance that they did everything they could do. They never contacted us about anything, never even told us about the meetings, but I know that’s nothing to do with you guys. Another concern I have is with just a hedge fence, I do have small children there. What happens if they’re playing, they run out, a ball goes in the drive thru. Those are all things, I guess that buffer or whatever in between there is a real major concern. MR. MAC EWAN-You’d want to see it greatly enhanced? MR. NEAL-Yes, definitely, definitely some type of solid fence, not a wire fence, not something you can look through, and the dumpster is a major concern. I really do not feel a dumpster belongs there. MR. MAC EWAN-Were you notified for the ZBA when they were going for variances? Did you get a notification? MR. NEAL-For the Area Variance, no. MR. MAC EWAN-You weren’t? MR. BREWER-Mark, Craig is asking about the notification. MR. NEAL-When they went through on the Area Variance, they had asked him if he had contacted all the adjoining residences and everything, and he said yes, but he never contacted me. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you the property owner? MR. NEAL-I am the property owner. I do not reside there. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I had the same question, I think, that you had, which is from the gentleman’s presentation, it sounds like he’s within the 500 foot zone, so to speak. MR. NEAL-Within 20 feet. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand that, which in turn is within 500 feet, and we were just discussing that here. We were thinking that he must have received notice of the variance proceeding, one would think. Whether he resides there is irrelevant if he’s the property owner. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. ROUND-We generate the mailing lists from real property systems where the tax bill goes. So that’s what we have. MR. NEAL-Okay. Well, that’s really neither here nor there now. They have their Area Variance. MS. NOWICKI-We have the mailing list with us. MR. BREWER-Is his name on it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. This is for Planning Board, and I’m sure the same list same list exists for the Zoning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Will you just double check and make sure you’ve got a green card back? MS. NOWICKI-It’s not a green card. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s for subdivisions. MR. MAC EWAN-No, you’re right. I’m sorry. MR. BREWER-It’s just a letter they mail out. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. NEAL-Like I say, now they have their Area Variance. That’s really neither here nor there. I don’t feel that should have gone through. I don’t feel it was done right. I don’t feel that he did everything in his, you know, when they asked did you do everything in your means possible to get your variance, he said yes. At that meeting, I stated, did you ever contact us? Did you ever ask us whether you wanted to buy us out at fair market value so your lot could conform to size? No. He actually said in the notes, you’ll see it, no, I actually never did contact the residents right next door. To me, that was not doing everything in your power, but I guess that’s it. Like I say, the big thing, to me, is the traffic flow within 20 feet of the house, the headlights going through, the noise. I mean, of course everyone has a quiet muffler on their car, right, so at 4:30 in the morning, all the people that are not eating donuts probably won’t be going through there with their loud mufflers. At 4:30 in the morning, think about it now, put yourself living there, 4:30 in the morning, 250 cars start going through, 20 feet from your house, that’s beautiful. I’ll bet you the value of that home will go up probably 50%. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. NEAL-I guess that’s pretty much it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? NAT WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-My name is Nat Williams. I’m the owner of the property at 10 Caroline Street. It borders the back edge of the proposed Dunkin Donuts. I oppose the project, obviously for the same reasons that everyone else up here has. The project was originally proposed and there again, you don’t have any control over that at this point, but I believe it was in a zone where it required an acre of land to build. They were given a variance to build it on a half an acre. I think this is an awful lot of business to cram in a half an acre plot. Like the gentleman before me, the exit to the drive thru window comes within 20 feet of my property, and I certainly have concerns about having just trees along the back of that property, with the light shining in and what have you, although I don’t currently live there. It’s a rental property. I can see having problems conducting my business as a result of your granting these people the right to do business there. I don’t think it’s going to be a very rentable property under these conditions. There again, I, you know, I personally wouldn’t like to live next door to a Dunkin Donuts, and I don’t think anybody else here would. MR. MAC EWAN-Is the buffering or lack of it a major concern for you? MR. WILLIAMS-Well, certainly the type of buffering that’s there. I don’t think arborvitae are sufficient. You can see through them. They’re not going to be planted tight enough so you can’t see through. The side yard, where the children play, of the people that rent the property, is right on the other side of these arborvitae. Although I have a chain link fence enclosing it, certainly there’s no privacy there, and certainly the lights are going to penetrate through these arborvitae. That’s, I just don’t think that that’s sufficient. MR. BREWER-Can you tell me where your home is again? MR. WILLIAMS-It’s on 10 Caroline Street. MR. MAC EWAN-Right behind. MR. WILLIAMS-So it’s right behind. It’s the property right next to, well, you see where the trailer is, and you see there’s a chain link fence that comes out toward Caroline Street. I own that property, from the chain link fence out to. MR. MAC EWAN-Williams. MR. WILLIAMS-That’s Williams, yes. MR. RINGER-You’re south of the trailer? MR. O’CONNOR-It’s shown on here. MR. WILLIAMS-Correct. MR. RINGER-You’re only 20 feet from? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. WILLIAMS-From the property line. MR. RINGER-Not from the drive thru, but from the property line. MR. WILLIAMS-Right. The asphalt. There’s a 20 foot buffer from what I, I only looked at the plans very briefly, and I’d like to further say that I lived in the house for probably 15 years before I moved out and built a home up on West Mountain Road, and I travel Main Street every day and have for 30 years, and to anybody that says that tractor trailers don’t pull over on Main Street, I beg to differ with you. I’ve been driving that route for 30 years, and I’ve seen them in front of the bagel place. I’ve seen them in front of Cumberland Farms. I’ve seen them in front of Hess. I’ve even seen them further up the road. So I’ve seen them pull off and do whatever they have to do, and it does cause a traffic back up. I don’t know how you prevent them from doing it, and certainly, you know, people tooting horns at four o’clock in the morning, I don’t think, is something that we should consider as being a fix, that it’s going to correct itself. I believe that part of the responsibility of us being here today is to look at that and try and alleviate that problem. If the problem can even exist, not let the problem correct itself by people coming down through tooting horns at four o’clock in the morning waking up the whole neighborhood. As far as the traffic studies, I guess I’ve never stood out there and counted. I know I’ve gone in and out of Caroline Street for many years. It can be very, very difficult getting in and out of there. I don’t know about the light timing and all of that other stuff, but I do know that for the most part because of the traffic, I’ve chosen to come down Luzerne Road and come up Western, because the traffic is just hideous up through there. So although they’re counting the actual number of cars that are currently traveling up and down Main Street, I don’t think it’s truly reflective of all of the traffic that’s going up and down through there. There are other people, like myself, that choose to take another route because it’s just too crowded. So, you know, if they widen the road, what have you, I think that the traffic studies are going to go up. I think that there’s a heck of a lot more traffic going up and down through there in those directions than is just reflected on Main Street, and certainly widening it and improving the conditions and what have you or timed lights or whatever the heck they use to speed the traffic up going through there is just going to create even more of a problem getting in and out of the residential area. I also agree with the gentleman that was up here prior, that if the traffic coming into Dunkin Donuts is going to make a right hand turn into Dunkin Donuts, and the traffic going out of Dunkin Donuts is going to make a right hand turn out of Dunkin Donuts, I don’t understand why the traffic has to dump onto Caroline Street. If it’s going to be a simple right hand turn in, a simple right hand turn out, why can’t it be out of their parking lot? I suppose the question would be, or probably the answer to that question is that it would probably create a back up on the property that’s not large enough to house the business and create a back up of people coming in. There would be difficulty getting out of there. They don’t have enough space to house the cars that can’t get out of there, and so therefore it would create problems on their site. I think what they’re doing, by dumping it on to Caroline Street, is moving the problem off their site, and into the city streets. I also agree that possibly Caroline Street should be made a one way street, from Garner up to Main Street. That might help alleviate some of the traffic going back into the residential area, but I know as sure as I’m sitting here and I’m sure that you know as sure as you’re sitting there that there are going to be people that are going to come out of that parking lot, whether there’s a sign that says no right turn or not, and they’re going to make a right turn. They’re going to go to the easiest way to get to the Main Street, and that’s either to go down to Western or Richardson, or to go down to Thomas Avenue to get to a light, to make a right hand turn or a left hand turn either to get to the Northway or to get into Glens Falls. It’s going to happen. It’s going to happen a lot, and I just think that the impact on the community there, and again, I no longer live there, but I think the impact on the community is going to be very, very great, and I think that all of these things should be taken into consideration when you make your decision. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? BRIAN ABRAMS MR. ABRAMS-I’m Brian Abrams. I live at 28 Main Street, the property to the west, and I have a few concerns. A couple of them have already been discussed. One of them was the privacy, with the four foot plantings, which are going to take another five years to even grow any more than that. I think at least there should be some kind of, maybe a six foot wood fence or something to keep the lights down. The noise, that’s still going to come through, and I have a problem with them being open the 24 hours, with the driveway so close to the house. I know people that are going to get out of the bars or whatever at four and a lot of them go to Steve’s Place. I’ve seen how that place is at that time of the morning. I’m sure a few of them are going to head up to Dunkin Donuts once that 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) opened. As far as the truck traffic, I know at every meeting Mr. Lindsell has said that it’s a myth that truckers like donuts and like coffee. He says he doesn’t have any traffic. At his other stores, coming off Exit 17, they have Betty Beavers right there, which all the trucks stop right there. I’m sure they’re not going to drive all the way down and try to bother and find a parking spot at the Dunkin Donuts down there, and I think once the road is widened, there is going to be a good shoulder for them to pull off and I don’t look forward to having a truck sitting right in front of my house idling or something during the night while I’m trying to sleep. Traffic’s already bad enough on that road. Probably say at least 10 to 20 times a week I’m almost rear ended trying to pull into my driveway. If I’m heading west bound, I have to start slowing down way ahead, take the turn real slow into the driveway, and I can’t tell you how many horns or fingers I see during the week, and the same thing if I’m heading toward the Northway west bound. If I have to stop in that lane, I’m usually waiting, at the least, 20 or 30 seconds to pull in there, and in that little bit of time, there’s cars backing up behind me, trying to squeeze around the right side of me, which is real tight. That’s just a little too close there even, and traffic counts that were just turned in, I see that they were done in ’96, and the last ones that you had from the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, they showed up to be probably about 10,000 less cars per day, and they were saying there is going to be traffic problems. There’s going to be back ups in the morning. With this one that they just turned in, that was done by the private consultant or whatever that took the traffic studies, they’re showing no problem, no problem, no problem. This is another 10,000 cars at least on their study. I don’t see how 10,000 will be a problem, but 25,000 isn’t going to be a problem. As far as gaps and groupings that they were talking about, for exiting on to Main Street, I can sit in my driveway, there are gaps and groupings off and on, but as soon as you get a chance, if you’re pulling left out of the driveway heading toward the Northway. As soon as you get a chance, where nothing’s coming east bound, you’ve got stuff coming west bound. You’re not going to get out. I’ve sat there tonight before I came to this meeting, I was wondering if I was going to make it here, just the way the traffic is. It’s hard to get on and off of Main Street, no matter what, and I see, the study says 15 seconds to make a left turn. That’s, I don’t know if I’ve ever made it in 15 seconds, other than early morning hours when nobody’s out anyway. Another thing, I keep hearing that Dunkin Donuts is an impulse and not a destination. I know that people, like I myself, on my way to work every day, I stop at the same Cumberlands, just about the same time every day. That’s my first destination before I make it to work. It’s not an impulse. I leave my house, that’s where I plan on stopping to get a quick bite, get a coffee something like that. I’m sure with Dunkin Donuts sitting right there, that’s, it’s not going to be an impulse. If people are driving by it, the same thing, they’re going to start having that as their destination first thing in the morning. It’s going to be a quick place to stop, the drive thru, and it looks like even the window, the order window or whatever on the drive thru, looks to be on the west side, right by the corner of our house, or at least it shows the menu as being right there, and I’m sure people are going to sit there, cars idling, at that time of the morning. As far as traffic coming out onto the back streets, that is going to be a problem. There’s no sidewalks back there. Now the children walking to school. There’s three districts right there, Glens Falls, Queensbury, Big Cross. There are a lot of children walking back there, and like they say, even with the no right hand turn sign, you know they’re going to take a quick look, okay, nobody’s looking, they’re going to take that right turn. It could be going right down past Big Cross or going straight down toward the hospital, whichever way, but they’re going to be on the back streets, if that’s the easier way to go, instead of trying to get through the traffic on Main Street, and I guess it was brought up about the school bus pick up. There is one bus pick up at 11 Main Street which is right across, but nobody’s taken into account the number of people, the children walking to school, on the back streets, and the ones coming across to Glens Falls school, and I was talking to Queensbury Transportation Department at the school today, and they said they have seven to eight buses a day on Richardson, which is where a lot of the traffic would be re-routed if the recommendations from the Adirondack Transportation Council were taken that they made on their last letter, and there are bad corners on Garner and Caroline. I know two of the neighbors have already had accidents back there. It’s not a four way stop. People don’t stop if they’re coming through there a lot of times, and even up at the other end on Richardson and Garner, if you’re pulling out onto Richardson, you can’t see what’s coming up over the hill, to the left of you, heading toward Main Street, it’s tough to see with the crest of the hill right there. That’s the traffic problem right there on the corner. I, too, don’t think that they should have gotten the variance in the first place, cramming this business onto a half acre parcel, when it calls for a one acre in a CR-15 zone. I know there were a couple of Board members on the Zoning Board that excused themselves from an earlier meeting, because of a conflict of interest. When they’ve gone back for different variances, those same two members did not excuse themselves, and then voted yes to approve whatever variance was up at the time, and I don’t know if the conflict of interest has anything to do with vending or the coffee deliveries or whatever. I just see this as making traffic a nightmare on Main, and there is a petition with over 50 signatures that I’m not the only one that thinks this is going to be a big problem. I think this is going to set a precedent for Main Street, Corinth and just about any business going in anywhere in Queensbury. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) Like if one gets away with it, there’s no reason that I shouldn’t be able to get away with it. I think that these meetings should be a lot more publicized. It’s quite upsetting to find that very few of the neighbors even knew about this project going in. I talked to some of the people, even people right across Main Street from their entrance. They had no idea anything of this going in, and a lot of people had told me that they got no notices for the Zoning or the Planning. I guess the Planning Board doesn’t really have to send them out or something, but I still think the residents should be able to come and hear what’s going on. They should at least know this is happening. I guess that’s all I have to say right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? MR. NEAL-I’m Herman Neal. I just have one other thing I think you should add into your traffic study, is I know that they’re building this Dunkin Donuts because they don’t want to sell donuts and no one’s going to go there, but a question I have is if say people do decide to go there and they start pulling into the entrance, I don’t know how many cars the entrance is going to hold from Corinth Road. Say we get five cars in the entrance. There’s three more than want to pull in. Now what are they going to do? Are they going to stop and block traffic from Corinth Road waiting to turn into the Dunkin Donuts. I think that should be something that’s really looked at. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I think for the time being we’ll leave the public hearing open. MS. NOWICKI-Craig, he has the petition. Do you want me to read through it again? MR. MAC EWAN-If you just would read it and then note for the record how many people signed it. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. Originally, this petition was submitted on 4/28. It’s been re-submitted with 30 new signatures on it. So now there’s a total of 46 signatures. I’ll re-read the notice again. It says, “Dear Members of the Board: In reference to the proposed site of Jewels Donuts, to be located on the corner of Main and Caroline Street, we the residents that reside in the immediate vicinity appreciate the time you devote to your community. We feel confident of your ethics and knowledge and thank you all for this opportunity to be heard. The following petition represents the concerns of nearby residents who object to the project. Our individual reasons may vary slightly, but as a group we are unanimous in acknowledging a problem exists. Out of respect for your time and because we are a group, allow us to address only a brief summary at this time. 1) Morning traffic is already beyond capacity. 2) The three shifts of school buses, as well as children in transit by foot bike and car to Big Cross St. School and Glens Falls Middle/High School already create safety concerns in a neighborhood lacking walkways. Peak hours of this establishment coincide with what is already a hazard. We feel that any busy drive-thru in this location does not have the community in mind. Even with a wider roadway, the need for crossing guards, etc. should be addressed. 3) Much of the traffic will divert from the light at Richardson St. and loop down Garner to Caroline St. either to access establishment or to avoid congestion. This has already begun. This quiet neighborhood has too many children and no desire to become a heavy traffic area. This needs to be addressed with safety in mind. 4) We also have concerns of large trucks using the above mentioned loop as parking for the establishment or layovers. Without sufficient parking on a major truck route less than one mile from the exit ramp and with no other services offered, it is too tempting to many overworked individuals. Signs may deter but not alleviate this problem. There is no way to compare this store to the others due to location. We fear for the “safety of our kids”. 5) This neighborhood cannot support this type of business. We are very aware of the realism that Main Street is moving towards being a commercial district. The factors we must consider, however, at this time are capacity and the potential impact of the variables. We the residents feel the process should be gradual and logical. This location is most definitely more suited to other applications that would better suit our community. Thank you for your consideration.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How many signatures totally? MS. NOWICKI-Fifty-three total. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Fifty-three total. Chris, just for the public’s benefit, could you maybe just give a quick explanation as to our notification proceedings for site plan, versus what some people were aware of what happened for a variance application, so they know the difference. MR. ROUND-Well, they are identical for both a variance procedure and for a site plan review procedure. The Town identifies property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel and provides a mailing, notifying that there is a public hearing for a proposed project. It’s also published in the newspaper, according, and that fine print section of the paper, public notice is, and the format that that is, it’s not a bold or a more heavily noticed section of the paper. That’s mandated by the State, and it’s regulated on how that appears, but those are both, they’re identical for site plan review and for zoning variances, and occasionally, now people do get notified. We do have returned notices from time to time. I don’t know how many, in this particular instance, were returned, either the addressee’s not identifiable or it’s bad information, but what we rely on is the real property tax system for that information. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. A question for Staff, in general, I’ve just kind of polled everyone up here, except the two on the end, but I don’t think we got copies of landscaping plans. MR. BREWER-I got one. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you? Bob, did you get one, a landscaping plan for the site? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, this is from the last meeting. I have this home. I left it home. We didn’t get one this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Many questions and comments and concerns were raised. Lets take them one at a time. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay, and I think that they’re legitimate concerns. I hope that we can answer them. Basically the applicant wants to be a good neighbor. If you take a look at a couple of the other sites, the site in South Glens Falls is a full service operation. That’s located on a half acre site. It has residential neighbors on three sides of it, probably as close as what we’re talking about here, and there have been no complaints about the operation. The one in Fort Edward has only been there two years. The one in South Glens Falls has been there longer than that. That has some residential neighbors. That has had no complaint. The variance question, I think the variance was granted. I wasn’t part of the first variance application. I was part of the second variance application, which had to do with the setback from Caroline Street, and nobody abstained on that application. They all participated, that were there. My understanding, or probably guess, that the first variance was granted in part because the one acre requirement allows you to build up to 12,000 square feet. This building is some 1800 square feet, or it’s 30 by 60. Proportionately, the lot can accommodate it, and these were three lots that were pre-existing lots, but that’s a separate issue that was done. I’m not sure if the 30 days have past yet or not. I think they probably have past on that, but we have the intention of trying to be a good neighbor. As to traffic, I think there’s a lot of speculation. We are willing to do whatever we can to assure people that the traffic will go in from Main Street, on the west end of our property, come out onto Caroline Street, go back onto Main Street, without going through that neighborhood. I don’t think DOT would give us two curb cuts, or not DOT. It would be Warren County Department of Highway. I don’t think they’d give us two curb cuts that close to Caroline so that we could circle the building and come back onto Main Street itself. One suggestion that was made I think was by Mr. Allen, and he said it was drastic, was that we set up some type of barriers to encourage people not to go into the residential neighborhood, with the entrance onto Caroline Street, and we would be amenable to do that. I think there’s one down, it used to be the Blockbuster Video plaza. They have curbing out by Quaker Road, which sends you in one particular direction. So rather than have, and this, I guess, is subject also to the Town Highway Department approving it, but we’re talking about this being our exit. If they want, we’ll put a tail on the exit, so that it’s cumbersome, and have the travel lane go like, you know, I’m not good at drawing it, but like this, and we can show it in with the six inch curb, that forces the people to go in that direction, and make it very cumbersome for them to come back in this way here. I think that was one of the principal concerns that everybody, and probably on that petition, you’ve got some people that are so far from the site, that somebody did a lot of leg work, and that’s fine, but I think we’re talking maybe about the principal people in this area that we really would try and accommodate. You talk about the buffer, and I don’t know what is adequate buffer. We think that what we’ve provided is decent. It’s a solid line of trees. You can get a very substantial hedge out of it. If the people want a solid wood fence, and a couple of people ask for a solid wood fence behind it, we will build a solid wood fence. We would accept that as a condition. In fact, if somebody talked six feet, we’d do off setting, wood fence, something 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) that’s probably even a little bit more sturdy than the typical basket weave, vertical boarding, one on, one inch material or something of that nature. We’d have to have a setback probably at least to the front of this house. Begin it parallel to the front of the house that’s to the west of us, run it that full boundary, and come back to a point that’s parallel to the front of the garage that’s on Caroline Street, and if we put it up six feet high, I don’t think you’re going to see any, and it’s a solid wood fence, you’re not going to get any lights through it or anything of that nature. This is where Mr. Williams lives, or Mr. Williams owns a house that’s a residential house. The closest that we understand his residence is is 95 feet from our property line. I don’t know if that’s shown on the earlier maps. His garage is like 45 feet from the property line, and then the house is 95 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-While you’re right there, refresh my memory. What’s the deal with that trailer? MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t know. It looks like people have access to it from the back street, from Garner Street, is it? There’s no drive to it. It looks like it’s, I don’t know if it’s a separate residence from the house that’s up front or not. It’s a trailer that’s built right along the property line. You probably couldn’t put it there today. I don’t know any more about, I went through the neighborhood myself, over the past weekend, just to see what’s there. Across the street, you’ve got the canvas car/boat company, and in here you’ve got an excavating company that stores all kinds of heavy equipment in there. I mean, there is some truck traffic in that neighborhood. We’re not introducing something that’s brand new to this end of Caroline Street. So if that, in part, would answer some of the questions, those are stipulations that we would be willing to make. MR. MAC EWAN-On the topic of truck traffic, what is the anticipation of how many deliveries a day, and time of deliveries? MR. O’CONNOR-We anticipate two deliveries a day, and by small van, from other sites of our own operation, or the applicant’s own operation. MR. MAC EWAN-Small van like in Econo Van or something like that? MR. LINDSELL-Econo Van, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What time of days are deliveries? MR. LINDSELL-Five a.m. would be the first delivery, and then the second delivery any time after one p.m. MR. PALING-What hours are you going to be open? MR. O’CONNOR-We have asked for 24 hour operation. MR. PALING-Well, you gave a funny answer to my question when I asked, why don’t you open at five. You’re open at five. MR. O’CONNOR-We are open at five. MR. PALING-And 24 hours is what you’re looking for. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. When you said why don’t we open at five when the peak traffic is on the road, we are open, but I didn’t mean to say that we weren’t open, by saying that, but we don’t, that’s not our peak hour business. In any of the other sites, the peak hour business is when the traffic slows down. I can’t explain that phenomena, but apparently, it’s part of the business. When the heavy traffic is on the roadway, the people don’t turn in, and again, I talked a little bit about designation. We would be willing to try some limitation on hours, if we could work out something that was reasonable. We would be willing to put limitations on the drive-thru, if that is a concern. I don’t know if that would be satisfactory or not. Again, the applicant here does not want to do something that is going to cause never ending problems there. He knows that he can get in there. He can set up his operation, and demonstrate to the people that he’s not going to have a negative impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Barring any limitations, the drive-thru would be open 24 hours a day? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, as part of the operation, unless you want to say that, for some reason, you think that you do not want that open on a 24 hour basis. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-At that menu board outside, I’m assuming there’s a speaker there and a microphone to order? MR. LINDSELL-Yes, there are communications. That’s why I thought it would be advantageous to limit the drive-thru hours. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the lighting? Tell us about the lighting on the outside of the building. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. There are two lighting packages on the outside of the building, and Dick Jones, why don’t you show what we’ve got. MR. JONES-We’ve limited the amount of site lighting. Currently, we have proposed one wall pack, which would be on the west side over the exit door near the walk-in cooler. We would have another one at the rear side by the drive-thru. These are both 75 watts, metal hay light. They have a cut off on them to direct the light down. What we’re looking to do is light the general area near the exit for the door, and the general area of the drive-thru lane only. As far as other lighting for the parking lot, we’re looking at down lighting in the eaves of the roof, on the Caroline Street side and the Main Street side of the property. There are no other site lighting proposed at this time for the parking lot. We have an illuminated pylon sign proposed for the corner, and we have small directional signs which are illuminated at the entrances and exits to the building, or to the site, excuse me, but that’s, other than that, there is no other site lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by “proposed at this time”? MR. JONES-There are no other. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s not a consideration you’re thinking of in the future? MR. JONES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Is the menu lit up? I’m assuming the menu’s lit up, right? MR. JONES-Yes. It’s a black back with a, like a white letter, small white letter on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Like a McDonalds kind of menu board? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the sign out front for Dunkin Donuts on the corner of Caroline and Main? Is that lit as well? MR. JONES-That is a lit sign. The pylon sign is lit, yes. MR. O’CONNOR-We could also operate the lighting on the menu in conjunction with the hours that the drive-in were closed, in the sense that we could shut those off, as well as the auto out there. MR. PALING-What hours would you suggest for the drive-thru? MR. O’CONNOR-That would be closed from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. I’m sorry, I’m not up very often, 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. MR. MAC EWAN-A question for Staff. What is the minimum driveway width requirements, if it’s just a one way drive? MR. O’CONNOR-Twenty feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it 20 feet? MR. ROUND-It’s a minimum of 20 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Why do we have a 35 foot one there? MR. O’CONNOR-It’s 24. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. PALING-That’s not 35 feet. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 35 to the property line of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What’s the width of that drive right there? MR. O’CONNOR-Twenty-four feet. MR. MAC EWAN-It is the 24 foot? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. I did ask Staff how high a fence we could put up without a variance, and I’m told we could put up an eight foot fence. MR. BREWER-I thought it was six foot? MR. ROUND-Six in residential and eight feet in commercial zones. This is a commercial residential zone. MR. O’CONNOR-If the neighbors don’t object to it. If the neighbors think that they’d rather have a six foot fence, we would do a six foot fence. We probably would suggest, and just from past experience, I did it up behind Wal-Mart with that neighborhood up there, is we stepped it down as we got closer to different areas. We had different heights. Actually put it on a drawing, and that’s what we built. You talked about deliveries, the dumpster is a closed dumpster. It’s the same type dumpster that we have at the other locations, and we have not had a problem with them. MR. PALING-The dumpster’s about 60 feet from the house. MR. BREWER-And it’s enclosed. MR. RINGER-Yes, that’s quite a ways. There was a question, Mike, on the back up on Corinth Road from the drive-in. From his experience, does that ever occur, that you get a back up at your drive-in at your other stores? MR. LINDSELL-Well, it does happen, and when it does happen, we’ve offered an escape lane for that. So the natural flow of, traffic on the site itself will allow that, if in fact someone entering the property see that it is backed up, that’s why we’ll have the escape lane to mitigate that problem. MR. O’CONNOR-That’s why the drive is 24 feet wide. If there are two or three cars at the drive- in, people coming onto the site can go around them and go into the parking. There’s actually spaces in there you could stack up 12 cars behind, from the service area of the back up, or from the service area of the drive-thru. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re actually talking from the window or the menu? MR. O’CONNOR-I’m saying conservatively from the window, and I’m being told by Mr. Levine in my back ear, here, that actually you could put more there. In his report, he tells us 12, and I don’t remember the wording on that exactly, whether it was a minimum of 12. MR. PALING-Just give me a minute, I’m going down my list. I think they’ve come up with an answer for nearly everything. I’m a little concerned that they did allow such a narrow setback on that. What’s the, this scales off, from the house to the edge of the road, is less than 20 feet. What’s the normal setback? MS. NOWICKI-For which? You’re talking about the residence? MR. PALING-Yes. I’m talking about the house that’s to the west, to the edge of the road, scales off less than 20 feet on the drawing. MR. O’CONNOR-Edge of the driveway? MR. PALING-Yes, to the edge of the driveway. MR. ROUND-Residences in the CR-15 zone require a 50 foot front setback. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. PALING-Front setback. MR. ROUND-That’s a road setback for residences. MR. O’CONNOR-That was, I don’t think, his question, Chris. MR. PALING-That’s not the question, no. MR. O’CONNOR-Is there a setback requirement for the driveway to the adjoining residential property? MR. ROUND-No. Typically, there’s a five foot separation from parking areas or driveways from a property line. MR. PALING-Five feet? MR. ROUND-Five feet. MR. PALING-Then this setback here is not a variance, then, that they’re well within? MR. ROUND-Are you talking the driveway? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. ROUND-They’re driveway conforms to the site plan and subdivision, or the planning requirements of our Zoning Ordinance. MR. BREWER-There was no variance for the driveway. MR. O’CONNOR-The only setback variance was setback of the structure toward Caroline Street. Instead of 75 feet, they allowed it to stay at 50 feet, and the reason that you had 75 feet is that this is a corner lot, and there are no side yards, if you will. Caroline Street’s a front yard, and Main Street’s a front yard. So it was a 75 foot setback for structures from both. MR. PALING-So there was little or no consideration in the Ordinance given to the distance to a residence from the commercial boundary. MR. ROUND-From a paved area to a commercial residence, no, there’s not. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. In fact, I think Staff has asked us to show linkage from our driveway into that lot, so that when that lot is developed for commercial purposes, there’s the ability that can go from commercial site to commercial site, without going back on the highway. This is like a transitional zone. A lot of that, you go up and down that street and you see the number of signs that are out there, you’re going to see a good number of properties that are going to go into some use of this nature. MR. PALING-Well, you’ve stated that you’d consider an eight foot fence on the west and south sides of this lot, and that you’d limit operating hours from 11 p.m. to 5 a..m., and that that, with the down time on the drive-in, you’d shut that sign light off, and you’d curb the. MR. O’CONNOR-We would consider drive-in, shutting down the drive-in function during those hours. MR. PALING-Right, and the sign along with it. MR. O’CONNOR-And the sign that goes with them, and any lighting that goes on the back of the building with it. MR. PALING-Right, and the curb. MR. O’CONNOR-But the rest of the building would be open. MR. PALING-Right, yes, for 24 hours. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. PALING-Yes, and you’d curb Caroline so that you would discourage anybody trying to make a right hand turn onto Caroline. They would be guided to the left. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. We would also change the radius on the easterly side of the driveway on Main Street to the extent that we’re allowed to, if we are allowed to. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Bob, how can you do that out into the road? I mean, you can only go to your property line, right? So I don’t know what you want to call it, the curb or whatever you’re going to put there, to force the traffic to go to the left, is going to end, in other words, if this is your property line, it’s going to end right here? MR. O’CONNOR-Typically, the Highway Department will allow us to go right out into the shoulder. We did that at The BerryMill Plaza. Most of those curbs are out on street, are out on City or Town property. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You know the kind of curb he’s talking about? Like Taco Bell has one. MR. BREWER-Taco Bell, and who else? Blockbuster Video you mentioned. MR. PALING-Would you make any curbings that you’re going to have either concrete or granite? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, either or. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Obviously, the two biggest concerns here are the traffic and the buffering, to minimize the impact on the residential neighbors to the site. You’re talking a six foot stockade fence? MR. PALING-Eight foot. MR. MAC EWAN-Eight foot stockade fence. MR. O’CONNOR-I’d let them choose that. I don’t know, that’s an aesthetic type thing. If you’ve got a solid fence above where your traffic is going to be, you’re going to keep the lights out. I don’t know if I’d rather have an eight foot fence next to me, or I’d rather have a six foot fence, personally. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s that do for you planting schedule that you have with those arborvitae? I would still like to see some sort of plantings there, but I don’t think it’s necessary to have arborvitae there of four foot height. MR. O’CONNOR-We’re saying in addition to what’s there, we will put it along the property line, outside of those plantings. MR. VOLLARO-That property line has a wood fence now? A wire fence with wood posts? MR. O’CONNOR-There are a couple of fences shown. I don’t know which one you’re speaking of. One has a wire fence and the other. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says wire fence with wood posts. That’s what’s on the drawing on the west side? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s the line on which you would put the new fence? MR. O’CONNOR-The property to the west, as I understand, is owned by Mr. Neal. It would go along his property, commencing at a point parallel to the front of the existing residence, to the back corner, and there are a couple of different owners along the back line, and it would go along the 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) back line or the south line of the property to a point parallel to the front of what is shown as the garage on Mr. Williams’ property. MR. PALING-We don’t have a garage. That’s what it is there. MR. O’CONNOR-On this, because there was a question last night as to the closeness of the property, today I think they went out and located the Williams’ structures, that’s why it’s on here and not on your map. It’s approximately 30 feet from the edge of the pavement, or from the edge of the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody else on the Board have any other questions, comments? MR. VOLLARO-How did we treat the dumpster? Where did we go with that? MR. BREWER-Nowhere, it’s enclosed. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s it? That’s where it’s going to be? MR. BREWER-Unless there’s another place we could put it on the property. MR. RINGER-Have you got a problem with where it is, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, but I wanted to ask Herman Neal, what does that shed, what happens with that shed back there? Is that, do you operate that shed that’s right next to the dumpster? MR. NEAL-It’s basically a storage shed. I mean, but there’s also a picnic table, a barbecue grill, I mean, it’s the back yard. The property there is not very large. That whole area on that border is basically the entire back yard of that property. The front yard is on Corinth Road. If you’re outside barbecuing, doing anything, that’s where you’re at, which the dumpster is a very big concern to me. If I’m barbecuing, it’s also going to be another attraction for flies and they’re going to have a great breeding ground. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody have any suggestions? MR. BREWER-There isn’t really much you can do with it. It has to be in the back, but it is awful close to the property line, too, I mean, it’s right on it. I mean, no matter where you go, either you’re going to go to the trailer, I don’t know where else you could put it. MR. O’CONNOR-The suggestion was made that we could move it out by Caroline Street in the first parking spot. MR. BREWER-That’s in the front yard, though, Mike. MR. RINGER-The Code says it has to be in the back. MR. BREWER-Unless you want to get a variance for it. MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t want to do that again. I think the applicant probably doesn’t. I don’t mind going there. Does that, Chris, there’s no exception to that? The Board can’t order us? MR. ROUND-It indicates it can’t be visible from a public right-of-way, which could be accomplished by one or more of the following, be hidden behind the building it serves, being screened by foliage or solid fencing, or being contained within a structure suitable for such use. So I know you’ve seen various treatments, whether it’s inside a fenced structure or what I prefer aesthetically as a masonry or see the sculpted block structures that are. MR. O’CONNOR-We can put it in a fenced structure, with plantings around them. MR. VOLLARO-And then it could go in that first parking space next to Caroline? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, parking Spot Number Eight on Caroline boundary of the property. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. PALING-Then it would be enclosed, but there would be no additional fence like there would be if it were left where it is. There would be a fence around the dumpster, but that’s all, and if you left it where it is, would there be a fence around the dumpster? MR. LEVINE-Yes, and the other fence as well. MR. PALING-I’m not sure that where it is isn’t better. MR. STARK-You’ve got to think of pick up. You open the gate, the guy goes in and picks it up and dumps it, and Parking Spot Eight, you can’t do that. MR. PALING-I don’t think so. MR. VOLLARO-Well, lets ask the applicant that. If the dumpster was moved to the parking lot that’s been suggested, off Caroline, can a truck, a refuse truck, pick it up easily there? MR. LINDSELL-I’m not sure which parking spot we’re speaking of. MR. BREWER-Number Eight. I would think that they could. MR. ROUND-I’m sorry, our accessory structure regulation indicates that it has to meet the front setbacks of the principal structure. So there’s a 75 foot setback, even with a fence around it. Yes. MR. BREWER-He’s almost forced to put it there. MR. MAC EWAN-It stays where it is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. PALING-I think we’ve gone as far as we can, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. So we’re going to need to close the public hearing, and we’ll do a SEQRA. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MS. NOWICKI-Craig, you have still more audience. MR. ALLEN-I have a couple of more questions, before you close the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll take your questions. Come right on up and ask them, please. I’ll re- open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. ALLEN-Again, my name is Bruce Allen. The attempt to discredit the petition by stating that the individual signing this petition reside in an area quite some distance from the proposed establishment, what they don’t take into account on that is these individuals will still be affected by this, if for some reason the traffic does go in that area. People use Garner Street, from blocks away, for anything from recreation to access to their home. Therefore they will be effected by this. The other question, I guess, well, I had a question about the dumpster, but evidently that’s been taken care of. I was concerned about blocking the view to access to Main Street if it was moved toward the front, but it’s not going to be done. The other comment, and final one that I have here is I was also, I had mentioned earlier the barricade, or the blockage of Caroline Street to deny access to Garner Street and that area, and force traffic back out onto Main Street. Agreed, yes, that the curvature of the driveway would be definitely an advantage. However, I don’t consider this sufficient deterrent. I’ve seen it happen before. People want to turn right, they’re going to turn right and a curved driveway is not going to stop them. I just don’t consider that sufficient deterrent, to tell these people that are in a hurry that they cannot do that. They’re going to do it. You’ll find that if you check areas where these driveways are in, check out those curbs, you’ll find tire marks over them all the time. People run these things over just because they don’t even see them there or they may not even realize it’s there. They just want to make that right hand turn. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Are you familiar with what kind of curbing we’re talking about? MR. ALLEN-Yes, sir, I am. I believe it’s a six inch curbing, six inches high from the surface of the driveway to the top of the curbing, probably four to six inches wide, I’m imagining, and this is going to have a curvature in the direction of Main Street, which would make a very sharp and inconvenient turn, I do agree with that, but I still am not convinced that this is going to keep that traffic out of there, and it is an honest effort, and I do appreciate that. If that’s the best we can do, that’s the best we can do, but I would really honestly rather see this traffic exit onto Main Street. If this is not going to be a traffic problem, because it’s not going to cause a traffic problem getting out onto Main Street, if it truly will not be impeding traffic out there, well then there should be no worries about traffic collecting within the property of Dunkin Donuts. They should not worry about this because they’re only going to have a 15 or 20 second wait to get out there, no matter which way they’re turning. It should not effect their business, and if it’s not going to effect their business, then why take the chance on sending those people back into our residential area? Why not make this a definite, no, you can’t go here, we’re not going to give you access to this? And that’s where my concerns lie on that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. CATHY ALLEN MRS. ALLEN-I’d like to make a quick statement. When they do turn to head to Caroline Street, on Caroline to Garner Street, that is a very, as they mentioned themselves, it’s a blinding corner. You can’t see it. Less than a mile down the road is a grade school, well, children walk this every day without sidewalks. The people that sneak out of there and make that right hand turn, they may be hitting a child or someone on the way to school to bring their child, if anything at all, a one way street from that point over would be the best for everybody. I’m Cathy Allen. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. ABRAMS-Brian Abrams. I just wanted to add that across from the curb that they were planning on the exit, the six inch curb, right across the street from there is a parking lot for another business. It’s going to be easy just to take that curb and just take another big curve into that lot and head down into those back streets, and the thing on the signatures on the petition that we were just talking about, some of the names weren’t in the neighborhood, it’s still effecting some of the people, they are property owners in that area, and I wanted to know, on the garbage, how often the garbage will be dumped, and what hours they will be coming in there with a garbage truck, so it will be banging the dumpster around. As far as the fence, I think it would be a good idea. It’s not going to take away from the aesthetics, seeing that they’re already taking down some beautiful tall pines to put a building in there. I think the aesthetics of that neighborhood is just already gone. So that’s not going to make much of a difference. If they do shorten the hours, be closed from 11 to 5, I know five o’clock on weekends, there’s still people just crawling out of the bars. There’s still going to be that type of traffic, and the excavating business that’s there, they do have trucks leaving at that time of the morning. They go out once for the day, they leave about that time of the morning, and they’re gone pretty much the rest of the day, and I just wanted to know if tonight’s meeting was advertised in the paper. I didn’t see it. There was one point in the minutes from another meeting where it says, Mr. Thomas says that Mr. Lindsell has made every attempt to acquire as much land as possible. I just wanted that known that our property is at the west. We were not contacted, and neither were the people bordering the property along the south side of this parcel. MR. PALING-Mr. Abrams, you’re a renter, are you not? MR. ABRAMS-No, I’m not. MR. PALING-You’re an owner? MR. ABRAMS-No, Herman Neal owns the place. I live there. MR. PALING-Yes, I mean you rent. MS. ARONSON-He’s my fiancee. MR. PALING-You wouldn’t be the person that the notice would be sent to, is what I’m getting at. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. ABRAMS-Jenny Aronson would. MS. ARONSON-I’m the other owner. MR. ABRAMS-She is the other, co-owner of the house. We received nothing at the house. MR. PALING-Okay. MS. NOWICKI-But you’re not the owner of the property. The person that’s notified is the owner of the property. MR. ABRAMS-Right, and neither one of the owners of the property received anything. MS. ARONSON-The taxes come to my house. MR. ABRAMS-And one other thing, we haven’t seen a survey on the property. If they’ve done a survey, we’d like to see it. I think that’s all I’ve got. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. O’CONNOR-The site plan is based upon a field survey. That is a survey that was done by Van Dusen and Steves, very recently. The garbage is picked up twice a week. The applicant can control the hours. Whatever the Board thinks is reasonable for that operation. The applicant would have no objection if the Town Board, and I think we’re getting into the jurisdiction of the Town Board, if they wanted to take some other action with regard to Caroline Street, if they wanted to make it one way, as somebody has suggested, or not, we certainly would have no objection to it, and as somebody else suggested, maybe the Board might make a recommendation to that effect, or even make some recommendation for Creighton to consider when they are trying to come up with some plans as to what they’re going to recommend for Corinth Road. I don’t know if they’re going to be involved in that or not involved in that. It would seem as though you would be, but I think the applicant has given an effort here to take his site and apply what restraints he can on that, to satisfy the concerns that have been raised. If you have any other suggestions, we’d be glad to listen to them. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything? Lets do a SEQRA. MR. STARK-“Could action result in any adverse effect associated with the following: existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. BREWER-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not so sure that we can just put a blank “no” on that one. That’s my opinion. MR. BREWER-You’ve got a report that states that it won’t. MR. RINGER-Which ones, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Noise levels and existing traffic patterns. We’ve been here tonight talking round and round, we don’t have in my opinion, from where I’m sitting, I really don’t see that we’ve mitigated existing traffic patterns. MR. RINGER-You have an expert that says there are no problems. MR. VOLLARO-Larry, that’s my opinion. I’m just stating it for the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Does the majority of the Board feel that it’s mitigated? MR. BREWER-Is 200 cars out of 10,000 a significant amount to change the traffic patterns, Craig? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-The question is, do you feel that it’s been mitigated? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. STARK-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Move on. MR. STARK-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. MAC EWAN-I think the answer’s yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I heard you answer no, and I just want to make sure the Board takes a hard look at that question and that answer. I’m not sure how you define, there is no SEQRA guidance as to what number of people have to object or exactly what their objections need to be, but I guess I just want to caution you not to just blow right through that without giving that one a hard look. MR. BREWER-My reason I said no is because of the part of the question that says, in reference to the environmental impacts. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s correct. The question does specifically refer to potential adverse environmental impacts. MR. VOLLARO-Environmental impacts could be a noise impact. MR. BREWER-That’s my opinion. There were no, I won’t go any further. MR. PALING-What environmental impact would be effected, that we’re talking about, that we haven’t already answered in another question. MR. BREWER-Adverse environmental impacts. MR. VOLLARO-Well, noise is an environmental factor. It doesn’t have to be the quality of air, as most people think of environmental air. Noise and not only that, but light can be an environmental factor as well, as far as I’m concerned. MR. PALING-I think the light question was answered very well. You might say yes on the noise factor, but it’s being mitigated with a fence. MR. VOLLARO-You’re not going to stop it, a fence is not going to stop it. MR. PALING-It’ll do a lot more than bushes will. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it will. Okay. MS. NOWICKI-Are you changing that to a yes? MR. MAC EWAN-No, the Board, I mean, I felt it was yes, that there was going to be controversy related because of what the neighbors feel about the traffic and the noise, but I think that what we’re trying to attempt here, we can mitigate that by some of the measures we’re going to take on the site. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I just want to make sure that we’re not confusing exercises that we sometimes do on Long Form EAF’s with this particular exercise. This question, and for that matter this form, doesn’t really ask about mitigation efforts. This specific question asks merely, “Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” That does mean you have to even agree with the controversy, so to speak, or those that create a controversy. I’m only cautioning you that in order to demonstrate that you’ve taken a hard look at potential environmental impacts, in nine out of ten instances or more you don’t have any level of 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) significant of public opposition that raises controversy relating to adverse environmental impacts. Here, I think that that question deserves a careful look, that’s all I’m saying. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets go down the Board. MR. BREWER-My answer stays the same. MR. RINGER-I feel the same. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STARK-I concur with Tim and Larry. MR. PALING-I think any environmental impacts have been mitigated, or answered. MR. VOLLARO-He just said you shouldn’t consider the mitigation, that that wasn’t part of the decision process to say yes or no. I believe that’s what Counsel said. Am I right? MR. SCHACHNER-You’re correct that this particular question has nothing to do with whether a potential impact has or has not been mitigated. This is solely a question regarding whether there’s controversy about these potential impacts. MR. O’CONNOR-But isn’t part of the standard also, though, that it has to be a substantive reason for the controversy, as to the adverse impact, and if the application, as we have stipulated, doesn’t have that. MR. SCHACHNER-The answer to that question is no. MR. O’CONNOR-Well, I disagree with that. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re free to do that. I’m not suggesting that the Board has to answer a certain way. I just wanted to make sure you took a hard look at this question, but I can tell you that the answer to the question Mr. O’Connor poses is no. The question does not reference anything about substantial impacts or anything else. If you answer that question in certain ways, the inquiry he mentions comes at a later stage in the SEQRA review process, but it does not come at this stage. This is a factual question that asks, I shouldn’t say it’s a factual question. There’s certainly an opinion component to it, but the question is whether there is or is likely to be, in your guesstimate or prediction, controversy about potential environmental impacts. So for example, if 1,000 people came and complained about potential environmental impacts, it would be my suggestion to you as your Counsel that you could not responsibly answer that question no, even if you completely disagree with each and everyone of those 1,000 people, and I’m not saying this because I think you need to make a big issue about this and cause the preparation of an environmental impact statement or anything like that. I’m only saying this because when you first went through it, in my opinion, as your Counsel, I was not comfortable that you took a hard look at this question and carefully evaluated its proposed answer. MR. PALING-Mark, if you consider the zone that we’re in, Commercial Residential, and you consider what has been brought up, and what the applicant has proposed as a solution to them, I don’t think there will be much controversy, at least I think it’s been answered rather well. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. You’re entitled to your opinion, and you’re the Board member, not me. MR. BREWER-I don’t think in any means, and this is my opinion, he was trying to get us to change our decision. I think. MR. PALING-Just say think about it. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The majority of the Board feels comfortable that the answer to that would be no. Lets move on. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-98 , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEWELS DONUTS, 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. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-98 JEWELS DONUTS, INC. , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: As contained in the prepared resolution, with the following exceptions: That the curbing from the property to Caroline be directed so that all traffic is directed north toward Main Street. Number Two, that a solid wooden fence be erected on the west and south side, a minimum of six feet in height. It’ll run from Main Street, at a point parallel to the house, to the corner, which would be the southwest corner, and then it’ll run east until it is adjacent to the garage on the Williams’ property. Three, that the drive-in operation be closed from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. every day, and that the menu sign for this operation have lights out at the same time. Number Four, that any curbing be concrete or granite, and the additional comments from Rist-Frost regarding a distribution box. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. 12-98 JEWEL’S DONUTS, INC. for construction of a Dunkin Donut store with associated parking and site work; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/25/98, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Maps - SP1-SP2 dated 3/25/98 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 5/28/98 - Staff Notes 2. 5/22/98 - Traffic Study, Site Selection Information 3. 5/20/98 - Traffic Information 4. 5/15/98 - Rist-Frost comments 5. 5/15/98 - Fax to D. Jones from L. Nowicki 6. 5/29/98 - Letter to Jewel’s from L. Nowicki 7. 4/28/98 - Planning Board resolution 8. 4/28/98 - Staff Notes which include A/GFTC comments (4/21/98), RF comments of 4/24/98, RF comments of 4/27/98, Warren Co. Planning Board resolution of 4/8/98, AV resolution of 12/17/97 9. 4/28/98 - Letter with petition attached 10. 4/27/98 - Fax to D. Jones from L. Nowicki (Staff notes) 11. 4/23/98 - Fax to D. Jones from L. Nowicki (A/GFTC comments) 12. 4/21/98 - Notice of Public Hearing 13. 4/17/98 - Letter to S. Sopczyk (A/GFTC) forwarding application 14. 4/13/98 - Record of Phone Conversation between L. Nowicki and D. Jones 15. 4/6/98 - Beautification Committee comments 16. 4/1/98 - Memo to D. Hatin from L. Nowicki Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/21/98 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 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. 12-98, JEWEL’S DONUTS, 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. 7. The applicant shall pay all engineering fees prior to issuance of a C/O. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a thought, wouldn’t it be easier to say a six foot stockade fence running on both the westerly and southern property lines, the entire length? MR. PALING-No. They’ve defined the limits by the house and by the garage. I believe that’s the way it was defined. MR. BREWER-I think that’s fine. MR. O’CONNOR-And we’d prefer not to be limited to stockade. We will do a more substantial. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we’ll say wooden fence. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. RINGER-Solid. MR. O’CONNOR-Solid wooden fence. MR. PALING-Solid wooden fence. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I would add to that resolution, and also in conjunction with prepared resolution, that these were addendums to it. The prepared resolution specifically cites drawings, letters, comments, all sorts of things, 16 items on there, and I think it’s important that that’s part of it. MR. O’CONNOR-Did you include that septic, do you need to do that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. The additional comments from Rist-Frost regarding the Distribution Box. Okay. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 23-98 TYPE II LEEMILT’S PETROLEUM, INC. OWNER: SAME ZONE: NC-10 LOCATION: CORNER OF DIXON ROAD & AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CARPET RETAIL SALES. ALL LAND USES IN NC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 22-1998 TAX MAP NO. 91-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION: 179-25 JAMES BENEDETTI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-98, Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc., Meeting Date: May 28, 1998 “The applicant proposes to utilize an existing building for a carpet retail store. All uses in the NC- 10 zone require site plan review. The applicant has received a Use Variance for this project (resolution attached). The applicant previously occupied this building. The previously occupied this building. The previous concerns were related to trash not being taken care of properly. The applicant has replied to the trash issue specifically and other staff concerns. The applicant has adequately addressed all issues in relation to this site plan. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-There’s nothing else that really needs to be read in, is there? MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read in his letter addressed back to us, from Carpet Brokers? MR. STARK-He addressed all concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, why don’t you. We’ll make that part of the record. MS. NOWICKI-This is from James Benedetti, Carpet Brokers of New York, Inc. “To Whom It May Concern: The following will answer the questions necessary for our use variance to operate a flooring store at the Getty building in Queensbury. The building is located at the corners of Aviation Rd. and Dixon Rd. Will there be any outdoor storage? No. Will there be any dumpsters? No, however the gas portion of the building has a dumpster. The carpet store does not take garbage, the Sub-Contractor is responsible for the removal of waste. Will there be any outdoor lighting? No. Will there be any handicap access? Yes, the building is one floor with large doors. Will there be a sign? Yes, there will be signs they are already existing and will remain in the same place. Will there be any new landscaping? No, however we will fix the flower boxes. What are the hours of operation? Monday-Wednesday: 10-5 Thursday: 10-8 Friday and Saturday 10-5, and Sunday 12-5. Will there be loading and unloading? Yes. Where will loading 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) and unloading occur? The left bay door. Where will customer pick up occur? Pick up will be at the left bay door. Sincerely, James J. Benedetti Agent” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? Thank you. MR. BENEDETTI-James Benedetti. MR. MAC EWAN-And just basically what you’re doing is re-establishing the business that was there three years ago, roughly? MR. BENEDETTI-Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you want to add, make us aware of? MR. BENEDETTI-The only thing that I was wondering was, they put those flower boxes in. Was that something the Town did, or was that something Getty did? MR. BREWER-Getty, I would guess. I don’t think the Town put them in. MR. STARK-What was the question, Craig, I didn’t hear him? MR. MAC EWAN-The flower boxes, that wasn’t something the Town would have done. MR. BENEDETTI-There’s a flower box right down the middle of the parking lot. I don’t know if it shows it on your map there. MR. STARK-That guy put it there as a barrier to cut through. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. STARK-The train guy did that, Rozelle. MR. BENEDETTI-Did he do that or is that something that has to stay there? MR. BREWER-The Planning Board, as I remember, there was a problem with traffic cutting through, and the Planning Board, in a stipulation made, not Sokol. Was it Garafolo? MR. STARK-Garafolo. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, for the trains. MR. BREWER-When he came in, we agreed that, or he suggested that he put that there to eliminate the traffic from cutting through from Aviation to Dixon. MR. BENDETTI-Was that because it was a three use building, it was a train place, a flower shop and Getty? MR. BREWER-Yes. There were many uses in the building. MR. BENDETTI-Now it’s a two use. Can that flower box come out of there? MR. BREWER-I would say not, because the problem will exist again. MR. BENEDETTI-Well, I was there for three years prior, and we never had a problem with people cutting through. I’m just telling you from my experience. We never had that problem, and that’s why I was wondering. To me, it’s an eyesore. It’s nothing but a hassle, but if you want to leave it there, then that’s okay with me. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the flower box that you’re referring to that you’ll re-do the plantings in? MR. BENDETTI-We’re going to do all three of them. If they have to stay there, obviously, they’re not going to be full of weeds. MR. MAC EWAN-My preference is that that’s what, we were trying to mitigate a problem before. I’d want to see it stay. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. BENEDETTI-We can’t move it to the side? MR. PALING-Not to allow cars to go through there, no. MR. BENEDETTI-No, I mean, if we built the same thing, so that cars couldn’t go through, off to the right, so it wasn’t smack in the middle of the parking lot? MR. BREWER-The reason we put it there was so cars couldn’t go through. MR. BENEDETTI-I understand that, and they wouldn’t go through if it goes from like the edge of the building, where you see the building built to where the corner flower box is and take it out of the middle of the parking lot. MR. PALING-If there’s room for a car to get through, they’re going to use that, because they did before in high volume. MR. BENEDETTI-Right. There doesn’t have to be room for a car to go through. We can just shift that box all the way over to the right side of the parking lot. I’m just asking if it’s acceptable. I’m not saying I’m going to do it. Obviously, there’s an expense there. MR. MAC EWAN-My preference is to leave it the way it is. MR. BENEDETTI-Okay. MR. BREWER-No, I would just as soon, can you show me on a map where you want to move it to? MR. BENEDETTI-This is where it is now, right in the center, like right, to the right of that door, and I was just saying over here, because there’s a guard rail here now. You see what I’m saying, only over here. Because otherwise you’re right in the center of the parking lot. MR. BREWER-It’s set back in. MR. RINGER-He doesn’t want to open it up. He just wants to bring it north and south. MR. MAC EWAN-He wants to make it flush with the building. Is that basically what you’re saying? MR. BREWER-As long as it extends all the way over to the guard rail, I don’t have an objection to that. MR. BENEDETTI-And there’s no room for cars to go through, which is fine, but the way it is now, you can put four cars over here, and then everyone’s got to drive around the building. MR. RINGER-He just wants to bring it down. MR. VOLLARO-He wants to line it up with the building line. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. BENEDETTI-No, that’s it on my part. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from the Board? MR. PALING-Item Number Two, let me see if I understand. What do you mean the Sub- Contractor is responsible for waste? MR. BENEDETTI-If it’s a cash, carry job, there is no waste involved, because they pick the carpet up and it’s gone. It’s off our site. If it’s being installed by a Sub-Contractor, when they go put it in, the scrapes and everything they take care of. We no longer take garbage. We haven’t in about a year and a half. We don’t even have dumpsters. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. PALING-Well, why, I think we’re concerned with garbage on the site. MR. BENEDETTI-That’s what I’m saying, there is no garbage. The only garbage we create now is paper garbage from our office, like two, three bags a week of paper garbage, you know, invoices that have been thrown out. MR. PALING-And if there were any waste or material that was the result of your business, you’d have to clean it up, if somebody else didn’t. MR. BENEDETTI-Absolutely, but there isn’t any. I can tell you right now. The Sub’s that work for us know that they’re responsible for the garbage. MR. MAC EWAN-So, in other words, they’re going to do a carpet installation, Sub Contractors don’t bring their remnants back or their cuttings back to his place. They have to dispose of them themselves. MR. BENEDETTI-Exactly. MR. PALING-I would think that would go without having to say it. Because that’s kind of strange, to think they would bring the remnants back or cut them on the job. That’s why I don’t understand why it’s even there. MR. BENEDETTI-Because even though it sounds like that would be normal, it’s not. It’s not normal practice. Normally, the store is responsible for the garbage. In the industry, as a whole, the store is normally responsible for the garbage. In my store, we’re not responsible for the garbage. They are. MR. PALING-Okay, as long as there’s no trash on the property. MR. BENEDETTI-No. There won’t be any trash there at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Now you’re enlightened to trash in the carpet industry. Anything else? Does someone want to make a motion? MS. NOWICKI-You didn’t open the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re right, we didn’t. We’ll open the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-98 LEEMILT’S PETROLEUM , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the prepared resolution provided by Staff, and to allow the applicant to move up the planter, so that it comes in line with the south end of his building, and continues to block access to Aviation Road for through traffic. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. 23-98 LEEMILT’S PETROLEUM for Carpet Retail Sales; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/27/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 5/28/98 - Staff Notes 2. 5/21/98 - Notice of Public Hearing 3. 5/20/98 - Use Variance resolution 4. 4/29/98 - Letter to J. Benedetti from L. Nowicki 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) 5. 4/29/98 - Response from J. Benedetti to 4/29/98 letter from L. Nowicki Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/28/98 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 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 23-98, LEEMILT’S PETROLEUM. 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. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. BENEDETTI-Thank you. MR. PALING-Can we dump the Applebee’s stuff? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Applebee’s has requested to be taken off tonight’s agenda, until further notice, and they asked that, they didn’t ask for a time frame on it. They just tabled indefinitely. Correct? MR. STARK-They’re going to move. MR. ROUND-Yes, you can leave it until last, but I think you should open the public hearing, and invite anybody that’s here for that. MR. SCHACHNER-When would it be continued to, though? MR. ROUND-I guess you could open and close the public hearing. MR. BREWER-Are they coming back? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll take that and we’ll move it last. MR. PALING-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 25-98 TYPE: UNLISTED P.C. MANAGEMENT, CO. OWNER: PIRATES COVE ADVENTURE GOLF, LG, INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE RT. 9, SOUTH OF ROUND POND RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ND CONSTRUCTION OF 2 18 HOLES BEHIND EXISTING PIRATES COVE 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, AND ADDITIONAL 16 PARKING SPACES. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/11/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 25-98, P.C. Management, Co., Meeting Date: May 28, 1998 “The applicant proposes a second miniature golf course at the Pirate Cove site. The proposed use is consistent with the current use which received site plan approval in 1995. The application was forwarded to Rist-Frost Associates, Warren County Planning, and the Queensbury Beautification Committee. Staff is concerned with pedestrian circulation. The site will increase the parking spaces from 55 to 71, increasing pedestrian traffic. Currently, the site has no defined pedestrian control. Staff would suggest a designated path for pedestrian traffic bordering the golf course with access to the sidewalk from the parking lot only. In addition, the previous site plan approvals indicate the applicant was to put in a five foot high fence and designated pedestrian pathways to adjacent properties. Currently, the site has a chain link fence on the site where requested, however the submitted plan does not have it labeled, and Staff would recommend revisiting the fence issue for aesthetic purposes. Staff would suggest that the Board set a time frame for completion of the project.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Rist-Frost’s letter. MS. NOWICKI-Do you have the newest one up there, because I don’t have it with me. th MR. STARK-I have May 15. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. th MR. MAC EWAN-May 28. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. STARK-It’s right here. Everything’s okay. MS. NOWICKI-Rist-Frost Associate’s comments. “We have reviewed Nace Engineering P.C.’s letter of May 27, 1998, responding to our comment letter of May 15, 1998, for the above referenced project. The response satisfactorily addresses our comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County approved, right, with no conditions. The Nace letter I think we th need to read into the record, May 27. MR. BREWER-That’s prior to Rist-Frost, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Do we not need to read that in? MR. BREWER-That addresses his first letter. Rist-Frost’s second letter wipes that out, doesn’t it? MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll hold off on that for a minute. Anything else that needs to be read in? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. I guess let me quickly address Staff comments. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing P.C. Management. As far as pedestrian circulation, there are two things that really need to be done on this site, that was associated with the development of the go kart track next door, and those are, were shown on the go kart drawings, was never done last year. It’s my understanding it’s to be done fairly soon this spring, although I haven’t seen them yet, and that’s to stripe the parking lot, and to stripe the pedestrian crossing between the two facilities. Additionally, it looks like Staff is concerned about circulation along the parking lot, and that’s probably not a bad comment. I don’t think it would be difficult for us to put in a gravel pathway in front of the parking spaces, between the parking spaces and the golf course 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) itself. So at least from the corner up here where most of the traffic would be, from here down to the administration building, we could put in a path along the side of the parking, and I think that would be a good addition. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that what Staff had in mind? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Just a gravel path? MS. NOWICKI-I was just concerned about pedestrian traffic. It’s up to you what type of item you want. MR. NACE-I think I’d leave the type of path up to the applicant. They’ve done a fairly nice site. They do a lot of concrete work. They may want to do a concrete walk. I don’t know, and the chain link fence, if you’ll remember when we did the first phase, Animal Land was still on the adjacent property to the north, and there was an issue, there was already a fence on the property line, and there was an issue of the owner of Animal Land being concerned about people reaching across the fence to pet the animals. So we put a second fence, a five foot fence, five foot inside the existing fence at the proper, or five foot inside the property. That fence, with Animal Land being gone now, it’s there, but it’s kind of irrelevant, and it’s not an issue, as we see it, of traffic or pedestrian control. I guess that’s all I have to add. MR. PALING-One question. If you’re going to put a gravel path adjacent to the parking, you’re going to have a curb also? MR. NACE-A curb on the parking? Yes, we’d have to do that. Yes, it would probably be built right into the path, whether it’s, if it’s a gravel path, it would probably be a wood curbing, at the edge of the path. MR. PALING-How about concrete or granite? MR. BREWER-Concrete. MR. NACE-If it’s a poured concrete walk it’ll be an integral curb, okay, with the walk. If it’s a gravel, you know, look at their site. They do it attractively, okay. They can use wood attractively. MR. PALING-But I’m not worried about attractive. I’m worried about durability, and the only curbings that we have any good luck with, over time, are either concrete or granite. MR. NACE-Well, this is just to define the edge of the parking lot. It’s not a curbing that’s going to get run over or going to get, you know, snow plowed against. One of the big problems with curbing is snow plowing, and this site’s vacant during the winter. MR. MAC EWAN-Make it a condition, Bob. MR. PALING-But you will have a curbing? MR. NACE-We will certainly have a curbing. MR. PALING-All right. No, there is, no snow plow, so that’s all right, I hope. That’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-You mentioned something about a permit to grade over the property line, that the doesn’t mind. Shouldn’t there be a letter to that effect from them? MR. NACE-There will be a letter. I wrote it today. I have to get Ken Ermiger to sign it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and we can read that into the motion? MR. NACE-I don’t have it with me. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. NACE-You can make it a condition that there will be a letter on file, granting permission. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. VOLLARO-And that letter is from who? MR. NACE-It’ll be from Ken Ermiger. Actually, it’ll be a letter that I draft, Ken Ermiger signs, giving, granting permission to P.C. Management. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Public hearing, lets open it up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM VALENTI MR. VALENTI-Hi. Jim Valenti, owner of Agway, just south of the amusement there. The reason why I’m here is, you know, the 16 parking places. They come in with 55, what is sufficient for amusement, I don’t know. I saw last year, that’s a busy complex. In the evenings, they have overflow parking, which, you know, I can deal with that, but now you’re putting another 18 holes. What I can’t deal with is overflow parking during the day, and I don’t think 16 parking places is sufficient. MR. MAC EWAN-Where does the overflow parking go? MR. VALENTI-Right over my place, at night, with the operation the way it was run last year. I’m not saying it’s much, but there is, I ride by, you know, that’s no problem, but when you put another 18 holes, and you’re adding 16 places, you know, if I have overflow during the day, I have a problem, and I don’t know what is sufficient for amusement in parking. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it happening on your parcel on a regular basis during the summer? MR. VALENTI-During the summer in the evening, not during the day. During the evening, maybe it was more convenient for them to pull in than go down through the middle to, I don’t know, but I just don’t need it during the day, you know, during the summer. MR. MAC EWAN-How many cars, on an average, did you see over there? MR. VALENTI-I didn’t go every night. You see the cars in there, and, you know, minimal, but I’m just saying there’s another 18 holes going in there, and are we looking at the right amount of parking, you know, for this amusement complex that they’ve got going there? MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, like, were there half a dozen, a dozen, two dozen? MR. VALENTI-I’d say half a dozen, during the evenings, and it’s just something I wanted looked at, as far as during the day, as they get busier, as the years go on, you know, I’m the first place they’re going to overflow to, and I just wanted that to be looked at. MR. PALING-Do they have to exit the go kart track out onto Route 9 and then go into your property, or can they drive directly over to it? MR. STARK-It’s shared parking. MR. PALING-Shared parking? MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. They have to exit out of (lost words). MR. PALING-So they say there’s no place to park, so then they come out and go down to your place. MR. VALENTI-If they see the amusement is full, now I’m looking at, not golf. I’m looking at the amusement over there, because it’s shared parking, shared entrance. The whole amusement area over there, when they ride down north or south, on Route 9, they look, they see a full place, I’m the first place they’re going to. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. PALING-Okay. So they go into yours, yes, and then they walk over to the. MR. VALENTI-And I just, you know, I can deal with the minimal night time, when I’m not open. That’s not the problem. The problem is, what happens when this place gets busy during the day? What, I’m going to have a full time job going out and telling these people I can’t have you park here because I’ve got to have it for my customers? I don’t know what’s going to happen, but as far as the first year of business and what I saw, and now you’re adding another 18 holes, I just want to make sure they have enough parking to accommodate their business. That’s all. MR. BREWER-That makes sense. MR. RINGER-It sure does. MR. MAC EWAN-Good point. MR. VALENTI-That’s all I have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-My name’s John Collins, General Manager, Great Escape. We own the former animal property next door. I’d just like a little clarification on what the fence situation is. We bought the property after that was made a stipulation, or whatever it was. If I could get clarification on that, and also if we could, we did a survey for our parcel, and there is, the back parcel, or the back part of their parking is fill that they pushed over the edge, which is, we have about six feet on our property. If they could clean that up, I’d appreciate it. I don’t know if they’re the people that own that, or if we do. Now in our survey, we did notice that the former zoo property has one building that’s got like a foot over the property line. We’ll take that building out, but if they could clean up that base of that hill, we have it on our site plan. When you see, you’ll see that fill comes over that edge. If that could get cleaned up, we’d appreciate that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The fence issue, as I recall, the additional fence that was put on the property line was concern that the Board had with people wanting to reach through your fence to maybe pet animals, the deer and stuff when they were there. So we added another fence, five foot back off the property line, to eliminate any potential for anyone reaching through the fence. MR. COLLINS-So, that was agreed it wasn’t needed, since there’s no animals there? MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. COLLINS-Okay. That’s fine. I have no problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MS. NOWICKI-I do have a letter. The letter is from Marianne McDonough, Graycourt Motel. It says “Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As owner of the Graycourt Motel, I would like to make the following comments regarding the proposed expansion of the Pirate’s Cove Adventure Golf, LG, Inc. We do not object to the expansion of the Pirates Cove Adventure Golf, LG, Inc. We do object to the entrance-exit and parking which is shared by Pirates Cove and the Go-Kart Track. There is parking in the area where the entrance and exit are designated (in other words the driveway) and it has caused considerable congestion as well as very hazardous conditions on Route 9. I can provide photographs which describe the situation and before you make your decision, I would suggest the Board visit the location on a busy evening and observe what occurs. It got to the th point, on Saturday evening May 24, where cars were U-turning at high speeds into the Graycourt property to avoid accidents and some of them narrowly missed hitting the base of our sign and other cars. Unless this can be resolved in a satisfactory manner and be able to be enforced by the Town; then you would be contributing to dangerous and hazardous conditions if you allow the parking, entrance and exit to remain as it is. It should never have been permitted to be done this way in the first place, and at this time you have the opportunity to remedy this situation before permitting this expansion. If you have any questions or require additional information, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Marianne McDonough” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NACE-Okay. Can I address parking first? The real issue, as I see it with parking is people don’t know where to park now. The spaces, I’ve been there several evenings last summer. I haven’t been there yet this summer, after it opened, but I know from my experience last summer, that without having the spaces lined out, there’s confusion. People take up, you know, each car takes up a space and a half, instead of one or two spaces. There’s no regularity to the parking, and you lose the capacity of the design, you know, parking layout. So, you know, I guess I would encourage you to make it a condition of your approval, if you approve, to require that the striping get done ASAP. MR. MAC EWAN-Why wasn’t that done the first time around? MR. NACE-I’m not a contractor. I’m not a developer. MR. BREWER-How much time do you think they need, Tom? MR. NACE-Striping takes a day, okay, to do. th MR. BREWER-June 15? MR. NACE-I would say, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The go karts are open now? MR. NACE-I think both are open now. MR. MAC EWAN-So what have they got to do, shut the place down to stripe the parking lot? MR. NACE-No, the paint, now the paints are fast drying. They can do a part at a time. MR. BREWER-Geez, they go down the road, I was going back to work from lunch the other day, they were going down Corinth Road painting it, and cars are going over it. MR. NACE-Yes, it’s fast drying. MR. BREWER-In a matter of minutes. MR. MAC EWAN-How many more parking spots could you put up to the northwest corner of your site? How many more could you put up there? MR. NACE-We’re at our planned capacity, okay. When we started the project with Pirates Cove, okay, I don’t know, 25, 28 sites along the east coast and out in the mid west, and they have experience of how much they need, how much parking they need, to support 36 holes, and that’s what they had planned for the site. So that’s what we, the layout you see is what they’ve planned for the eventual buildout. Now they decided when they did Phase I, to put in more than they felt they needed for Phase I. If you look at the combined parking of the go kart and the Pirates Cove site, they’re, I think, just under 150 spaces, okay, which, if it’s utilized correctly, if you actually can fit 150 cars on there. Right now, the way they’re parking at random, they’re not achieving 150 cars, if you go out there when it’s crowded. MR. MAC EWAN-The other side of the coin is, this is a shared parking facility, and you’ve got, you know, people who are utilizing the go karts for parking in the putter golf side of it taking away some of those parking spots that they have designed into their site. MR. NACE-The problem now is the way people are parking, they’re not fitting 150 cars on the site, or 150 minus the 16 spots that we’re proposing, but if it’s striped and utilized the way it’s laid out, I feel confident that there’s enough parking for both facilities. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let me ask you a couple of quick questions. It was originally talked about the potential of expanding behind the go kart track, in the future for batting cages or something like that that was talked about? MR. NACE-It was in the original plans. I have no idea what Ken has in mind. MR. MAC EWAN-Still a potential that it can happen? MR. NACE-There’s a potential for some additional back there. How much, I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s adequate space in there to add more parking spaces? MR. NACE-Yes, on the go kart site, there’s definitely space. When you asked whether there was additional space to expand, I thought you meant on the Pirates Cove side of the property line, and we are going to, you know, with these 16 spaces, we’re going to the ultimate build out on the Pirates Cove side, but, yes, there’s still space for that 16, probably another 20, maybe 22 spaces on the go kart side of the parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m thinking out loud here, but if we were to grant an approval tonight, with the condition that before you get a building permit, start your putter golf, the new 18 holes, that the parking lot get striped, and that we watch it for a period of time that we determine, and if we find that we still have a problem with overflow parking, parking elsewhere, that you’ll commit to adding parking spaces to accommodate your sites? MR. NACE-There would have to be some sort of agreement between the two land owners. I think that’s possible. Obviously, I can’t speak. th MR. BREWER-Why don’t we do a time, like June 15. I mean, that’s a couple of weeks. Then we know it’s going to be done, the striping. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but I’m also talking about, if it doesn’t pan out, that the striping works, that you require more parking spaces because of overflow, what do we do? What can we still do? What do we do? MR. MAC EWAN-If the striping doesn’t work out, we have him come back, provide more spaces. Can we do that, as a condition? MR. SCHACHNER-What do you mean by “if the striping doesn’t work out”? I mean, I think you need to be very careful to do something with some specificity, so that, first of all, the enforcement and compliance staff know whether something does or doesn’t comply with any approval that’s issued, and second of all, if you’re putting something like that in a condition, you have to have enough specificity so that, you know, we can say in a black/white manner, whether, in fact, something does or doesn’t require return to the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why I was saying, if you tied it in, made them do the striping before they get a building permit to do the second phase of the 18 holes, they’re going to have some incentive to want to get it done right away. th MR. BREWER-If we say June 15 he’ll have an incentive, too. The only reason I say that, Craig, is if it was supposed to be done last year, and it’s not done yet. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good point. I’m worried about, personally, I don’t think this is going to work. I don’t think he has enough parking spaces. MR. BREWER-Put more parking spaces in. MR. NACE-Well, the project in front of you is Pirates Cove. Pirates Cove owns one side of the parking lot. Now, you know, we can certainly negotiate and try to come up with an agreement with Ermiger on the other side, increase parking, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I knew this was going to be a problem when this plan came in, because whenever you have two separate site plans sharing common parking, this is a problem that happens. I mean, you can’t delineate your parking spots with a white stripe going up the middle 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) and say, only you can park on this side for golf and only you park on that side for go karts. The problem you’ve got people mixing. So how do you account for it? MR. NACE-That’s true, but you also reap the benefit of having a single entrance, and better control out on Route 9, okay. There are benefits to it, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-And you also reap the pit fall of cars parking off site and other businesses’ lots. MR. NACE-Well, the times I was there, I didn’t observe that happening, and I, you know, it’s a ways to walk for somebody to walk down there. I’ve never seen the parking lot full to the point where there weren’t more spaces still available. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Is this common ownership, Tom? MR. NACE-No, it’s not. The parking, the land is not common ownership. The parking lot, there’s an agreement between the two landowners, to share parking and to share the expense of maintaining the parking. Okay. I’m confident, from what we have done with Pirates Cove and looking at the amount of people coming in and out of the go kart track, that there is enough parking there, if it’s properly utilized. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the problem is that people would, you know, not knowing what we’re talking about tonight, and not being privy to all of this, could slip in and park just anywhere. So I’m just wondering. MR. NACE-That did happen at Suttons, you know, people can park at Graycourt Motel and go next door to Suttons. I mean, it can happen anywhere. MR. VOLLARO-But there might be a way to guide traffic flow here. I don’t know if we can, you know, engineer a way to say, if you’re coming in to play golf, you get guided into these parking spaces, and if you come in to go to the go karts, you get guided into these. MR. BREWER-Suppose a family comes and the kids want to go on the go karts and the adults want to play golf? MR. NACE-People will go to whatever is closest. If they’re going to the golf, because the golf entrance is up front, they’ll park the closest space they can find up front. If they’re going to the go karts, the entrance is in the back, and they’ll park toward the back, and when it gets full, they’ll keep going toward the back and fill up the spaces in the rear. If you want to make it part of your condition that you’ll observe it for a period of time, and if more parking’s needed, then they’ve got to work something out with Ermiger, they’ll have to do it. MR. MAC EWAN-How would we work something like that into an approval, so that it’s got checks and balances? MR. ROUND-You can put time limits on approvals. You can require them to come back in two months and then notify the adjacent property owners to come back and hear that personal information. I mean, there’s going to be discussion whether they’ve substantiated that there is an overflow problem or not. I mean, that’s going to be a judgment call on your part. MR. RINGER-If they’ve already built the 18 holes, how are you going to? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I just said. The other problem we have, that I think the Board has to be aware of, and I’m guessing the Board is aware of it, and certainly no disrespect to Mr. Nace intended, but Mr. Nace, as the duly authorized representative of the exact same applicant on, I believe, the adjacent property, previously made representations to the Board which his client, if that’s the proper name for it, disavowed, and then was involved in a legal proceeding with the Town in which it turns out, I guess, Mr. Nace didn’t have the authority to, although he did certainly have the proper form filed, and again, this is not a criticism of Mr. Nace at all, and, frankly, it’s a criticism of his client, it ended up that his client said, no, Mr. Nace didn’t have my authority to make that specific representation. MR. NACE-Mark, I wish you’d go back and read the minutes of that meeting, before stating what you just stated. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. SCHACHNER-Tell me where I’m wrong. Tell me where I’ve misstated something. I was at the meeting. MR. NACE-That’s right. MR. SCHACHNER-Tell me what I’ve misstated. If I have, let me hear it. MR. NACE-The applicant never said that I didn’t have the authority to make the statements I said. MR. SCHACHNER-No, absolutely not. MR. NACE-There was a disagreement over whether the Board wanted or had the authority to set hours of operation, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-With all due respect, the applicant’s attorney expressly told me to my face that it was the applicant’s position that you did not have the authority to make the representation you made. I was told that first hand. MR. NACE-No. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a criticism of Mr. Nace at all. I’m just cautioning the Board that we’re trying to grope with the situation that if you lack specificity, we know for sure that we have a business person, or a principal, if you will, who is willing to take any gray area, so to speak, and use it to his advantage, and I think Mr. Ringer makes an excellent point, which is if you put in some kind of condition like the one you’re proposing, then as I understand the proposed condition, the use would already be in place, and you’re going to lose any significant leverage, if that’s the case, over that kind of a condition that really lacks some specificity. That’s all I’m cautioning you. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question, Tom. You’re saying that the Pirates Cove is maxed out, they have no more space left available to put more parking spots in? MR. NACE-On their side of the property line, that is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-All parking spots would have to be on the go kart side? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Which isn’t part of this application, which would be tough for us to make a condition of and try to have some tooth in it to. MR. SCHACHNER-Although the applicant, it sounds like, if I’m understanding the ownership correctly, and I’m not sure I do, so if I don’t, correct me, but it sounds like the applicant might be in a position to be able to provide something to the Board to indicate that, you know, “X” number of spaces on the go kart side will be made available for the golf course. I don’t know, if I understand the ownership situation correctly, and I don’t know if I do. MR. NACE-The ownership is separate and distinct, but there’s an agreement to utilize, intermix the parking, I guess is the best way of saying it. MR. BREWER-Now, can I ask a question? Who owns this property right here? Is this your property line, where the parking lot goes like that? MR. NACE-That’s correct. The property line you pointed to is the property division between Pirates Cove on the right, and Ermiger on the left. MR. BREWER-Right through the center of the parking. MR. NACE-That’s correct, and through the center of the roadway, the entrance way, the shared entrance drive. MR. STARK-A possible solution, Tom. Go ahead, do your striping within the next week or two, see how it works out. If Mr. Valenti has a problem, let him come back to the Board, the first meeting or the second meeting in June, say I still have a problem, and I mean, there’s nothing we can do about it at that point, but we can sure as heck look at Ermiger, if he comes in for an expansion. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. BREWER-It’s not solving the problem. MR. STARK-I mean, what else can he do? He’s got every single parking spot that he can get in there. MR. SCHACHNER-On one side. MR. STARK-He doesn’t have anything to do with the other side. MR. RINGER-Yes, but we don’t know how many cars he has in there now. You’ve never done a study as to how many cars you had in there last year. You know you can hold 150 if it’s marked, but. MR. NACE-We have done studies, I haven’t, but Pirates Cove and their other consultants have on other sites, and like I said, they’ve got over 25 sites, and they do know that this number, the number that they have on their side of the property line, which is 72 total spaces, is sufficient for them for 36 holes, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And what you’re representing is probably true, from what they’re telling you, but the problem we have here, I think the problem is, you’ve got people utilizing the go karts who are parking in that Pirates Cove side, taking up all those parking spots that they could have been utilizing for their own site. MR. BREWER-Are those sites that they have, Tom, are they stand alone sites for golf alone? MR. NACE-Some of them are. I think where they generated the numbers for the parking certainly are. They do have other sites, I think, in their mix, okay. MR. BREWER-That’s exactly the problem. I mean, you’re probably maybe two to one, three to one golf versus, and I’m not saying that’s exact, but. MR. NACE-I seriously think, or honestly think, Tim, that the problem is that it was just not properly utilized last year. The times I was on the site, cars were not parked in any sort of a regular fashion. The parking in the rear, which is a big open space, was utilized by no more than one dozen cars when I was there, okay. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question. If the two are owners, have sort of a handshake agreement now, okay. I think them not being part of this discussion is not helping us any. MR. NACE-They’re from Michigan, and they didn’t feel it was necessary to be here, but anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Modern age, we can get in touch with them some way or another, but probably if we could get agreement on that handshake, that they put an additional number of parking spaces in this northwest corner, that might alleviate this entire problem. MR. STARK-I don’t think so. MR. PALING-I don’t think so, either. MR. STARK-Because their office, or where you pay your money to get your golf club and everything, is way in the front. I know one thing, I wouldn’t want to walk a quarter of a mile from the back of that, it’s almost a quarter of a mile from way down that hill, all the way up to the front. I’d rather go park in Agway. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only other solution is to identify these parking spaces as either go kart parking spaces or. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not going to do that. MR. NACE-No. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what are we saying, we have a problem with no solution? Is that where we’re at? 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’ve got a pretty significant problem. The letter that you read from Mrs. McDonough, did she cite that they were parking over on her side, too? Did I hear you say that or? MS. NOWICKI-No. They’re pulling in there and turning around. Not for parking. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. They were just using her place as a turn around spot. MR. BREWER-Why don’t we see if we can get Mr. Nace to get some kind of an agreement to add more parking? I’m sure if this Pirates Cove wants to expand, and they absolutely need more parking, they’ll talk with Mr. Ermiger and something will happen. Either they won’t expand or they’ll get more parking. MR. NACE-Well, okay, can we do this? You had originally said, make your resolution, if you approve, contingent upon looking at the parking, once it’s striped, looking at the parking to see if there’s still a problem, and if there is still a problem, then mandating more spaces on the Ermiger, or in the back lot, which would have to be on the Ermiger side, okay. If you want to do that type of thing, and make it a requirement that we come to you with a written agreement between the two land owners to do that prior to issuing a building permit for any of this to proceed, okay, so that there’s a permit, or there’s a written agreement, you know, on file, prior to a building permit, so that if the parking’s needed, then it’s built, okay, and if the owner’s not agreeable to that, then we come back next month and try to propose some other solution. MR. BREWER-In all fairness, Tom, is this, as time goes on, is it going to get busier through the year? I mean, the kids are still in school. Vacationers aren’t here. If we go a couple of weeks now, is that going to be reflective of what’s going to happen in August, in July? MR. NACE-I don’t know, Tim. I honestly don’t know. MR. BREWER-And I’m not trying to be a hard nose. I’m just trying to look at reality. MR. NACE-I really don’t know that much about their fluctuation. I think there’s probably some influx at the beginning of the year, because everybody wants to go do it again, but whether that equals the tourist traffic in the middle of the summer, I really don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-They don’t anticipate starting to build this second set of holes until the fall through the winter, like they did originally? MR. NACE-No. They want to start on it this summer. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the only thing, in response to your proposal here, I’m somewhat leery about wanting to do that, for two reasons. Number One, in past history, we had trying to get some conditions of enforcement done with this site. Number Two, that seems to be the proposed parking that’s got to be utilized has got to be on Ermiger’s side of the line, and he’s not here tonight. MR. NACE-That’s why I say, you know, have a written agreement on file prior to a building permit, or tabling, and we’ll get it straight and be back next month. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d be more inclined to want to table it, have you take it back to him and say, you know, we’ve determined, the Board’s going to have to send you out of here tonight and give you an idea how many more spots we’re going to be looking for. So you have something to go to him with. MR. NACE-I don’t think you know how many more spots. Okay. I don’t think you have a clue how many more spots. MR. MAC EWAN-Based on what he kind of said to us. MR. NACE-I don’t think that is relevant until we get it straight, and really look at it. MR. BREWER-Yes, because that, it’s not striped, and the other 18 holes aren’t there. So, my only thought was, is if, and I know nobody else has seen this but Larry, is if this, where this parking is here, if you just extended that straight down, and back over that 470 line. MR. NACE-Yes, that’s what we’re talking about. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. VOLLARO-That’s what we’re talking about. MR. NACE-That would be doubled. Okay. MR. BREWER-That would be another 32. MR. NACE-Thirty-two rather than sixteen. That’s correct. MR. ROUND-I suggest that you go with Mr. Nace’s suggestion, tabling it and require that it be striped prior to coming back before you again, and then ask to establish a relationship for a contingency of additional, have a written agreement in hand that you have a contingency to require additional parking spaces in the event that you reach overflow conditions. MR. VOLLARO-Now the overflow condition is only going to be determined by that gentleman back there. Is that right? MR. ROUND-That’s going to be the real subjective thing, and how do you know those five people aren’t going to Suttons or aren’t going, you know, they’re out hiking behind Animal Land? I don’t know, but I mean, that’s a decision you’re going to have to make. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to figure out in my mind how you determine that you’re at an overflow situation. Is he the one that determines that? MR. RINGER-When your parking lot is filled, then you know you’re at an overflow. If you’ve got them marked, and your parking lot is filled, you’re going to know. MR. ROUND-Yes. You could ask that documentation be provided during the peak hours, how many spaces are filled during. MR. RINGER-Right, absolutely, the counts. MR. MAC EWAN-If we did this, if we tabled you until the second meeting of next month, in between now and then, you stripe it. MR. NACE-Stripe it and start getting some counts. MR. MAC EWAN-And come up with an agreement from Ermiger that we can add, like Tim’s suggestion there, you’re doubling with, what is it, 32 more spots he said up there on that back side, Tim. Is that the count? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Thirty-two additional or thirty-two total? What are we looking at? MR. BREWER-I would say total. I don’t think we’ve got to go crazy. MR. NACE-Yes, that’s the total. MR. BREWER-So it will be an additional 16. MR. MAC EWAN-An additional 16 parking spots. MR. NACE-If needed. MR. MAC EWAN-On the northwest corner, on the Ermiger property. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that doable? MR. NACE-We’ll have to. MR. STARK-Yes. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. PALING-I have a suspicion it won’t solve the problem, and we ought to have some kind of a fall back in case, people just glance in and it looks full, and maybe it’s only half full, and so they go over to his property and park. You could do it with signage or something at the ticket booths, perhaps, and it says if your car is not parked in our property, it’ll be towed away at your expense. Some signage that would. MR. BREWER-But then who patrols it, Bob? How do we get it enforced or patrolled? MR. PALING-You scare them. Hopefully, it would eliminate, I understand what you’re saying. I don’t think you could, but I would think if the sign is worded right, a lot of people would take it seriously. MR. RINGER-Not if they’ve already parked over there. They wouldn’t see the sign until after they’ve parked their car. MR. BREWER-Like “Don’t Even Think About Parking Here If You’re Not Going To Play Golf”, or something like that. MR. PALING-If you’re playing golf, you better be parked over here. Otherwise, your car is at the local car pound. MR. VOLLARO-It sounds good, but enforcement it tough. MR. PALING-I just think, well, you can’t enforce it. I just think we ought to have some kind of a fall back plan, in the event this parking is added, the striping is done, the parking is added, and the problem doesn’t go away. MR. BREWER-Similar to what we did with the Dunkin Donuts. Ask your people for some documentation on how they figure their formula for their parking. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. BREWER-I can’t imagine that would be too hard, and then when the next applicant comes up, we can ask them what their formula is for the parking. I mean, they’re in the amusement business. They must have an idea. MR. NACE-Well, the amusement business is so different from one piece to the next, and that’s why your Code really doesn’t even address it. Not to change the subject, but the other issue that came up at the public hearing was the encroachment of fill onto the adjacent property. That, I looked at the map that LA prepared or has, and it appears that that encroachment is not from the Pirates Cove site. It’s from behind that, on the Ermiger site. So, I will let Ken know that that’s there and needs to be taken care of. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe that could be part of his agreement, too, that he’ll take care of that. Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion? MR. BREWER-Do you want to open the public, you already did open the public hearing? MR. MAC EWAN-I have it open. I didn’t close it. We left it open. MR. NACE-You did close it. MR. MAC EWAN-Did I close it? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to re-open it and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-98 P.C. MANAGEMENT CO. , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: On the second meeting of next month to get an agreement together with the adjacent property owner, Ermiger, for 16 more additional parking spots in the northwest corner of his lot, the striping 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) rd of the parking lot is to be completed by the June 23 meeting, and also an agreement from Ermiger to remove the fill on the adjacent Animal Land property that’s gone over the property line, and a count on the number of cars on peak periods, P.C. Management. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: MS. NOWICKI-Craig, could you re-visit his statement, that the agreement only be needed as required? MR. NACE-No, not that the agreement, but that the parking only be constructed if required. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. I just want to clarify whether it’s an agreement or parking. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t agree with that. That’s why I didn’t respond to it. MR. NACE-That’s what you had asked for originally, is that if that additional parking, if counts show that the additional parking is required, then it be constructed. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t agree with that because we talked about before, the counts that they’re going to be using are for stand alone sites, not shared sites with a go kart track. MR. ROUND-No. We’re talking actual in the field counts of this site. MR. NACE-Site specific here. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought you were talking about counts from other Pirates Cove facilities. MR. NACE-You asked for that also. MR. SCHACHNER-But what I think they’re talking about now is an actual empirical, on-site, so to speak, count. MR. PALING-Right. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. ROUND-We’ll have to construct some kind of process where we say, yes, it is determined that the additional parking is necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got to tell you. I don’t know if I, I don’t think I still agree with that, only rd because the counts that are going to be taken are between now and June 23, when the influx of th your tourist season is going to happen between July 4 and Labor Day. MR. ROUND-That’s a good point. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s going to be a heck of a lot more traffic. MR. NACE-Lets see what we get, and you’ll decide. MR. BREWER-You must have attendance documents from last year, don’t you? MR. NACE-Yes. The problem is last year, I think, they opened up just about that time, just about th the July 4 period. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I think he’s right. MR. NACE-So, I’m not sure that last year’s counts are accurate. MR. BREWER-Well, it’s something to start with anyway. MR. NACE-Let me pull together what data we can find, and go from there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Could we also ask Mr. Valenti to let us know, maybe you could take a car count every once in a while to see what the burden is? MR. VALENTI-Yes. Like Mr. Brewer said, July and August is where you’ve really got to look at problems. MR. PALING-All right. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 SITE PLAN TYPE I PREMIER PARKS OWNER: SAME ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: GREAT ESCAPE FUN PARK MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED FEIS RELATING TO THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE COMET ROLLERCOASTER. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 2.2 ACRES SECTION: 179-21 JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No 14-90 Modification, Premier Parks - Comet Roller Coaster, Meeting Date: May 28, 1998 “The applicant proposes to modify the existing hours of operation. The current hours of shut down are 10:00 p.m. on Friday and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. The proposed shut down time is Friday at 8:00 p.m. and Sunday at 10 p.m. The Board has the opportunity to grant conditional approval. The approval may be issued on a temporary or trial basis (i.e. month of June and July or one (1) year) that would allow the neighbors to provide feedback regarding the impact of the changes requested. This gives the Board a means to “check-up” on neighbor related concerns with the operation of the roller coaster.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MS. NOWICKI-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? That’s all we’ve got. MR. STARK-I have a question. MR. LEMERY-Good evening. My name is John Lemery, Lemery & Reid, Counsel to Premier Parks. John Collins is with me, and Lisa McCorkle, who’s a Planner with the LA Group who has worked on the plan for the parking lot at the old Animal Land site, but first addressing Site Plan 14-90, the history of this issue has to do with the environmental impact statement that was filed with the Town relative to the siting of the Comet Rollercoaster back in 1992, and there was a comment in the environmental impact statement relative to hours of operation of the park as it relates to the Rollercoaster. Premier Park came to the Board last year and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Board relative to operation of hours of the Rollercoaster, and asked that the hours relative to the Rollercoaster be expanded, not because they wanted to expand the hours of operation on the weekend. What this request has to do with is basically shutting down the Comet Rollercoaster at eight o’clock on Friday nights as opposed to ten o’clock on Friday nights, and opening the rollercoaster and leaving it in operation until ten o’clock on Sunday nights, as opposed to eight o’clock on Sunday nights. So it’s not a net increase in the operation of the hours of the Coaster. It’s simply a change of dates from Friday until Sunday. This only takes place during the months of July and August. In any event, it doesn’t start until then and concludes at that time. So that’s the purpose and the question here before you tonight. We’ve been copied with the three letters that the neighbors had written. I don’t know if there’s a need to read them into the record. We’ve received them. I think the only comment we would make is that a couple of them seem to concern themselves with operation of the Park, the hours of the Park in general. This does not have anything to do with that. It’s simply the Rollercoaster itself. The other party who wrote relative to the Rollercoaster I don’t think necessarily is of the understanding that there’s no net increase in the operation of the hours of the Rollercoaster except for the change of the two dates. Thank you. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. COLLINS-The major reason we’re requesting the switch is, after a year of operation, it became clear that Sundays we had more capacity in the Park than we did on Saturdays, and a lot of that, when we went into this last year, we knew that offering a later close on Saturday would be more conducive to a company wanting to hold a company picnic on Saturday, and Sunday would be less desirable, but the ultimate goal is to try to spread out your (lost word) as much as possible, evening it out over the seven day operation, thus alleviating a lot of your problems which, you know, overflow parking is one of them, which we’ll talk about later, but just general guest satisfaction. So what we’re doing is, on Sunday, we’re going to do a promotion with Subway, family fun days, where up to four people can get in for $59.99, or $15 a piece, to hopefully spur on Sunday visitation versus Saturday, and eliminate, hopefully, a lot of the overflow problems we had on Saturday, which was six out of the eight days we used the overflow parking, but to increase Sunday visitation. The extended hours would go toward making Sunday a family day, versus Friday night being a teen night, which we kind of want to get away from. So that was the main reason for the switch. MR. STARK-Excuse me. Your hours of operation now are in the summer, 10 o’clock Friday and Saturday. So you’re saying you’re going to close the Park at eight o’clock? MR. COLLINS-Eight o’clock on Friday, and. MR. STARK-See, that doesn’t say that here. It just says the Rollercoaster hours. It doesn’t say anything about the Park. MR. COLLINS-The Park and the Rollercoaster will now coincide. That’s correct. MR. STARK-Okay. So you’re open until eight Friday, Saturday and Sunday until ten? MR. COLLINS-That’s correct. The Park would then close at eight o’clock on Friday, and stay open until ten o’clock on Sunday. So we’re switching the two days. So basically Monday through Friday would be nine thirty to eight, after the Fourth of July, Saturday and Sunday would be nine thirty to ten, and right now it’s nine thirty to six Monday through Friday, nine thirty to eight on weekends through the Fourth of July. MR. STARK-That’s fine. I understand your reasons for doing it. MR. BREWER-Why don’t we state that, so everything will be together, the Rollercoaster and the Park will open and close at the same time. MR. LEMERY-Yes, but we have to be very careful that we don’t get into a situation where you’re approving hours of operation of the Park. MR. BREWER-No, we’re not. MR. LEMERY-Okay. MR. PALING-We’re just talking the Rollercoaster. MR. STARK-You’re not going to keep the Rollercoaster open until 10 o’clock? I mean, if you keep it open until 10, you won’t get out of there until 10:30. MR. COLLINS-The last ride is at 10 o’clock. I mean, when the Park shuts down, you stop operation at 10 o’clock. You try to close the ride at five of ten, people have a fit. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a guy standing in the back room with one huge big lever, right? MR. COLLINS-What we will do is we will go to the end of the cue line, at quarter to ten, and say there’s no more people after this, because you know it’s going to take you 15 minutes to empty a cue. MR. STARK-You actually have a cue line at 10 o’clock? MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. STARK-Wow. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. RINGER-Didn’t Staff have some letters? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get to them. We’ll get to them when we open up the public hearing. Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got some letters? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. I do have one, I have a phone call conversation with Phyllis Holtz, who was notified, and she had no objection. So that’s a new one, just to let you know. One letter from Mr. David Graves and Mrs. Lori Graves. “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Board: We are th unable to attend the Planning Board meeting on Thursday, May 28, relative to the extension of operating hours of the Comet Rollercoaster, and will express our wishes and opinions by letter. We are opposed to the extension of hours of operation for this particular ride. The hours of operation as they are now are no problem. What we do not want is the hours extended so as to interfere with the peace and serenity of residential living. The metal chain sounds of the coaster being pulled uphill and the screams of the riders can be heard plainly during the day is no more disturbing than the boats, jet skis, loud music, horns, etc., that we normally hear during the day time. This is to be expected. We have no objection if the hours extended to 8 p.m., but will find the noise beyond this time offensive. After dusk, there are relatively no boats or jet skis out, and other every day sounds have very much quieted down. I believe the sounds already associated with the Comet after dusk will be more prevalent. We want to be good neighbors with the Great Escape, and in fact have no problem with the Park hours being extended of the Great Escape last year when the issue was presented before the Town of Queensbury. The later Park hours have had no effect on us, but we feel that the later hours of operation of the Comet will impede upon us. After working all day, we want to be able to retire for the night, sit outdoors or on the porch, and be able to enjoy the peace and tranquillity that should come with living in a residential community.” The next letter from Richard and Susan Baker “Dear Sir or Ms.: I was very unhappy to receive your notice mailed today concerning later hours on Sundays for running the Comet. This adversely effects me. I will have to listen to people screaming into the night on Sunday nights, too. Monday is a work day. We open our windows in the summer, as most people do. You cannot escape their noise. We hear the public announcement system. We hear crystal clear ride attendants asking riders if they want to go faster, etc. We hear the train whistles, music, singing, some days are worse, especially cool, damp ones. We are, I believe, 1.3 miles away from the Park. The noise travels. You can’t take a left onto Glen Lake Road because of the traffic, nor can you take a left onto Route 9 at the same corner. We, too, went to meetings when the Coaster issue came up years ago, as we knew they would run the Park later and later. The season has gotten longer, too, since we came to live here 13 years ago, when the Park was Story Town, and there was six p.m. All you get for response is they can run the Park any way they want to. We’re not here to discuss that issue. It’s zoned for that use. Philosophically, every year we HAVE to add more stuff to get people to come back to see what’s new, as if they are a prisoner of the market place. Well, we’re their prisoners, bombarded by their noise, surrounded by their presence for well over three months. We get a couple of weeks of nice weather, without their noisy intrusion onto my sun porch, all over my back yard and through my windows into my house. I don’t want them in my bedroom until 10 p.m. on Sunday nights!!! Please stop this.” The next letter is from Captain Michael F. Miller “Dear Queensbury Planning Board Members: I oppose extending the hours of operation at the Great Escape Fun Park. As an owner and summer resident on Glen Lake, our family can hear the theme park all day long at our Ash Drive property. Please do not allow what little quiet is left in the evening be destroyed so that a very few can make an extra buck. The jungle noise, park general announcements over loud speakers to the screaming of excited and horrified roller coaster riders can be heard over the peaceful lake setting. The noise level from the theme park at our property is so loud that you cannot escape hearing it while outside or from inside with the windows open. Forget trying to relax outside on the sun deck, lay around on the hammock or enjoy a meal on the screen porch. Screams and recorded sounds from the theme park destroy the beauty of the lake environment. You cannot hear the birds chirping or enjoy a quiet day fishing from the lake bank. Extending the hours of the Park will only increase the noise. To operate at later hours means using lights to illuminate the Park. These lights will light up the night sky and destroy the peaceful mountain views to the west. The country atmosphere around the beautiful Glen Lake area will be threatened. It is not enough that the wall eyed pike can no longer spawn do to the over-development of the theme park. The wall-eyed used to spawn through the waterway which runs through the theme park to the ponds west of the Northway. As a child, growing up on the lake, we would watch the spawning fish so thick that you would think that you could walk across the stream on their backs. We could take our canoe right up the stream into the Park, if you 70 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) wanted to. Now the Park has a fence and culverts which keep the fish from spawning into the wetlands. I do not believe that any wall-eyed exist at all. I would like to see the theme park give something back to the Glen Lake area instead of taking all the time. The water which runs through the Park is the only inlet to the lake. The lake’s only source of water, but what is the quality of that water? The Park could restore the path of water leading to the spawning grounds and stock the ponds with wall-eyed. The Park could become a member of the Glen Lake Association, attend meetings and support the lake and the environment around it. The Park could boast of its good deeds in support of the lake for all of our children to enjoy in the future, Queensbury, Home of Natural Beauty, A Good Place To Live. I am totally against the extended hours of the Great Escape Fun Park for the above reasons.” MR. MAC EWAN-Who was that letter from? MS. NOWICKI-Michael Miller, Captain Michael Miller. MR. STARK-He’s blaming the wall-eyed pike not spawning on the hours of operation of the Park? MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it for your letters? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments, questions from the Board? We don’t need to do a SEQRA. MR. BREWER-We just have to determine whether it’s a significant impact. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That’s exactly right. All you need to do for SEQRA is. MR. MAC EWAN-Only if we do an approval, right? MR. BREWER-It’s a modification. MR. STARK-And it’s not significant. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. All you need to do for SEQRA is to make a determination as to whether the proposed modification constitutes a significant enough change to warrant any updating or supplementation of the environmental impact statement. MR. STARK-I think it’s a minor modification. MR. MAC EWAN-Not to pick on details, but don’t we, if we give an approval, don’t we say this approval is not a significant impact on the previous SEQRA findings? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s essentially the same thing. The only thing unusual for you about this case is that this is a proposed modification of a matter that was previously the subject of an environmental impact statement. So all I’m saying is that you should specify, if this is how you feel, that the proposed modification is not significant enough to warrant supplementation or modification of the previously approved environmental impact statement. MR. STARK-You say that in the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 PREMIER PARKS , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As called for in the written resolution. It has been determined that there isn’t sufficient effect on the previous EIS so that this can go ahead without modification. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: 71 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. RINGER-Staff made one comment in there, that we make this a conditional approval and look at it next year. Bob, did you want to make that as part of your motion? MS. NOWICKI-You’re talking SEQRA right now. When you go to make your other. MR. BREWER-No. I think Bob made a motion to approve. MR. PALING-There is no SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-You’ve encompassed it all in one motion, and that’s fine. MR. ROUND-I mean, that was a recommendation, if there was sufficient concern on the Board’s part, if you felt that this was a significant change, that the option is available to you to make it a temporary. MR. PALING-If there was major objection, I think the place would be full, and there’s no sign of, we have some letters, but I don’t think it’s sufficient to go take that route. I’d just as soon go with the way I’ve said it. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 26-98 TYPE: UNLISTED PREMIER PARKS d/b/a THE GREAT ESCAPE OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9, JUST SOUTH OF ROUND POND RD. INTERSECTION FOR USE OF ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT ON THE ANIMAL LAND PROPERTY INCLUDIING USE OF SHUTTLE BUSES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF VISITORS FROM THE PARKING LOT TO THE GREAT ESCAPE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-3.2 LOT SIZE: 10.7 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-98, Premier Parks, Meeting Date: May 28, 1998 “The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of a parcel under Premier Parks ownership for overflow parking. The applicant has submitted a revised plan (5/13/98) that addressed Staff concerns about landscaping and parking set up. Staff would suggest the drawings clearly depict the Patron Shuttle Pick-Up and drop off area. For example, striping the area, or an internal directional sign for pedestrian safety. The southernmost access should be addressed in regards to usage. If this access is to be used for shuttle only the access should be designated or designed in a manner to accommodate this (left hand turns out only, going north). Staff would also suggest additional landscape plantings along the north border as a buffer to the adjacent business. Consideration to interconnection between the two adjacent parcels should be reviewed. Staff has no additional concerns.” MS. NOWICKI-County comment was “No County Impact”. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. There was County, they had a comment. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. I’ll change it. It says, approved, ‘With the condition that if the site was completely used, the Applicant would return and improvements would be made.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. LEMERY-With your permission, Lisa will go over the site plan which was provide to the Planning Staff and reviewed. I think we’ve met all of the issues that were raised, including the planting, which can’t be done until next spring, I might add, because it can’t be done until after the sidewalks go in, which is a DOT approved plan, which will take place this fall. The sidewalks will run from there up to north of the Montcalm, and it will be a good thing, the sidewalk will go out, in front of Martha’s restaurant. Between now and then, the Great Escape is going to provide Staff people who will be on that site any time it’s used, to keep people from going on the right-of-way, north to try to get out where you can now cross, keep people away from going onto the Martha’s site. They’ll cue up on the site to get on the shuttle trolley, which will exit the southerly area there. It was only used about eight times last year. I don’t know how many times this year. It will be used, but the Great Escape is committed to the plan you see, and to doing whatever is necessary to do the plantings and to provide the safety required. There was a concern about putting a traffic device there. DOT didn’t want one there, doesn’t think it works. Also, there was an issue raised by the Planning Staff relative to perhaps having the ingress and egress match up with the Round Pond Road. DOT also nixed that and said they didn’t want that, and so the curb cuts are where DOT has suggested they be at this time. So this lot will be used for overflow traffic, as an additional area where they can park some, what, 140 cars on those overflow days. Lisa, do you want to go through the site plan a little bit. LISA MC CORKLE MS. MC CORKLE-I think probably John covered most everything. I just wanted to clarify, with the curb cuts, the reason DOT has the two curb cuts where they’re shown is so that they’re as far as possible from Round Pond Road, and the driveways that go to Martha’s, and the motel across the street, and the southernmost curb cut will be used only by the shuttle buses, exiting and going back to the Park. Also, DOT plans to put some landscaping within the right-of-way also, but at this time they don’t know the quantity or the locations of those. So there’ll be additional planting along the side, the proposed sidewalk, within the right-of-way. As far as striping or directional arrows, that parking lot is proposed to be gravel. The existing parking lot is gravel now, and we’re just expanding it a little bit. There will be posts placed in place to aid in parking most efficiently, and there will be Staff there to direct drivers. I think, the only other question was regarding the rest of the property, and future use of the property. MR. COLLINS-And we had told the County that if there was a future intention to do something, as far as develop it further for parking, we would come back, obviously, and address a light at that time, if that was what was needed, but there was no intention at the present time to do that, just due to the layout of the land, but that was pretty much how we answered that response. MR. PALING-You’re not going to do any re-grading? MR. COLLINS-No. MR. PALING-Take it as it is? MR. COLLINS-No, what this plan does, does require, the only change will be, there’s a building that will be removed. MR. PALING-Which one is that? MR. COLLINS-That is, it’s a pole barn. You’ll see, it says existing pole barn to be removed. It’s behind a fence. MS. MC CORKLE-This may actually help you a little more. This is the existing condition, and you can see the gravel parking lot, before existing curb cuts. This is the existing conditions. You can see the existing four curb cuts. They’re very wide curb cuts also, and here’s the one building that will be removed. MR. PALING-Okay. MS. CORKLE-There’s the existing trees along this property line. This building and this building will stay. So you can see, it’s just, it’s actually just a slight extension of the gravel this area and right in here, and with the removal of some gravel in this area in here. MR. COLLINS-For this year, we will not close off that one curb cut that’s there. I mean, that will be, the State will do that next year. It shows two here. We now have three, but we will not use the 73 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) middle one, if you will. We’ll use the northernmost one to enter, and then the shuttle will exit at the southernmost entrance, and the traffic will come in and out at the northern most entrance. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there something that you’re going to do as a temporary blockade to that curb cut? MR. COLLINS-We can. What we did last year is we put up orange cones to block it off, so no one could pull in there. Anything more than that, I think, is a hazard, because people tend to turn in there anyway. MR. STARK-Laura, what did you mean by consideration to interconnection between the two adjacent parcels? Do you mean interconnect with Martha’s? MS. NOWICKI-Or the parcel, Pirate Cove. You have, in our Code, it discusses interconnection between parcels in a Highway Commercial zone. MR. STARK-You can’t interconnect with Martha’s. Everybody at Martha’s would go over there and park. That’s why they put up the barrier to prevent that. MR. COLLINS-If that’s something that, you know, we were expand parking in this, we’ll take a look at that. I don’t see a reason why we wouldn’t look at that in the future. MR. STARK-That’s a bad idea, Laura. MS. NOWICKI-I’m just saying, I just wanted you to be aware of interconnection. MR. STARK-Who’s saying this? MS. NOWICKI-It’s in the Code. MR. MAC EWAN-The zoning code. MR. ROUND-Yes, it’s to provide interconnection so that if you run into the situation that we have on the Million Dollar Half Mile, that, this case is unusual because there’s only parking area on this property, but if there were adjacent uses that are complimentary to one another, or pedestrian traffic was going to be generated, instead of having traffic go back onto Route 9, there would be an interconnection, and that’s the purpose of that, and I think Mr. Collins has indicated that they would identify that, that an area could be set aside for that, but that interconnection at this time is not necessary. MR. COLLINS-Yes, that’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STARK-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-You had no letters or anything like that, did you? MS. NOWICKI-No, not for this one, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 26-98 , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: 74 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PREMIER PARKS , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Do we know, specifically, what the plantings are? MS. MC CORKLE-Yes, there is a plant list on the drawings, with sizes. MR. PALING-And has Staff seen the, is this okay? MR. ROUND-Yes. I guess the only comment Laura made was additional plantings, there’s existing pine trees on the north side of the site that would augment that planting on that side. MR. PALING-Okay, but it’s got to be in the motion, as called for on plans, what’s the date of that plan? Because ours would be different. MS. MC CORKLE-5/13/98. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It says that right in the prepared motion, the map dated 4/29, revised 5/13/98. It’s right in the motion. MR. PALING-Okay. Good. MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-98 PREMIER PARKS , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: 75 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) In accordance with the note provided by Staff, in the prepared resolution. That the applicant would give consideration to interconnection. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. 26-98, PREMIER PARKS for use of additional parking lot on the Animal Land property including use of shuttle buses for the transportation of visitors from the parking lot to the Great Escape; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/29/98, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map - dated 4/29/98 revised 5/13/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 5/28/98 - Staff Notes 2. 5/21/98 - Notice of Public Hearing 3. 5/13/98 - Warren County Planning Board resolution 4. 5/6/98 - Letter to S. Sopczyk 5. 5/5/98 - Letter to J. Lemery from C. Round Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/28/98 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 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 26-98, PREMIER PARKS. 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. th Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MS. NOWICKI-T.L. Cannon. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you want us to do, just open up the public hearing and close it? MS. NOWICKI-It was advertised. MR. ROUND-Yes. It was advertised for a public hearing. So you’ve got to act on it, in some manner. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/28/98) MR. MAC EWAN-We did. We tabled it. We acted on it. MR. SCHACHNER-You didn’t table it to a certain date, right? MR. MAC EWAN-They didn’t ask for a certain date. MR. SCHACHNER-No, I’m not saying you should have. Then you’re going to have to re- advertise. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. I think it’s a reasonable thing to do, seeing as they didn’t ask for a specific date. MR. SCHACHNER-I agree. MR. ROUND-Okay. That’s fine. MR. PALING-Laura or Chris, have we heard anything from the Church of the Living Waters? Are they going to be back in? MS. NOWICKI-The Church of God? MR. PALING-The Church of God. MR. ROUND-No, we haven’t heard anything back. MR. STARK-They’re not coming back? MR. ROUND-I don’t know that. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 77