The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-08-17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT PALING TIMOTHY BREWER ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 3, 1999: NONE June 15, 1999: NONE June 22, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 6/3, 6/15, AND 6/22, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 65-98 MODIFICATION STEWART’S ICE CREAM OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF BAY AND CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE A BRICK DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AND ADDITIONAL LIGHTING FOR THE BANK BEHIND THE BUILDING. TAX MAP NO. 60-2-11.1 TOM LEWIS, DAN UNDERWOOD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing needed for a modification. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 65-98, modification, Stewart’s Ice Cream, Meeting Date: August 17, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to modify the existing Stewart’s Ice Cream Site Plan 65-98. The site contains a lighting plan and a concrete dumpster enclosure that was not part of the approved plan. Planning Board review and approval is required for site plan modifications. Staff Notes The applicant has discussed the bank lights and the dumpster screening with Staff. The approved plans included a slatted screened fence around the dumpster and wall lights on the Bank building. The applicant submitted information describing the modifications. The concrete block enclosure for the dumpster appears to be a better screening choice than a slatted screened fence. The modification also includes additional plantings around the dumpster. The dumpster area has also been modified and appears to have improved access. The applicant has indicated the approved lighting plan does not meet the requirements for a bank with an outside ATM. The lighting requirements are outlined in the ATM Safety Act, included for your review. A summary of the Act includes: A requirement of a ten foot candle five feet from the ATM Machine and to be maintained at five feet in height. The act also requires a two foot candle for the parking area within sixty feet of the ATM machine. The existing lighting pattern as described by the modification appears to be more than necessary. Recommendations Staff would request the existing lamp poles be shortened and the lights angled to cover the required area.” 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is anyone here from the applicant? Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record. MR LEWIS-Sure, Tom Lewis representing Stewart’s Ice Cream. MR UNDERWOOD-Dan Underwood from Glens Falls Electric Supply. JOHN MEINRENKEN MR. MEINRENKEN-John Meinrenken from Glens Falls National Bank. MR LEWIS-On the dumpster, we’re asking, I assume everyone has this, that shows the detail. We're asking for a more substantial dumpster enclosure, additional plantings around the dumpster, and we’ve moved the dumpster in where we think is a better spot. On the issue of the lighting, Stewart’s would like to plead guilty for the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. The way we had worded the contract was that Stewart’s would get all of the necessary approvals. Stewart’s would then construct their own building and get their own building permit. The Bank would get their own building permit. I should have had the foresight to check with the Bank when we originally submitted, you know, is there any kind of extra lighting necessary. Guilty as charged, but I think the Bank has reasons for why they did what they did. MR. MEINRENKEN-First of all, Tom Lewis is being kind, because he sent me a site plan after the fact, and I missed the fact that the lights weren’t there. So it is a mutual mistake. When I received notification, yesterday, that there was a proposal to solve the problem which would be a lowering of the lamppost, Dan Underwood from Glens Falls Electric, went out on site last night, at 10 o’clock, and took a fresh set of readings, and we have a little graph we’d like to pass out, if we could. MR. MAC EWAN-Has Staff had an opportunity to review this already, your findings? This information you’re about to present to the Board, has Staff had an opportunity review this? MR. MEINRENKEN-No. This was done last night at 10 o’clock. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. At this point, I will advise you that I probably would be inclined to table this until next week, to give Staff an opportunity to review this. MR. MEINRENKEN-Okay. If you take a look at the chart, for example, just the easiest way to explain how to read this, if you start right up at the very top, where we’ve labeled “North”, the very top reading, for example, you’re looking at the number 60, and then next to that a 1.2. So the 60 is a 60-foot reading. The 1.2 was the candle foot power. As you can see, it works from 60, 50, 40, 30, each line works its way from the ATM. All of the readings, at this point right now, are in compliance with the New York State Law, and we feel that for out of the five poles, if we shorten them, we think we could probably maintain the reading. We numbered the poles, by the way. If you could look back at the plans, the bottom right hand corner, there’s a 1 right there, and then they go 2, 3, 4, 5. So we have a reference to the poles, because there’s five poles. We feel, though, that if we lower, I said four out of five. I should have said three out of five. Poles Three, Four and Five, based on the light readings that Dan took, we probably could lower them, maybe with a right angling, still get the readings we need, but Poles One and Two, if we lower them, we think we’re going to run into trouble. If you look at the very center, bottom set of readings, if you start by the ATM, the 10 foot reading is 2.9, 20 foot reading is 2.9, 30 is 2.6, and then it stays at 2.6, 2.6. This is really bare minimum of where we need to be. I realize the law says 2.0, but if you put in brand new lighting, and when you’re all done with new lighting, you’re at 2.0, you’ll fail the inspection because the lights dim and age. The lenses get dirty. We have found we have 22 branches all with ATM’s, and we have found that we’ve got to maintain at least a 2.5 to be safe, and we feel that if we lower the poles, then One and Two will probably not be able to maintain that light reading, and we’ll start failing inspections by the State of New York. MR. BREWER-What happens when you fail an inspection, they shut that ATM down? MR. MEINRENKEN-No. The first time is a warning, and then they are back fast, usually about 60 days, and there is a $500 fine. If you do not fix it again, in another 60 days, it’s a $2500, and banks, including Glens Falls National, have been fined. This is a tough law. The inspector has zero tolerance. He doesn’t care that you’re sitting in your car next to the ATM, and you can read the Reader’s Digest because it’s so bright. If he can find one reading, anywhere, that’s under you get fined. Right now I've got my first letter, it’s a warning letter, for our Washington County Office. All 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) the readings were fine, except one, because a tree was hanging over the light and they had a 1.8 reading, and I got warned. No tolerance. They’re tough. It’s a safety issue. MR. BREWER-I understand your readings and your technical type of thing, but I don’t understand what 2.7 is, for instance. How bright is that? MR UNDERWOOD-Maybe I could add a little, shed a little light on that. We're sitting in a room, perhaps, right now with approximately, an office or this type of area, is approximately 50 to 70 foot candles. The approximation of an outdoor parking lot, lets say for example at Shop N’ Save, for example, would be a minimal of like one foot candle, okay. Does that kind of give you an idea? MR. BREWER-What would this light be right here? MR UNDERWOOD-Approximately 50 to 70 foot candles. MR. BREWER-That’s not very bright. MR UNDERWOOD-Yes. Indoor it’s very easy to light with a few fixtures, etc., because you have a light colored surfaces, light tends to bounce back and forth. Outdoors, it sheds off. You’re usually dealing with blacktop. It bounces in all directions. It really gets lost, and basically, as John had alluded to, there’s a depreciation with the lamps. Over the life of the lamps, which is approximately four years, they lose about a third of their brightness. So, initially, in the initial burn in, they really appear to be really intense. They’re metal halide source, which is one of the most objectionable, if someone was to look right in them. They happen to be 400 watt fixtures that are there. They are adjusted for optimum coverage, at the 25 foot mounting height, which is the factory recommendation. What happens, we’ve all been riding in our cars and gotten blinded by headlights at three or four feet off the ground. Once you lower a pole, you tend to do that. You actually tend to get a little bit more brightness or glaring, to oncoming drivers. It’s usually more objectionable than it is actually at the site right now. MR. BREWER-So I guess if you’re going to keep them way up high, to avoid blinding somebody, what’s the purpose of having the lights? MR UNDERWOOD-As you can see on the drawing, where they’re located, they’re approximately, you look at the footages away from the ATM. In order to avoid putting a pole, lets say, right in the middle of the drive through lanes, that type of thing, you have to put them in an area which is typically a green area, where is not where vehicles are around them, snowplowing, etc. So you’re able to bring the light from one point, and across to lets say where that 2.6 section is. In those areas you have to put it up at the angle to get it over to that area, rather than a lower angle. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing, not right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I've got a couple of questions. One is in the spec itself, and that’s on Page 5 of 7, and it’s on the bottom of the page under 75-M. In the event you do have discrepancies with your lighting plan, there’s a variance required. It says “Variance for exemptions from Automatic Teller machine security measures. Except in cities having a population of one million or more, in accordance with the guidelines set forth in this Article. The Superintendent, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Superintendent, upon written request from a banking institution may approve variances which provide substantive security measures that are substantially as safe as the requirements of any of the security measures contained in this Article”. So there’s a spot for you to do a little improvising if you need to, in your lighting plan, and that gives you an out to be able to ask for a variance, I assume right up front. I just wanted to bring that up to you so that you know that’s in the spec. Looking at your original submission of the lighting, of the candles on the ground, visa vie the 10 foot candles and the 2 foot candles, what did you do to the lights that are there now that wasn’t there when you took this spectrum analysis? MR UNDERWOOD-That that you have in your hand is a recommendation from Lithonia Lighting, when a plan was sent to the factory for what they call a factory point by point, upon their recommendation of a 25 foot pole, and using those particular fixtures and adjusted to those particular angles. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. VOLLARO-Were these metal halides? MR UNDERWOOD-Yes, they were. MR. VOLLARO-The same 400 watts? MR UNDERWOOD-400 watt metal halide. Usually the bank cameras work much better. Securities cameras work much better under the metal halide source versus the yellow source that we’ve seen around, which is high-pressure sodium. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, I guess I want to get an answer to my question. This was then not representative of what’s on the site now, since this data that you took last night at 10:30 is representative of the lights on the site now. MR UNDERWOOD-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-So this is no longer a valid submission, this piece? MR UNDERWOOD-That was a proposal by Lithonia lighting for a recommendation for installation, is what it was. It doesn’t mean that, because of elevations or directional of the fixtures themselves that you would actually end up with that. It’s a recommendation by them as to meet the requirements. There are some areas where you will have exceeding the two foot candles, just because of dual coverages because of angles. However, that doesn’t mean, necessarily, that you will end up with that exact foot candle level reading. MR. VOLLARO-I understand this is really an integration of five lights, candles on the ground. That’s really what this represents, I would assume. MR UNDERWOOD-An average, yes. MR. VOLLARO-On the new one that you submitted I noticed some data on here, on one of the radials, and it’s the radial that’s generated from Light Number One, and that radial shows coming out at 1.6, 3.0, 19.7, jumps to 28.9. Is that an anomaly of some kind? MR UNDERWOOD-That is because there’s a fixture located, a wall fixture, located on the corner of that, the building, right on that southeast corner of that building in the drive through lane, and you’ll notice the same thing occurs on the back side or the north side of the building. There’s also two wall-mounted fixtures, and under each one of those, the foot candle level rises dramatically there, too. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to leave the lighting for a minute and talk about the dumpster for a second. The dumpster location on the map that we have is in approximately the same position as it is now, out there. Isn’t it? MR LEWIS-I’m really not sure. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I've been out to the place several times. The dumpster is where you show it on this plan, it is now. So I don’t see where you’re going to get any plan. It’s on macadam at the present time. MR LEWIS-I assume the plantings are behind it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what you’re referring to is those plantings in behind there and around the dumpster? Okay. MR LEWIS-We just want to make the place look better. It’s a good location. People are buying ice cream. MR. VOLLARO-I get my coffee there. You make good coffee. MR LEWIS-Thanks for the business. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have right now, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. PALING-I've got a couple of questions. In Staff comment you make a statement that it looks like the lighting pattern is actually more than necessary. What was that based on? MR. VOLLARO-The spec, Bob. MRS. MOORE-The spec sheet. MR. PALING-Okay. Just looking at this. Have we had any complaints about this lighting? MRS. MOORE-Just nighttime lighting, it appears that it’s just rather bright. I don’t know whether it’s from passer bys or not. I don’t know who they’re from. I just know that we’ve received some. MR. PALING-We have no way of knowing how much effect this change will have on that? MR. MAC EWAN-Nor do they at this point. MR. PALING-Nor do they. Okay. Let me ask just another question. Looking at your print, it appears that a lot of parking spaces have been eliminated because of the asphalt curb and the dumpster. Do we still have enough parking spaces here, or am I misreading this print? MRS. MOORE-Those are, I believe they’re proposed location of parking, if he ever needs to add additional parking. I think that’s from the original site plan. MR. PALING-If that curb goes in, they should have enough space? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they do. MR. PALING-That’s all I care about. Okay. That’s all for now. I just have reservation on the lighting. I don’t know what to say on that. MR. BREWER-Craig, I've got one more question. Are these poles going to effect, or is a future drive going to effect these poles, if that ever should happen, or they’re out far enough away? MR LEWIS-You mean if the parcel up north is developed? MR. BREWER-Right. MR LEWIS-That’s a good question, and the answer that I would give is that if something is developed, and access has to be there, then I’m sure the Bank will cooperate with this Board to make sure that there’s safe access. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but if you have to have a certain radius to get that lighting, what’s going to happen if say, a year from now, somebody comes in and they want to do something on the next piece of property. Are those lights going to effect that or are they going to have to be moved, and how are you going to maintain that radius? MR LEWIS-I’m not a lighting expert, but it sounds like someone over here. MR. BREWER-Do you get what I’m saying? MR UNDERWOOD-Yes, I do. If you were to move the factory recommendation of the poles in those locations, they were unaware, at that time, that there was a proposed, at some future date, that there would be a possible, is it a driveway or an access drive. Actually, the question, if the pole was actually in the middle of that proposed drive, what would happen as far as that goes. MR. BREWER-Yes. How do you? MR UNDERWOOD-It could be moved, and the lights are fully adjustable on the top. So it could be maintained that way, and if it needed verification by the Bank, another proposal from the manufacturer for a point by point could be done, and it could be verified on site. MR. BREWER-Because I’m guessing that’s what’s going to happen down the road, and that’s what we’ve provided that drive for, so when he did, or whomever developed that other piece of property, it’s going to happen. So I want you to be aware of that. MR UNDERWOOD-Okay. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Could you back up just a minute on that last statement? You said that if it came to the point that that drive through was going to be developed and go into the next parcel, and the lights had to be moved, they’re fully adjustable so that you can still maintain the lighting that you need to have. Is that not correct? MR UNDERWOOD-That is correct, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So basically what you’re saying is you’re going to end up moving them farther away from the building, and still be able to maintain the candle light power that you need? MR UNDERWOOD-They’re pretty much at a location where it was recommended within the property lines. I’m not sure of the exact dimensions as to where it is. It’s a green area they’re in. I guess what I was saying is that they could be moved from either right or left, from where they are. MR. MAC EWAN-East or west? MR UNDERWOOD-East or west, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you would have to move them east. You couldn’t move them west because the driveway is going to be utilized to go to that northeast parcel there. You couldn’t move the light fixtures west. You’d have to move them east, which would be farther away from the building. MR UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And you still say you can maintain your candlepower? MR UNDERWOOD-Yes, with the adjustment, I would feel that we could, or if there needed to be an additional fixture added, that could be done as well. MR. MAC EWAN-And why couldn’t you maintain your candle power by lowering the lights and aiming them more toward the building? Well, the area that we are referring to is in this area right here. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at looking at Lights One, Two, and Three, and possibly Four, would have to be moved to accommodate to the next parcel, which is to the north of the Stewart’s parcel. MR. BREWER-Yes, One, Two, Three. MR. MAC EWAN-And Four, probably. MR. VOLLARO-Four is right up next to the access. MR. BREWER-See, it would be a lot better if this was on here, so you could see where. MR UNDERWOOD-We thought we were referring to Number Four, One, Two, and Three. MR. MAC EWAN-It effects every light you’ve got, and they’d all have to be moved. MR UNDERWOOD-Yes. It does. MR. MAC EWAN-So I guess at this point it would seem like we’ve got to do some redesigning here. Because what we’d want to see is leave the lights where they’re located. This is my opinion, now. See the lights where they’re located, and leave them where they are, knowing that future access is going to be needed for that most northern parcel, and they’d have to be moved anyway. MR. PALING-I think we also better be careful that we’re not holding these people to a higher standard than other lighting applications existing. MR. BREWER-No. I, personally, don’t have a problem with the lights. I just thought that if somebody comes in and they want to, I mean, they’re doing this now. Why do it twice? Lets do it so they avoid that driveway area. MR LEWIS-I’d just offer up as an option. We’ve seen a fair amount of future plans and, you know, we’ll have an access here, an access here. It’s not necessarily the case. In fact, it might be 50, 50, as to whether whatever new development is on the remainder of the parcel we’ll actually use this easterly access. Now, we negotiated a contract with the owner so that if it was necessary, it could happen, and I would offer up, as a suggestion, that if the Board allows these things to be where they are now, if they’re higher or lower or more higher intensity or not, that’s another matter, but I mean, the poles are there. If, when the time comes, there’s another development, that would be the time 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) when this Board will know exactly what it is dealing with, and it may be that they want the lights on the west and not the east. Just something to think about. I’m not sure how the two parties will work out. I heard that there’s some State Law that says it has to be a minimum, and I think I hear some people saying you want it less than that. So I don’t know how that’s going to get resolved. MR. BREWER-My only concern is, I don’t care, I understand your requirements of lighting from the State. My concern is if Dr. Brassel somehow develops that other piece of property, whether it be next month, 10 years from now, are you going to have to move those lights again? If we can avoid having to move those lights, down the road, lets do it now. MR LEWIS-Yes, but then why would you move them now, if they might not have to be moved later? MR. BREWER-I’m just asking the scenario. MR LEWIS-Or, later on, you might have to go, you know, somewhere else, and then actually they will have been moved a third time. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-A lot of this could have been resolved, had we touched on this during site plan review. MR LEWIS-You are right, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s three things I’m looking at in the ATM Safety Act language here, and I don’t fully understand them and I guess I need some clarification on them. Item I, it says “A minimum luminance of 10 candle foot power is maintained on a horizontal plane at a point five feet outward from and five feet above the ground surface from the automated teller machine.” That’s that one. Item II “A minimum luminance of two candle foot power is maintained on a horizontal plane at a point 50 feet in an unobstructed direction from the ATM measured at a point five feet above the ground surface.” And then Item C, it says “In respect to the defined parking area, a minimum of two candle foot power from the portion of the parking area within 60 feet of the ATM machine facility.” So it kind of like gives you three different variables you’ve got to pick from here. Why was the most extensive variable picked? Why wasn’t the first one chosen? MR. MEINRENKEN-There’s actually, there’s two that you have to comply with. The third one is only if a certain condition occurs. The two that you have to comply with is the distance of five foot, ten candle foot power. You have to do that, and you have to then maintain at least a two of candle foot power going out to 50 foot. You have to do that. If, in addition to that, you are going in a direction toward a parking area, where somebody might be parking their car, if you’ve reached a parking spot, then you also have to go that extra 10 foot, and we have one, I went out and measured it today, and we’ve got one parking spot that falls within the 60 foot. It’s the handicapped parking, right in front of the building. So you have to do the first two parts, the third part only if you’re going toward a parking area, or not toward a parking area, you’ve reached a parking spot within 60 foot. MR. VOLLARO-Is the outer ring on this the 60 foot ring? The ring is a 60-foot ring? Okay. You’ve got, you know, technically, this Board, as we stand tonight, could not approve this application because it’s in variance with the spec. It’s in variance in a couple of areas, one is at 60 foot, on one of the radials it’s 1.2, and on the 60-foot circle, it’s 1.3 in certain areas. I think you probably brought this up yourself, some time ago, but we have a 1.0 on the radial that’s immediately opposite where the actually where the ATM itself is, a 1.1, and that’s on the 60 foot. So this says 50 feet from the ATM. That is the spec. MR. BREWER-What light are you talking about, Bob, what pole? MR. VOLLARO-It’s Pole One, but what happens here, this is an integration. I’m sure this is not from any one light pole. This is the summation of candlepower on the ground, from this whole nest of lights. That’s what this says. This is not a one from just one of them. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MEINRENKEN-The 60-foot measurements really are there, it’s information only. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we really need a 50 foot circle, is what you need, not a 60 foot circle. MR. MEINRENKEN-Right, yes, other than, that would be the southeast corner. Other than the southwest corner, we only have to look at the 50-foot reading. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. VOLLARO-Right, and that’s 2.9, at that point. MR. MAC EWAN-And the minimum requirement you need is 2.0, right? MR. VOLLARO-2.0. MR. BREWER-So he’s all right. MR. MAC EWAN-So based on the fact now that you’re telling us that the minimum you need is a 50 foot, not 60 foot radius, what’s the problem with lowering the poles, and still maintaining that candle power? MR. RINGER-Glare. MR. MEINRENKEN-The reading we’ve got right now, if you look, the very center, going south, you’ve got 2.9, 2.9, 2.9, 2.6, 2.6, 2.6, and that’s at the heights right now. We feel that if you lower the poles, then we’ll be very, very close to the two. I mean, I admit that I asked Dan, I said, is there any way we can calculate what it would be after we lower, and there’s no way of calculating it, but at a 2.6, we’re where we need to be now, a five foot lowering on a twenty-five foot pole, it’s going to push us down. MR. MAC EWAN-Why couldn’t you calculate it at a proposed height, say, of 15 feet? MR. MEINRENKEN-Well, we can’t. Can Lithonia? MR UNDERWOOD-Yes, it is possible. Could I make a comment on that? I made a comment earlier that when the lights are lowered, they usually become more objectionable to people driving in and that type of thing. Obviously, if you look up at anything it’s objectionable, but usually the 400 watt is a recommended mounting height of 20 feet, plus. Typically, you will not see it mounted unless it’s really an application where they need a lot of light at one particular, lets say a workstation, that type of thing, or over a doorway where there’s a lot of activity. So the reasoning is, the recommendation is that mounting height of 20 feet plus, bringing that much light lower makes it actually more intense. You’d actually have to tilt them up more, so there would be more of a glaring type effect when driving toward them or even walking toward them. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, lets poll the Board. Robert, what do you want to do? MR. PALING-Well, I’m getting a little mixed up on this, or else I’m getting straightened out. I don’t know which. First I have a question. Do we have a foot candle standard in the Town that we can compare this to? No? We have no standard? Then we’re talking and fighting against a Bank standard, and we have, I guess the basis of it is complaints we’ve received, but normally when we receive these complaints we know whether they’re talking from the north, the south, or what the intensity is, and I don’t know what the complaints are. Based on what I don’t know, and the lack of a standard, I’m willing to go along with what their effort is here on this new print. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, one of the reasons we’re here is to take care of the safety of the people in this Town, and if the people in this Town are going up to the ATM at night and the Bank has a certain standard of illumination to ensure their safety, and due to the fact that we don’t have any standard, then maybe we have to go with this. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m certainly not competent to analyze this whole thing. My take on this is I’d like to see a lighting engineer look at this, and give us a recommendation as to whether lowering the lights are going to be objectionable, based on, I've seen some of the spec information here that shows, you’ve got a de-component to these lights, which is the vertical component, 118 degrees in terms of this particular light, and see whether that, at whatever angle you set them, whether that 118 degrees is objectionable to other people or not, and I’d like to see that looked at. I don’t think anybody on this Board can do that adequately. I certainly can’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I think Bob’s got a good point, that we should have someone independent come in, a lighting engineer, and take a look at it, and also give Staff an opportunity to review this new submission that they made tonight, and I would like to table it, I think, until next week. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tim? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. BREWER-I think if it’s a standard that the State, I’m sure, has taken into consideration of objectionable lighting. I use the ATM on Broad Street, and it is lit up, but it has to be lit up. I mean, I don’t know who’s complaining. I don’t know how many houses are there, or who could complain, but, if it’s a New York State, something they have to do, there’s no getting away from it, I don’t believe. They have to have that certain amount of light. MR. VOLLARO-But there is a variance application in the spec that says you can apply for a variance on this lighting if you need to. MR. BREWER-Right, but how many branches do you have, you said, with ATM’s? MR. MEINRENKEN-We have 22 branches. I misspoke. I said they all have ATM’s. Twenty out of twenty-two have ATM’s. MR. BREWER-Okay. Twenty out of twenty-two branches that Glens Falls National has has this type of lighting. God knows how many other ATMs there are around that have to have have the same lighting. It’s like a traffic study, to me. MR. RINGER-They have this lighting 25-foot in the air? MR. MEINRENKEN-Yes, that’s the standard for the poles that we use for the right disbursement. MR. BREWER-This, to me, is like a traffic study. I don’t understand it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know, though, if this had been on the original site plan review, we would have just gone with the State specs. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that would have been the end of it, and the lights would have gone up, and then whoever complains, complained about it. MR. BREWER-One other comparison that I would like to make, I don’t know. Have you driven by Lowe’s at night? I’m sure 10 o’clock last night if you measured. Give me a ratio of light, compared to the lights they have. Is that like a two to one ratio, or a three to one? MR UNDERWOOD-As far as the foot candle level that they have in their parking lot? MR. BREWER-As far as the brightness. MR UNDERWOOD-They’re done, actually, they’re done with a little different fixture, which is called a cut off fixture. There’s a certain angle that they’re at, that you don’t see the surface brightness, and that’s where you get a lot of the glare from. Because of the distances, and only the one side that this could be angled, or lit from, floodlights were chosen rather than a down lighting type, or what I referred to as a cut off fixture. Typically, the Lowe’s application, they would be using 1,000 watt metal halide, at a mounting height of 30 to 35 feet in the air. MR. BREWER-Much, much brighter. MR UNDERWOOD-Much, much brighter, but the distance and the coverage. So they’re actually covering more square foot on the ground, with a higher fixture. Typically, if you think of the sun. If the sun was two miles in the air, it would be very, very intense. I know that’s an extreme example, but it’s kind of a fitting type of thing. The higher you go, the higher the wattage you can use, the less poles. If we were to go with the lower poles, and lets say lower wattage, it would probably double or maybe even double and a half the amount of poles that would be needed to get the coverage, and even coverage. MR. BREWER-I guess, is the brightness that Lowe’s has, would it be twice as bright as you’re having, three times as bright? I’m just a very simple person, a very simple answer. MR UNDERWOOD-I would say, just off the cuff without actually measuring it, that it would actually be less than what is at the Bank right now. MR. BREWER-That’s interesting. MR UNDERWOOD-That’s without measuring it, but typically, under a fixture you would have a lot more, as it spreads out, keeping that even and keeping the readings where you need them, probably less. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Let me throw my two cents in. If this had been approved on the original site plan, Cathy’s right. It would be done and over with, and you’d be gone down the road, but the fact that it hasn’t been, and we have an opportunity maybe help the community a little bit by making sure that the lights aren’t being obtrusive to people in the neighborhood and driving by, and considering the fact that you’re outside the threshold of what the State has recommended at a 50 foot radius, and you’re at a 60 foot radius, I think there’s some room in here that maybe we can work a little bit, and maybe work on a way of getting the lights lowered a little bit, still keeping you within your State guidelines so that you don’t get in trouble with the State banking authority or whoever regulates this, and give Staff an opportunity to look it over, and what I would like to do is table this for one week. You can go back to your lighting contractor and ask them to give you some measurements and some workings on whether they would work on a 20 foot or a 15 foot level, and see if we can’t do something like that, and in the meantime, we can have Staff research this, and see if we can’t come up with something that’s going to appease everybody here. MR. PALING-If we’re going to do that, you’ve got to find out what the complaints are, what direction they’re complaining from, and what the nature of the complaints are. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have records of that? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know if we have records. I’ll look into it. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe like telephone records, something like that, telephone calls that the Town has taken? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. They didn’t, per se, come to your Department? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll look into that, too. Is that reasonable for everybody? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR LEWIS-Could the Board vote on the dumpster? MR. MAC EWAN-My feeling, I don’t think anybody on the Board is going to have a problem with it. I think it’s a nice modification, the additional plantings. What I don’t want to do is separate a vote on a modification. We’ll incorporate it all into one plan. MR LEWIS-If the Board wants to have a representative from Stewart’s come, I have another meeting. We could send somebody else. If it’s not necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d prefer that someone was here. MR LEWIS-Someone will be here. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as you getting your information from your lighting supplier, is there any way that you can make sure that Staff receives that information by close of business on Thursday? MR UNDERWOOD-That might be possible, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The only reason I’m asking is Staff Notes are sent out to us usually on Fridays, before a meeting. So we’d like to have that information so we could review it before the meeting, and that would be this Thursday, the 19. th MR. SCHACHNER-Unless I’m missing something, we shouldn’t lose sight of that handicapped parking space in the southwest, at the 60-foot limitation. Everybody seems to be focusing on the other issues, but I presume that we would not be comfortable approving something that doesn’t meet that provision of the ATM Safety Act. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true. I think my goal here, and I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, if we can just get the height lowered, I think that’ll appease a lot of people, while still maintaining what you need to have to meet your regulations and State guidelines. MR UNDERWOOD-I mentioned before they’re fully adjustable, and some of those requirements, and if you notice that 1.2, at that 60 foot mark, and also the 2.6 on the south side of the ATM, some of those adjustments still could be made with the fixtures, even as they exist right now. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a plausible alternative. MR UNDERWOOD-That could be done in the interim, and then if complaints were received after that point, then we could re-address it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s an alternative. MR UNDERWOOD-That could be done real quick. The proposals that you’re asking for for the modification in the height, is there a certain height? I know you mentioned 20 and then 15 feet. Is that what you’d like? MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind, that’s one of those unknowns. Is 20 feet going to be enough? That’s where I think we, at a Town level, need to research that a little bit and see what would be accommodating, whether we could do that or not. To me, it would seem that if we could bring it down to the 15 foot to 18 foot level, in my mind I think we could get around it and keep you so that you’re still within your guidelines and keep passer bys, so they aren’t complaining. That’s one person’s opinion though. MR UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-In the spec, on the technical information where they talk about the height of the poles, are these poles universal to the light fixtures and are they interchangeable with the light fixtures? MR UNDERWOOD-Yes, they are universal. The pole height is selected typically by the wattage of the fixtures that are put on them. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but with a little analysis, you could use, for example, the 16 foot pole with a 400 foot watt and take a look at the candles on the ground from that. MR UNDERWOOD-Yes. Actually, the factory could do a point by point with that, and they would make a recommendation of the angling of that type thing. They would tell you what you would get at a certain distance away from that pole, with a particular angle, see if it would be physically possible to do that. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what you folks are going to do under this present proposal? MR UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Take a look at that. MR UNDERWOOD-We could do that. I’m also saying that, in some cases they may not be able to do that, and also the angle of the fixtures, instead of taking something that’s up at a 25 and actually angling it down, you’d actually be lower and maybe shining more of a straight on effect, to reach that 60 foot mark. MR. VOLLARO-As long as you’re going to do a look see, take a look at, when you do angle these things up, what that angle does to, for example, the Bay Road and so on, is it objectionable from an off site point of view. MR UNDERWOOD-Yes, it would be very objectionable. I mean, the factory could tell us exactly what the foot-candle level would be on the ground. Sometimes, like I mentioned the glare factor is something that is one of those things, I heard somebody say, well, are there any homes or anything else around it. We’ve personally been on site in the after hours, if you would, and addressed some of those situations, because of the angling, whether it was a home or whether it was a street situation, that type of thing. So it’s very much an important issue. In my travels in doing the banks, and Adirondack Trust and also Trustco Bank, that type of thing, every effort was made to eliminate those possibilities. With the glare control, sometimes it’s with the angles, as you saw in the specifications. Sometimes it’s the actual beam control that the fixture actual emits, and any time the fixtures are mounted under those heights if you would, it becomes very objectionable. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We're all set then. We know what we need to do? Okay. All right. We’ll table it until next Tuesday. MR LEWIS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. MEINRENKEN-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LEIGH P. BEEMAN OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: WEST SIDE CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.27 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 7.27 ACRES AND 1.01 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1995, AV 60-1999 TAX MAP NO. 12-3-27.1 LOT SIZE: 8.27 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on July 27 has been tabled, and we will continue this th evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 14-1999, Leigh P. Beeman, Meeting Date: August 17, 1999 “Description of Project Applicant proposes to subdivide an 8.26 +/- acre parcel into two lots. The application was tabled at the previous meeting for verification of certified mail receipts. Staff Notes The applicant has submitted an updated map of the proposed subdivision locating the septic information and indicated certified mail was sent. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the subdivision.” MRS. MOORE-And we do have certified mail receipts. MR. MAC EWAN-We do have them. The floor is yours. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I am Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves Land Surveyors. I represent Leigh Beeman on the application. As Staff has stated, it’s a two-lot subdivision. It hasn’t changed except for the fact that the septic systems are now located on the plan as requested by this Board. That’s the only change that has been made to the map since the last time you saw it, and if there’s any questions of the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’ve got everything ironed out. We left the public hearing open. If anyone wants to come up and comment to this application, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LEIGH P. BEEMAN, 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. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) 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. Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1999 LEIGH P. BEEMAN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: As prepared by Staff, with the updated map. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 14-1999 to subdivide a 8.27 acre parcel into 2 lots of 7.27 and 1.01 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/30/99, consists of the following: 1. Preliminary Stage application w/map S-1 dated 6/29/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/27/99 - Staff Notes 2. 7/21/99 – Zoning Board of Appeals resolution 3. 7/7/99 - Meeting Notice letter Whereas, a public hearing was held on 7/27/99 and 8/17/99 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 Preliminary Stage for Subdivision No. 14-1999, Leigh Beeman. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 17 day of August 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Could we have a motion for Final? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1999 LEIGH P. BEEMAN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 14-1999 to subdivide a 8.27 acre parcel into 2 lots of 7.27 and 1.01 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/30/99, consists of the following: 1. Final Stage application w/map S-1 dated 6/29/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/27/99 - Staff Notes 2. 7/21/99 – Zoning Board of Appeals resolution 3. 7/7/99 - Meeting Notice letter Whereas, a public hearing was held on 7/27/99 and 8/17/99 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 Final Stage for Subdivision No. 14-1999, Leigh Beeman. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 17 day of August 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CERRONE BUILDERS OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: BAY ROAD, FIELD VIEW SOUTH APPLICANT REQUESTS FINAL STAGE APPROVAL OF PHASE II (12 LOTS) – BAYBERRY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION NO. 1- 1997 TAX MAP NO. 48-7-999 LOT SIZE: 18.27 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE & MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And no public hearing is required for the Final Stage, or it’s not scheduled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1997, Final Stage Phase II, Cerrone Builders, Meeting Date: August 17, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes Phase II of Bayberry Meadows subdivision. Planning Board review and approval is required for the final phase of a subdivision. Staff Notes: The proposed plans are consistent with the original subdivision for Bayberry Meadows. The applicant has indicated that 64% of Phase I have received Certificates of CO’s. The subdivision 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) plans submitted meet the zoning code requirements for subdivision. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Phase II of Bayberry Subdivision.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O’CONNOR-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m Michael O’Connor from the Firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me is Tom Nace from Nace Engineering, and we’re here to answer any questions that you have. MR. BREWER-Just one. There was a conversation, in the beginning, when you first started this subdivision, Tom, where the Field View South Road met with the other, were there some problems with the lot, I don’t know, it was back over here where the fella had the drainage problem? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Is that not a problem anymore? MR. NACE-That was solved with the construction of Phase I. MR. BREWER-When you first went through. MR. NACE-When we first went through, we took drainage down to the property line and took it down along the property line. MR. BREWER-So he’s all set. MR. NACE-As far as I know. I have not heard anything from him. I talked to him during construction. MR. BREWER-That’s the only question I had. MR. VOLLARO-I just had one. On Drawing D-2, where you have the drawing of the shallow well absorption system, and I just want to verify something. Where you say, under shallow water absorption trench, with a separation between existing ground and seasonal high water to bedrock or impervious soils is less than four but greater than two, perc rate of existing soil must be faster than 60 minutes. What is the perc rate at that level? And do you see any need for a shallow absorption trench in this project at all? MR. NACE-There were, yes. This has been reviewed by Health Department, and one of their requests was that we label each lot as to what type of system would be required, and if you look on D-2, there’s a table over on the right middle that says, for which lot, what type of trench, and some of them are standard. Some of them are shallow trench. I don’t think there are any fill systems on here. There was one lot to be determined yet. The perc rates are also given on that same table. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s a mix? MR. NACE-That is correct. Most of the perc rates, some of them were within the one to five minute range. A lot of them were up in the eight to fifteen minute range. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I just had an academic question that probably, Drawing P-1, is that related to stormwater flow, Tom? MR. NACE-P-1 is the Profile. MR. VOLLARO-Is the Profile. MR. NACE-It shows the road surface as well as storm drainage piping, to show where it’s located. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s just related to stormwater, primarily, for Phase II? MR. NACE-No. It shows, for road construction, it gives the profile grade line that’s necessary for construction of the road. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. VOLLARO-But that’s all that’s for? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up on the table? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE, PHASE II FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Tim Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: As submitted. Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. NACE-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 39-99 TYPE: UNLISTED NORTH COUNTRY SPORTS MEDICINE OWNER: RONALD L. NEWELL ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, NORTH OF CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,863 +/- SQ. FT. PROFESSIONAL SPORTS MEDICINE OFFICE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE WORK. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IS TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIV. NO. 24-1993, FW1-94, PZ 1-93 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 8/9/99 TOM NACE & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 39-99, North Country Sports Medicine, Meeting Date: August 17, 1999 Description of Project The applicant proposes to construct an office building to be utilized as a sports medical facility. The project is located in the multi-family residential 5,000 square feet zone (MR-5) and requires site plan review and approval. Staff Notes The North Country Sports Medical business proposes to relocate to this site on Bay Road. The proposed project meets the zoning code requirements for site plan review. The project proposes adequate parking, landscaping, and accommodates pedestrian traffic. The project does not require permits from other agencies such as the Army Corp of Engineers and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in regards to wetland issues. The applicant does not need any additional wetland approvals from the Town. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the site plan.” MRS. MOORE-And just to correct something, I think the project does require permits from Army Corps and New York State DEC. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-I have Rist-Frost comments and things like that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Anything from the County? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MRS. MOORE-Yes. The County comments are approve on their recommendation, and then Rist- Frost comments is “Dear Mr. Round: Nace Engineer’s letter of August 5, 1999, the revised stormwater management report, satisfactorily addressed the comments in our review letter dated August 5.” Do you want me to read the other letter? th MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read the Tom Nace letter or the other Rist-Frost comment letter? MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got to read them both. MRS. MOORE-A Rist-Frost comment from August 5. “We have reviewed the documents th forwarded to us, along with the above referenced site plan, and have the following comments. Number One, the post development runoff rate should be equal to or less than the pre-development runoff rate. In a conversation with Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, he advised that he will re- calculate the peak rate to address this discrepancy. Number Two, the water connection is subject to approval of the Town of Queensbury Water Department, and Number Three, the curb cut is subject to the approval of the Warren County Highway Department.” Tom Nace, Nace Engineer’s letter of August 5 “In response to Rist-Frost’s engineering review letter to you dated August 5, I offer the thth following responses, includes a minor revision to the stormwater report. Number One, I have revised the outlet orifice for pond number five to reduce the peak outflow from .34 cubic feet per second to .30 cubic feet per second. This makes the total peak outflow from the site 0.56 cubic feet per second which is exactly equal to the pre-developed peak outflow. I will note this change in orifice size on the design drawings which will be re-issued after any other Staff and Planning Board review comments are incorporated. Number Two, I am currently sending the design drawings to Warren County Highway Department for their review and driveway permit issuance.” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. Tom Nace from Nace Engineering and Matt Steves from Van Dusen and Steves. I would only add that we do have the curb cut permit from Warren County. We received that the other day. I just gave Staff a copy of that, and we have submitted to DEC for the Freshwater Wetlands permit required. I met with them, Monday I guess it was, and reviewed it with them. They do not see any problems. It will probably take a couple of weeks before they issue the permit. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you give us a little bit of background on the entire project? MR. NACE-Okay. Basically, the site consists of I think maybe 14 acres. What you see on the site plan is the very front portion. Most of the rear is flagged DEC wetlands. The proposed development of the front portion of the site consists of an office building, to be located on the north side, this is Bay Road out here, north is this way. We're proposing a single curb cut, divided access, coming in to an entry portico for the building, parking, septic system will be on site, and is proposed out in the front of the site. Stormwater management, to go to the grading plan, stormwater management will be handled by a small swale to take the little bit of runoff that comes off of our lane of Bay Road, onto the site, channel it into a small, I don’t want to really call it a pond. It’s a depression, and from there, on back to a depression behind the building, which will store it. There’ll be an outlet control on this culvert coming out of that. Both of these depressions are graded so that they’ll be kept dry. They can be mowed and maintained. That handles all of the runoff from the front part of the entryway, and portions of the building. We also have eaves trenches around the building that will tend to infiltrate a little bit of the runoff. The parking, stormwater is channeled down to a low point at the rear of the parking, into another depression that will again outlet with the controlled outlet device through a culvert. We have maintained a portion of the site to the south of the parking lot for possible future development. We’ve shown that on the first sheet. We don’t know what it would be. It’s probably five years down the road. There’s no definite commitment. We’ve just shown that there is some future possibility there. Other than that, I’ll be glad to answer questions. MR. PALING-Okay. With relation to the septic field, what’s the clearance between that and the adjacent pond? MR. NACE-Ten foot is required. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. PALING-Is there any reason turn that 90 degrees from the way it is? MR. NACE-Because of the fact that we are having to accept drainage off of Bay Road onto the site. The existing site is depressed. If you’ve been down there, depressed four or five feet below Bay Road. We do have a pocket in here that you can see. We’ve identified it is Corps of Engineer wetland. It’s only a tenth or so of an acre, and we are going to fill it, but we have to accommodate that water that comes off the road, and trying to get as much separation distance between that drainage and the septic as we can. MR. PALING-You talk about you have a pending approval from DEC? MR. NACE-Okay. That is for, I should have explained that. MR. PALING-My question is, do you also get Army Corps of Engineers, Water Department and Highway Department? MR. NACE-Highway is Warren County. We do have the permit, okay. Water Department is standard, you know, it’ll be just a standard small tap, okay. MR. PALING-You will get it? MR. NACE-Exactly. MR. NACE-The Corps of Engineers does not require a permit. We're filling Corps wetland. We’ve mapped them. We’ve located them. It’s less than their present, I think it’s third of an acre, or three tenths of an acre that they permit you to fill with, under the Nationwide permit, okay, which does not require. MR. PALING-That’s against what you’re saying here, Laura? Are you saying they do require that? MRS. MOORE-My conversation with Tom was that he needed information, not necessarily needed a permit from Army Corp, but he had to deal with the Army Corps wetlands on the site. MR. NACE-Yes. We have to protect the property, or we have to make sure that the Corps wetlands have been flagged. That they’re accurate and that we’re not taking over a third of an acre. If we were taking over a third, we would need a site-specific permit. Just let me clarify. The issue with the DEC wetland is that up in this detention basin area, the actual DEC flagged wetland is way back here, but they have in their DEC regulations, you can’t disturb, you cannot do any disturbance within 100 feet of the wetland without a permit. We're, back here with the outlet of our detention basin, we’re a little over 50 feet away from the wetland. So the disturbance that we do in here, there’s a 100 foot setback here. The disturbance that we’re doing in there requires a permit. It’s not a huge deal with them because we’re handling so little stormwater. We're keeping existing drainage patterns. We're not altering drainage and putting a lot of water into the wetland that hadn’t been there before. We're simply buffering what comes off the site, before it gets to the wetland. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Tom, would you just explain to me how the ingress and egress works? MR. NACE-Here? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, please. MR. NACE-Okay. It’s just a divided entryway. The dividing island starts at the property line. Here it’s combined. Cars can come in and either go into the parking lot, or pull through the little portico to drop off passengers. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess what I’m saying is, are there two lanes on each side of the curb or just one? MR. NACE-No. There’s the divided entry, which your Code still requires. There’s one lane on either side. So here, you know, it’s wider here simply because you’ve got the divided entry, and we’ve chosen to make that divided entry, not just a little curb, but something that can more easily be maintained, a little island. So this is two way here. It’s one way opposite the island. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I like the way the building’s on the diagonal. What’s the little part in the back that juts out? What’s that going to be? MR. NACE-This will be physical therapy I believe. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it looks nice on that lot. MR. NACE-Yes. With the site, we were sort of forced into that, but once we looked at it, we liked the way it worked. MR. BREWER-Forced into what? MR. NACE-Putting the building into a corner. MR. BREWER-Yes, that’s what I was going to ask you. Why is it like that? MR. NACE-Just the way the site works, the circulation and with the wetlands back here, we have some limitations, and this just turned out to be. MR. STEVES-The access to the portico (lost word) as far as being able to drive right up to the entrance that way worked much better. MR. BREWER-It’s a nice layout. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question, Tom. I looked at where the approximate location of the end of the sewer line is now, opposite the dance studio. MR. NACE-That’s on down about here. There are three houses, the third house is here. So it’s the entryway for the dance studio comes in over here. So it’s down here somewhere. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I had the dance studio a little closer than that, but anyway, I dropped a vertical from the force main pump. Go to your first drawing. Go to your force main pump. I dropped a vertical down there to Bay Road, and did a rough calculation along the bay of how much it would take to get into that sewer line. I’m just wondering if it wouldn’t be good planning, rather than do, and where you’ve got a considerable amount of water, I don’t know what the depth to high groundwater is underneath that heel. MR. NACE-I’d have to go back and look. It’s over two feet. It’s between two and four feet. MR. VOLLARO-Between two and four. I don’t know if wouldn’t be just good planning to think about it. I don’t know what the story is with that. MR. NACE-We did think about it, and one of the reasons that we came out the front and put a pump station up here was that if it ever does come through, then we will have more, it’ll be more readily accessible for us, but 500 feet of construction along Bay Road, and the administrative issues of getting the force main put in, and it would have to be, you know, we can’t just run a pipe down here without making provisions for whatever is going to go on in the future upstream. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, you put the same cap upstream as you Van Dusen has at the dance studio. MR. NACE-I know, but what size pipe is that? Does the same. MR. VOLLARO-It’s an eight inch pipe. I know that because of other things I was doing. MR. NACE-But, you know, the decision was that, you know, for now put in the field, but at least configure it so that we had the opportunity to go into it in the future. MR. VOLLARO-If you wanted to do this, this would be on your nickel, I suspect. Is that what the problem is? MR. NACE-That’s part of the problem, yes, absolutely. It’s 500 feet of pipe along a State highway, or a County highway. MR. BREWER-What does it cost, Tom, a foot to do that? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. NACE-I don’t know. It would depend, in there, on the groundwater conditions. I know they did have some difficulty, I think, when they ran it up from Stewart’s. MR. BREWER-Yes, I was going to say, Stewart’s just went. MR. VOLLARO-They jumped across the street, basically. MR. BREWER-A very short distance, and it was in the area of $30,000. MR. NACE-I don’t want to throw a number out, because. MR. VOLLARO-If the Town does it, it’s a huge expense. If a private contractor puts it in, it’s a much less expense, and that I can tell you. MR. NACE-Sure, but it’s still, when you’re in the highway right-of-way, it is expensive. MR. VOLLARO-It was just a thought I had. The other thing is, I’m looking at the stormwater detention basin here that’s inside the 70-foot travel corridor. Let me ask Staff, I don’t have my book with me. What does the 75-foot setback corridor say is allowed within the corridor? MRS. MOORE-You can have, you could have green areas in there. MR. VOLLARO-So the retention pond would be classified as a green area? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. NACE-It’s just a swale. It’s not going to be a wet pond. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Let me just go through my own notes on some other stuff here that I had. I guess one of the things, you folks were here when we talked to Stewart’s about the lighting program. So you know what the story is. Now I’m beginning to see a cluster of lighting up at the end of the Bay Road, now, between Stewart’s, The Harvest, which is always there, Lowe’s, and so on. I’m just trying to get a feeling for what your lighting plan does when it gets integrated into the rest of lighting plans up at the end of the bay. MR. NACE-This is minimal lighting. What we’re talking about now is mostly lighting on the front of the building and underneath the front entryway. There is one light at the back door to lead people in. Most of their business will occur during daylight hours. The numbers that you have been hearing of two-foot candles and higher for parking lot lighting, this is just security lighting, or safety lighting. MR. VOLLARO-So this is basically perimeter building lighting? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t have anything like that. MR. NACE-This is not commercial. MR. VOLLARO-I do have one question. When I looked at your pump house for your force main pump, do you plan to put housing over the top of that, or just? MR. NACE-No, it’s submersible. So it’s just a flat. MR. VOLLARO-Because I know ours is, in Baybridge we have a house over the top, and we had a failure in our pump. We had a split in the check valve, so we had to have a confined space entry for that pump, and having the house over the top was very advantageous, we found, and so did Northern Mechanical when they did the job. I’m just wondering what your thoughts were on that. MR. NACE-These are small pumps. I think they’re probably a little smaller than yours. I’m not sure what horsepower. These are I think a third horsepower pumps. So it’s reach down and pick the handle up and pull the pump up. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, we have to pump ahead. You probably don’t. So that’s the difference. MR. NACE-Yes, that’s correct. There’s very little head here, and very little flow. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. RINGER-No, nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tim? MR. BREWER-Just one thought. It’s quite an extensive landscaping plan. I hope you realize what’s there, and the applicant realizes what’s there and how much of a job it’s going to be to maintain all that. I mean, I think it’s going to be a beautiful plan, but. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s always nice that we have an ambitious landscaping plan. MR. BREWER-Yes, I think it’s great. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a plus. MR. NACE-I think that a lot of the numbers are in the smaller plants up around the building. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you look at the plan, and, boy, it is. It’s a real nice plan. That’s complementing, Tom. MR. NACE-Okay. We’ll pass that along to Jim. MR. VOLLARO-The offset is not putting the sewer line in. They put the money into the landscaping. MR. BREWER-No. We’ve had applicants come in with a plan like this, and then come back and ask if they could modify it, and once they get into this, they see how much it is. MR. MAC EWAN-I have four quick questions for you. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Should you ever hook up to the sewer district, what happens with the existing septic fields? I mean, are they actually physically dug out? MR. NACE-The field would stay in the ground, okay. The tanks, if we ever hook up the tank, obviously, depending on the type of sewer that’s available, the tank would have to be filled in or be removed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The future building that you have shown on the drawing, should you ever go forth with that, do you have enough parking to serve both buildings, with what you have now, or would you need to require more parking? MR. NACE-No, we would require more parking. MR. MAC EWAN-Where would you put it, just so we know, so that we have plenty of room on the site. MR. NACE-Yes, future parking. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re not looking for much parking for the building, just exactly what’s in front of us, so you’re basically blacktopping up to the building? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The detention pond in the back of the parcel that goes toward the wetlands, where your overflow pipe is that you say will rarely run. Does DEC need to give permit approval for that because it’s heading toward the wetlands? MR. NACE-Here or there? MR. MAC EWAN-No, the first one, yes. MR. NACE-That’s part of their wetland permit. All of this is within their, what they call adjacent area, 100 foot setback from the wetland. When they permit what we’re doing here, they’ll permit the whole thing. MR. MAC EWAN-And quickly, to follow up back on lighting, you said that you’re basically using security lighting, perimeter lighting? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. NACE-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Are the parking lots going to be lit? MR. NACE-Only spill over from the building and from the light leading into the rear entry. MR. MAC EWAN-But actually out there in the lot itself will not be lit? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Should it be, considering some of the wintertime hours, especially opening in the evening? MR. NACE-We discussed that with the doctors. At this point, their indication was that they didn’t think it was necessary. If it did come out to be necessary, their talking about low fixtures, and maybe something around the back. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Has anybody else got any other questions? Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment to this application, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have a letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Cathy LaBombard. I recently received your letter, on August 13, 1999 regarding a proposal for Site Plan No. 39-99, North Country Sports Medicine, on the west side of Bay Road, north of Cronin Road. I would like to state for the record that I am strongly opposed to this proposal due to the high volume of traffic that already exists on Bay Road. I find it very difficult as it is to cross Bay Road to get to my mailbox every day. I would have expressed my opposition in person. However, I am unable to change my schedule with only four days notice of this meeting. I feel that with a meeting of this importance, you should give the courtesy of 30 days notice to the property owners in the immediate vicinity that may be effected by this proposal. I hope that you will take my comments and concerns into consideration when reviewing this proposal before any execution of agreements have been made between the Town and property owner Ronald Newell. Donna St. John” MR. MAC EWAN-Does it give her address? MRS. MOORE-She has an address of 452 Bay Road, and the address that it was sent to was 108 River Street in Hudson Falls. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-I have Beautification comments. I can read them after the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Read them before the public hearing. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is Beautification comment, “Site Plan No. 39-99 – North Country Sports Medicine - front will be grassed. Sugar Maples and shade trees; divided entryway with Day Lillies, pine trees around parking lot; 12-foot decorative light; walkways around front and back entrance; front of building will be landscaped with shrubs and flowers Dumpster off side of parking lot, pine trees; chain link fence with slats.” And that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Anyone from the public want to come up and comment? We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-You’re saying in your language here it’s a Type II Site Plan, but under the Type, underneath the Site Plan application it says it’s Unlisted. So which one do you want us to do? I’m guessing Unlisted. MRS. MOORE-These are Unlisted. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Short Form? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NORTH COUNTRY SPORTS MEDICINE, 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. Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-99 NORTH COUNTRY SPORTS MEDICINE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Based on plans dated July 28, 1999, and also that the permit from the Department of Conservation not alter these plans in any way, as they’ve been submitted. Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-That letter that you got from that individual, could you hold that back, because I would like to send her a letter. Thank you. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ 5-99 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY OWNER: SAME CURRENT ZONE: SFR-1A (ROW) PROPOSED ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF A 1.2 +/- ACRE PORTION OF THE PINE VIEW CEMETERY FROM SFR-1A TO PC-1A. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BOARD REFERRAL – 8/99 WARREN COUNTY: 8/11/99 TAX MAP NO. 63-1- 1.1 LOT SIZE: 62.28 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-20, 179-22 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change PZ 5-99, Town of Queensbury, Meeting Date: August 17, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to change the zone for a portion of property that will become part of Northway Plaza. The Town Board has referred this application to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Staff Notes The zone change would allow an adjacent property owner, Northway Plaza, to obtain additional land for development. The proposed area would most likely not be utilized by the Town (Pineview Cemetery) due to its proximity to Northway Plaza. The zone change would encompass a fifty foot buffer area as required between residential and commercial zones. There does not appear to be any environmental or neighborhood impacts on the surrounding area. Upon review of the long environmental assessment form one item should be amended on Page 5, Letter C, Question 1. The “other” box should be marked with the explanation of “rezoning property”. Recommendation Staff would recommend approval of the zone change.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen. Would you identify yourselves for the record. JIM HAGEN MR. HAGEN-My name is Jim Hagen. I’m an architect with J.S. Hagen Architects in Syracuse, New York, and with me tonight is Mr. William Dutch, who’s one of the principle’s of Northway Plaza Associates, L.L.C. The property owner Northway Plaza. Technically, we’re not here as the applicant tonight, but we’re representing Northway Plaza Associates, who is a contract owner of the property. In other words, they’ve entered into a contract with the Town Board to purchase this land. We're here tonight to support the recommendation for a positive recommendation on the zone change. In conjunction with that, recognizing that zone changes are sometimes subject to some discussions, what we’d like to do is give you a brief presentation of what we’re proposing to do with the land, once they take ownership of the property, and also to give you an overview of what Northway Plaza would like to do, on the overall layout of the center, in light of the fact that we have filed an application for site plan review that relates to this particular application, and we hope to be here at your next meeting to discuss that in further detail, but we thought it would be helpful to give you the bigger picture tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. HAGEN-I apologize for the size of this drawing, but it’s the smallest practical size I could work with. Northway Plaza, as you know, exists on Route 9, just north of Quaker Road. It’s been there for many, many years. A lot of what occurred on the site occurred before your current Ordinance was enacted, and over the years it’s gone through a number of changes. The Center, in recent years, has evolved from what was primarily a retail center to now more of a mixed use facility that encompasses retail, office and service uses. One of the major tenants in the center right now is a Travelers Insurance Company that occupies this section of the Center and a portion of the rear section of the Center, for an insurance services facility, where they process claims and other business forms relative to the insurance business. It’s a very large employer. Bill, what are there about 400 people there currently? WILLIAM DUTCH MR. DUTCH-There’s about 800 employees at Travelers now. They’re one of the largest employers in this area, and in the 10 years since we’ve owned the property, it will be 10 years on August 29, th and we’ve expanded this operation, if I can, from about 72,000 feet to about 112,000 feet now, and it’s our hope to expand this even further. Travelers has some options to do that. MR. HAGEN-I might add that the expansions that Mr. Dutch is talking about occur within the existing physical structure of the Center, and there’s been no significant additions, in terms of the size of the buildings that exist on the site. One of the things that Mr. Dutch and his associates have had to deal with is that, with Travelers employment, they have parking requirements that are greater than what the Town requires under the Zoning Ordinance, and what we’re trying to do, with the acquisition of the property from the Town and some other modifications that we’re proposing to the 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) site plan, is to be able to maximize the parking, so that we can accommodate Travelers and the other tenants that exist in the Center. The Center, as it stands now, can accommodate the parking requirements of the Town. We're trying to supplement above and beyond that. The property that we’re proposing to acquire from the Town is actually located on the east side of the property, and on this drawing, this is Route 9 on the bottom. You have Quaker Road on this end. This is the main part of the Center with the parking in the front, and then there’s a drive that runs along the back of the property, on the east side. The cemetery is east of this, and what we’re proposing to do is to acquire a strip of land that varies from probably 70 to 90 feet in width, that starts down here by the entrance drive from Quaker Road, and goes all along the back of the property. There is a triangular piece of land that’s adjacent to Quaker Road which is the entrance drive coming in, which we thought the Town owned, but after going through it’s negotiations, we’ve learned that the State of New York owns as part of the right-of-way in that area. So, although it’s all used and maintained by Northway Plaza, really the State controls that. What we’re proposing to do with the 1.2 acres is basically to provide some additional parking that will come off of the existing drive that runs behind the Center. So we’d be paving approximately 300 feet of area in this area to pick up additional parking, and we’re proposing, at the same time, to create more parking in this area on the other side of the drive, that would give us parking that would be in close proximity to the Travelers space. At the same time, we are proposing to leave the majority of this land in the natural state, and as I mentioned earlier, the Center existed prior to the enactment of the Ordinance. If we were to come in with a new plan today, we’d be required to have a 50-foot buffer between this property and the Cemetery property. So what we’re doing is we’re creating that buffer after the fact, and we’re designating that to remain permanently that way. We also, in preparing this plan, are proposing to make some other changes to the site, and some of those I can discuss in detail tonight. Some of them we’ll be more prepared to discuss with you when we come back in the next meeting. One of the issues that we’ve recognized for a number of years, and really have had some major concerns about it, and until this point really have not been in a position to do anything about it, is that the site has a very unique traffic pattern. You have a main entrance on Route 9, where there’s a traffic light with a divided entranceway that provides access in and out at that point. You also have two driveways that enter into the site at the southern end on Route 9, and right now people come up from the intersection of Route 9, doing probably about 40, 45 miles an hour, and they come in to here, and they just go wherever which way they want to go. A lot of people tend to go along the shoulder with Route 9, and they come into this main intersection at a fairly good rate of speed, and that’s led to some problems. We also have a lot of people who come in from Quaker Road on this drive from the State property, and they come past what is currently the Monroe Muffler shop, and they cut across an open paved area, and they just kind of swing around the front here, without any stops or controls. From our perspective, it’s not an ideal situation. So what we’re proposing to do is to reconstruct this entrance way to increase islands, add a curbed island that will tend to channel the traffic coming in, so people coming in from Route 9 will be forced to come into an area that’s more defined, that will act as a deceleration zone coming into the site. They don’t feel they’ve got a runway they can just take off on. At the same time, we would create islands in this area and in this area, and would install traffic control devices, stop signs and stop bars on the pavement to, again, control those traffic movements. At the same time, we would, by doing this, be removing what is now currently paved surface areas, and installing landscaped areas where we could put berms, and we would like to, and we’ll be back with a proposal to construct a sign on this one landscaped area to identify The Travelers’ property. At the same time, we’re proposing to create another landscaped island a berm, adjacent to the main entranceway, to again control the traffic movements coming in at that traffic light. There is currently a landscaped strip that runs down through the center of the entrance drive with trees. That would be maintained, but we’re proposing to modify the landscaping details on that, to make it a little more visually appealing. In conjunction with these changes, we’re proposing to repair the existing paving surfaces themselves, those areas that over the years are starting to deteriorate. We’d like to repair those and then go through and repave the entire Center with a new topping over the entire area. When we do this, we will then also be re-striping the lot to make the parking spaces more efficient in layout and more efficient. There are currently light poles that exist in the Center, in the parking lot. They’re 30 foot poles, and then a number of years ago, planters were built around the base of the pole, and these are pressure treated planters that have some overgrown vegetation in them. We’re proposing to remove those, again so we can pick up some parking spaces, but also to clean up the appearance and to also refurbish the light poles. In addition, we are proposing to pave the areas around the back of the building, and specifically on the area behind what was Steinbachs. We're proposing to construct some retaining walls so we can pick up some additional parking spaces in that area as well. One of the things that’s a little bit unique about this property is if you go behind the Center, you’ll see a paved parking area back where there’s some loading docks, and then you’ll see an area that’s been stoned and gravel, and it kind of drops off into a depressed area. That particular piece of property is actually an adjacent property. It’s a piece of an area that Northway Plaza has been using for many, many years for parking and for maintenance equipment, storage of maintenance equipment. The owners of Northway Plaza are currently in negotiations with that property owner about an acquisition of a portion of that land. At this point, we’re not prepared to go into the details of that, but it’s something we would like to also h have you consider in the future. Our intention would be to come back in to you in September, and at that point be prepared to discuss this in more detail, with the intention that we could obtain a site 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) plan approval, so that we could have this work done this fall, before the winter weather starts. One issue that we discussed with the Staff is that when we re-stripe the lot, what we’re proposing to do use an eight foot six space, with a hair pin striping pattern, which we feel will be adequate to meet the needs of the people utilizing this Center. By doing that, what we can do is we can provide parking for 1518 parking spaces on site. By Ordinance, we’re required to have 1400. If we use the nine-foot space that’s require by the Ordinance, we can provide 1433. So we’re gaining about 70 to 80 spaces by doing that, and we’re bringing it to your attention because we feel that it’s the proper way to do this, but what we’re saying is we’re doing this above and beyond what the Ordinance requirements are. MR. MAC EWAN-Most of these issues you’ve brought up are site plan procedural items. MR. HAGEN-They are. That is correct, but I just wanted to give you an overview. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess this here, the 1.2 acres you’re looking to get for this zone change, incorporates a 50 foot buffer that you’re going to enact, that wasn’t there before? MR. HAGEN-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a plus. MR. HAGEN-I might add, one other plus to this is that, for this type of use, in this type of zoning, there’s a requirement of, I believe, a minimum of 20% of non-hard surface or green area. Currently, I believe we have 7.8% of permeable area. With these changes, that’ll increase to 12%. So we’re not in full compliance, but we’re getting closer to where we should be. MR. DUTCH-Just a couple of small comments. I’m not authorized as a spokesman for Travelers, but I can tell you that this is the largest service center that they operate in the Country right now. They have five, and there’s very good chance, if we can accommodate Travelers’ requirements, which are more stringent than the Town’s, that there could be future expansion here in the, I think, not too distance future. We’ve also taken careful steps to design the facility and the expanded Travelers facilities by converting some other space, basically warehouse space we had in the back to a very attractive office park orientation, toward the woods and the Cemetery, and all of this flows together through a two story pedestrian bridge that we constructed so that an employer/visitor to Travelers can park either in the front or the back, which is why this space is so crucial to Northway Plaza., the expansion, and to the community. We feel it’s in, not only our own best interest, but in the interest of this area that we encourage Travelers to keep expanding, and to do that, we have to meet their present and future parking requirements. Our only options were to expand in the back here, and all of this does focus and orient to something that will work for Travelers, and that they have already approved. So, we’re hoping that you’ll understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question. Do you see the future of Northway Plaza heading in the direction of being more a business type Center than versus a retail Center? MR. DUTCH-No. We would like to keep the retail presence to the northwest of the Travelers building, and to try and encourage retail and service businesses that can interface and have some synergy with the number of employees of Travelers and others of our office tenants. I’m sure you’re aware that we have an office annex here, and this will always, in our opinion, be a mixed-use property, but never entirely office. We still think there’s a retail focus here, and we’re concentrating on that. We’ve had some bad breaks with Steinbachs and Ben Franklin and some things that are above and beyond our control, which we’re trying to rectify. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got any near plans to replace the Steinbach facility? MR. DUTCH-We are talking to some people, but it’s very crucial to us not to just throw anybody in there, but throw a business in there that will have some synergy with the rest of the Center, and fit in with the uses that we contemplate, rather than just be something that would be temporary in nature. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Has Travelers been, are they a party to this? Would they understand what you’re trying to do? MR. HAGEN-Absolutely, and what I wanted to tell you, when we negotiated the most recent expansion, about 21 months ago, we had intended to do our paving and involuntary renovation of the parking areas first, and Travelers has been very patient with us while we’ve been negotiating with the Town to try and acquire this extra piece, are we are now through two seasons, and I sort of have given my word I’m going to try and get this site work and paving accomplished before the snow flies. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) We're going to, to the best of our ability, to try and get this thing bid out, with the help and the cooperation of the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have one question Are you still going to keep all the ingress’s and egresses that are along Route 9, especially that, that little one right there that I think is an egress? MR. HAGEN-Okay. Let me explain. To begin with, the main entranceway with the traffic light, from Route 9, you’ll see no perceived difference, but internally, we’re going to add the island. Down here, this southernmost entrance, the width of the opening will remain the same on the State highway. What we’re going to do, as you come in to the property, create curbed island areas that will tend to channel people. That one right there, what we’re proposing to do is proposing to narrow it down and make it so that it’s strictly an exit only for northbound traffic. Right now, you can come in here. You can come in here, you can go out here, and it’s kind of a mess. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You can still go into that one? MR. HAGEN-Yes. It’s wide open. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I was wondering, because that is nasty. MR. HAGEN-It is, and the only reason we’re proposing to leave this as an exit only is you do have some people who are say using the Monroe facility who may want to come back out to Route 9, and not have to come all the way up to the traffic light, but the intent would be to restrict that to an exit only. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And are you still going to keep the one along the perimeter, the peripheral one, just the one that goes parallel with Route 9, that heads north, inside, once you’re inside there? MR. HAGEN-Once you’re inside, what’s going to happen is people will be coming in here, and they’ll be channeled up through the front of the Center. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, but are you going to keep the other one, the one that goes along, parallel to Route 9? MR. HAGEN-Okay. Right now what happens is there’s a drive that comes right along the curb line. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. HAGEN-By creating this island here, we’re preventing people from going that way. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s what I was wondering. MR. HAGEN-And what we’re actually going to do is actually move that aisle away from the highway, and create parking spaces running perpendicular to the property line. So the idea is that the through traffic comes through here in a more controlled manner, and it’s just not running through the middle of a field of parking. MR. DUTCH-Just as quick comment, you might tell them we’re going to eliminate that ugly yellow freestanding sign, which has been painted over there. For years, it used to be a revolving sign for Montgomery Wards auto center, and we’re going to propose to replace it with an attractive driver eye level yard sign for Travelers, to identify Travelers. That will also be another improvement here. MR. PALING-Overall I think it’s a great project. I use the Center a lot, and the improvements you’re making are going to be real good, maybe even look at what they’ve got at the Post Office, too. I've got one question. The dimensions of your parking spaces, tell me that again. Aren’t you being a little tight? MR. HAGEN-Lets put it this way. Parking spaces, and I do a lot of work throughout the State, vary anywhere from eight foot to ten foot in width. The norm is probably nine foot, which is your Town standards. There’s a lot of municipalities where eight foot six is the minimum. However, for it to work, what we’ve found is if you put a single stripe, you’re going to have a problem. People don’t line up properly. By providing the hair pin detail, which we’ve got on the second drawing, in fact, at the top of the drawing right here is a detail that shows the double stripe, this detail right here. You’re eight foot six, center to center, but then you have two little four-inch stripes separated by a four-inch space. So it’s effectively a 12-inch line. It helps people line up better. MR. PALING-And the depth is 18? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. HAGEN-The depth is 18, and then our parking aisles would be 24. MR. PALING-Where is the 24 measured from, right here? MR. HAGEN-No. Twenty-four is measured from the end of the eighteen-foot space to the next space. This shows on the main site plan. Right here. MR. PALING-Yes, but I’m talking back here. MR. HAGEN-Actually, back here we would have a wider drive. I don’t have a dimension on that, but it’s closer to 28 foot for that main drive going through at that point. MR. PALING-I think this is as important as the width, is the distance between the two, of the swing you’ve got to get in. MR. HAGEN-Right, and I think what I’m saying is that this drive here is actually more width than the 24-foot. The 24-foot would be out in the main parking field. MR. PALING-Because the parking lot south of you is pretty bad. It’s improved some, but their dimension was too tight, and it’s just tough. MR. HAGEN-I don’t know what their dimensions are. What this does is provide you with 62 foot for the overall double parking bay. MR. DUTCH-Which is about two feet. MR. HAGEN-More than normal. MR. DUTCH-The other thing is that most of this field of parking remains in place all day long. They come in and they stay all day. This is more of the transient turnover parking. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-You have an eight six width here. Our standard is nine. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t need a variance for that? MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I was going to ask. You’ll have to get a variance for that? Well, again, the point I was making earlier, is that by Ordinance, for this size facility we’re required to have 1400 spaces. I have gone through the calculations, and I’d be glad to provide a full plan, that shows we can provide 1433 spaces, using a nine foot space. What we’re proposing to do is, at our own discretion, to change that to eight foot six, so that we can pick up some additional parking, but that we’re in excess of what’s required by the Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-The Ordinance requires that the parking spaces be nine foot wide. That’s an issue where you’re going to need to get a variance from that, or clarification or determination from the Zoning Administrator. So prior to making your application for site plan, I would encourage you to give Laura a call and sit down with her and see if that can be made a determination by the Zoning Administrator. MR. HAGEN-I think, when we had a meeting with Chris Round, and the feeling we got back from him was that was not going to be necessary, since we’re in excess. MR. MAC EWAN-You just need to get that clarified before you come and make application to the Planning Board. MR. HAGEN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so you know your T’s are crossed and your I’s are dotted. MR. HAGEN-Sure. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else from the Board members? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment to this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHUCK MC NULTY 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. MC NULTY-I’m Chuck McNulty. I live in the Twicwood area. I guess to start with, a question. The piece of property that is going to be acquired and rezoned, does any portion of that border on anything other than the Cemetery? MR. MAC EWAN-This 1.2 acre parcel, Chuck, as far as we know, is all Cemetery property, Town property. Is that not correct, the 1.2 acre parcel? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. It doesn’t border any other residential areas or anything like that? MR. MAC EWAN-No. The only other parcel that they talked about, that they didn’t want to get into, is what they labeled as Parcel Number Three, which is just under a half acre. They’re negotiating with the landowner now to purchase that, but that’s for another time and another place. MR. MC NULTY-That’s a different location. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. My main concern was there, is as some of you know, the 50 foot buffer between a commercial area and an honest to goodness residential area is insufficient. One other comment, I heard one justification for the Town selling this piece is because it’s not usable for the Cemetery because it’s so close to the commercial plaza. Well, now they’ve got another strip of Cemetery that’s not going to be usable because it’s still close to a plaza. They’ve just moved the unusable piece of property, the width of this piece in. That’s an issue for the Town Board, not for you guys really. MR. MAC EWAN-Just a thought, along those lines, though, looking at the topography of the area right there, it looks like a very steep slope. It would make it probably virtually impossible for the Cemetery to utilize that property. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess my other comments fall more into the Site Plan Review, but given an opportunity to put some thoughts out for these guys before they come back in. They mentioned putting stop bars on their parking lot. There are people, especially during the winter around Christmas time that use the Northway Plaza that are not familiar with it, and snow tends to cover stop bars. What they need, if they’re going to have stop areas, is stop signs, not stop bars. They also need to paint them on the correct side of crosswalks. I don’t know if you’ve cut in and gone up toward the Post Office, but the first crosswalk you come to, the stop bar is on the far side of the crosswalk. If they’re going to have stop bars on crosswalks or stop signs, they ought to have them coming both ways. They’ve got two crosswalks and one direction doesn’t have to stop. The other direction does. So if they’re going to do it, they need to do it right. Also, they need to think about how fast they’re going to slow cars down coming off Route 9. I understand the need to stop, slow cars down, but right now they’ve got a stop bar, if I remember correctly, halfway down the entrance road coming in off Route 9 by the traffic light. That’s downhill. In the winter it’s going to be icy. It’s a stop bar. Right now it’s going to be covered with snow anyway, but if they put a stop sign there, it’s going to be a problem for people stopping. So I guess what I’m encouraging is some real common sense on placement of stop signs and things of that sort. MR. MAC EWAN-These plans that they have for revitalizing the parking areas are pretty ambitious, and I think they’re going to address every one of those issues, including slowing down traffic coming off of Route 9. Just the total traffic management plan that they’re putting forth in here looks like a real good plan. MR. MC NULTY-It sounds like a good idea. One other final comment. I’m not sure about dimensions on parking slots in there, but I can tell you that what is there now, from my experience, is the absolute minimum space that you need to get into the slot. So, if they’re going to make the width of the slot smaller, as some of you mentioned, they need to pay attention to the distance between the parking rows, so there’s enough room to swing without having to stop and back up to get into a parking slot. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. MR. MC NULTY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Come on back up to the table. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. HAGEN-If I could just address. Thank you for your comments. Number One, I talked about stop bars, but we also plan to do stop signs, and yes they will be coordinated. So, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Number Two, maybe to clarify things, the way the parking lot is striped now, it is nine foot spaces, but I believe they’re nineteen or twenty foot spaces in depth, with a twenty foot aisle. So what we’re proposing to do is go to the eighteen, twenty-four-foot aisle and eighteen, with the eight foot six space. So that does facilitate the ability to turn in to the space. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. For one, you’ll look into the variance issue, because it may apply. MR. HAGEN-I understand. Those are technicalities. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add? Questions, comments from the Board? Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a recommendation? MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD APPROVAL FOR PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ 5-99 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck. MR. HAGEN-Thank you. MR. DUTCH-Thank you. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE – PZ 1-99 SANDRA COMBS OWNER: SAME CURRENT ZONE: LI-1A/SR-1A PROPOSED ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF A PORTION OF A 23.40 +/- ACRE PARCEL FROM LI-1A/SR-1A TO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL 20,000 SQUARE FEET. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION 227.1999 WARREN COUNTY: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-20.1 LOT SIZE: 23.40 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-19 DENNIS DICKINSEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change – PZ 1-99, Sandra Combs, Meeting Date: August 17, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to rezone a portion of property on Sherman Avenue. The proposed zoning is from Light Industrial to Suburban Residential 20,000 square feet (SR-20). The Town Board has referred this application to the Planning Board for recommendation. Staff Notes The zone change would allow for construction of residential homes. The surrounding area is predominantly residential homes. Many of the properties in the area are less than one acre. The proposed change would be consistent with the 1988 Comprehensive Master Plan to change a portion of Sherman Avenue to a zone compatible with the existing lot sizes. The zone change would appear to have a positive effect on a residential neighborhood. The zones that currently exist in the area are Light Industrial One Acre, Single Family Residential One Acre, and Suburban Residential One Acre. The comprehensive plan identifies an area along Sherman Avenue near the Northway that may benefit from rezoning residential to light industrial. Therefore there would be no net loss of industrial lands. Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the requested zone change.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. DICKINSEN-My name’s Dennis Dickinsen. I’m a licensed land surveyor and engineer with D.L. Dickinsen and Associate, and I’m the representative for Sandra Combs. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours. Tell us about the petition for rezoning. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. DICKINSEN-I couldn’t say it much better than Laura already did. Sandra has a piece of property that’s highlighted there on the map I just put up. She owns this piece, which is highlighted. She also owns several pre-existing parcels along the road that she has sold off. She acquired the property through a lawsuit to recoup some of her financial losses, from an attorney. It’s been zoned Light Industrial. She’s had it for quite a while. She’s marketed it heavily for Light Industrial, had no interest from anybody. Recently, we’ve come to the Town, and with their new zoning study, we’ve worked with the Town planning group have it rezoned and our request, we believe, is in line with the recommendations of the study that the Town had done. Most of your are probably more familiar than I with this area. This is Sherman Avenue. The Northway is right here. We're west of Sherman Avenue. This area is pretty intensely developed as well as this entire area, very dense, single family development. Burnt Ridge, which is next door to us, is a duplex subdivision. This area still light industrial as a trailer park with access off the Luzerne Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Just maybe as a little bit of brief history on that parcel being light industrial, with the 100 foot buffer required makes it pretty much virtually impossible to develop, really, without acquiring the other two or three parcels of light industrial area around it. Is that not correct? MR. DICKINSEN-That is correct. They had it listed with a realtor and did extensive advertising trying to get somebody interested in it. The other thing is, the Northway is real close, but the Northway entrance/exit isn’t, and that’s what really hurt us. If you’re on the Luzerne Road, you’re in a lot better shape. Zip down the Luzerne Road, jump on the Northway. If you’re up here, you’ve got to go all the way around. So that was the, I think, the biggest problem, as far as Light Industrial zoning. There was no access. Personally, having been out there quite a bit over the last couple of years, it sure looks like a residential area to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-I couldn’t agree more. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question for Laura. How long do you think it’ll take for us to shift that over on that Sherman Avenue, in accordance with the new Comprehensive Plan? What has to be done to get that industrial land zoned? MRS. MOORE-Make application, and that’s something that the Planning Staff can work on. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because you make a good point in here. It’s a one for one trade. I’d like to just maintain the Light Industrial land that we have so we don’t give any away, but this looks like a fair swap to me. So long as this portion of it is pursued somehow or other by the Planning Staff. MR. RINGER-Well, you’ve got a Committee that’s going to be studying the rezoning, and I imagine it would be done at that time. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would hope so. MR. RINGER-For the recommendations, anyway, would come out of that. MR. MAC EWAN-What Committee? MR. RINGER-I got a letter, recently, from Chris that they were establishing a Committee to look into the rezoning. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s adopting new zoning ordinances. MR. RINGER-Yes, well, I would imagine they would look into the rezoning, too, I would guess. MR. VOLLARO-Well, my only interest is this last paragraph is not dropped through the cracks some day. MR. BREWER-Also, and not necessarily an even swap for that, maybe there’s other property in the Town that should be rezoned, like you said, to Light Industrial, that are more appropriate now than were years ago. Maybe closer to the Carey Industrial Park. That’s starting to take off. MR. DICKINSEN-Laura, I thought that was included with this application the, zone change, the Light Industrial, yes. MRS. MOORE-It wasn’t included. Just your request was included. That’s it. MR. DICKINSEN-Okay. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MRS. MOORE-It’s something that the Planning Board can recommend to the Town Board, in this review. I have a comment that I sent to the Town Board in regard to this application, and I believe the Board members received it, but I can read it back into the record, so that you can get the gist of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? Bob? MR. PALING-It looks good. As this neighborhood has developed, I think it’s a good bet. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Board members? We’ll open up the public hearing. If anyone wants to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. Come right up to the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB HARGRAVES MR. HARGRAVES-My name is Bob Hargraves, and I live on 42 Upper Sherman. I had purchased one of those parcels from Sandra Combs, and I had a couple of concerns. One was, if you rezoned this, how would she access her property? There are a lot of houses on Sherman, and where was going to be her access point to her property? My second point is, when I purchased the property, it was in November of last year. Traffic was very light on Sherman Avenue. Come May and June, it’s like a drag strip. In fact, there were two accidents right across from the intersection of Leo and Sherman, right in front of my house, because Leo has one entranceway, and all the cars there try to come out and get into Sherman, and Sherman they travel at a high rate of speed all the time, and I've witnessed two accidents myself right there. That was my second concern, the access roads, where they’re going to be, and would they be impeding on Sherman Avenue. Those are my two questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get those answered for you. Anyone else? BOB KELLY MR. KELLY-My name is Bob Kelly. I also live on Sherman Avenue. I also bought one of these pieces of property, and I’d like to take a look at the map, if I could, just to see where one of the proposals is, if it’s possible. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome to. The shaded area is the parcel being entertained for rezoning, and that’s heading west, you’re pointing west. MR. KELLY-I believe, I had my house built, and I believe my house is on one of these proposed entrances to this property, and I literally built my house facing this road to be. So, I came originally, my original intention, I do want to be part of this development. When I built my house it was to be part of this, and I’m for it. A couple of other thoughts, this past summer, with this drought we’ve had, there are a lot of the three wheelers and four wheelers out there running around in this back property. I've been afraid of sparks starting forest fires and everything else. I believe this road is going to be, I’ll be on a corner lot. So I am for it in that respect, plus the fact that, as I say, the activity on this back property, it needs to be developed. It’s no good the way it is, as far as nobody back there, the kids just run wild back there. That’s my only comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. MOORE-I have a letter. “Dear Board Members: We are writing in regards to property ID # 121-10-999, currently zoned SR-1 Acre, located on Smoke Ridge Road in the Town of Queensbury. We would like to apply for the rezoning of 121-10-999 to SR-20. Presently, the subdivision contiguous to this parcel, Burnt Ridge Subdivision, is zoned SR-20, of which all of the existing houses are duplexes. Gerry Beres”, and they’re adjacent to the proposed rezone. MR. MAC EWAN-They have that parcel that they just cited is zoned light industrial right now? MRS. MOORE-No. Their entire project is zoned SR-1 Acre. There may be a sliver of it that’s zoned light industrial. They’re interested in being rezoned to SR-20 as well, because past, when Burnt Ridge was approved, it was in SR-20. MR. BREWER-Don’t they just have to submit application? I mean, we can’t. MRS. MOORE-They’re aware of that. I said if they wish to comment in regard to this application, they’re more than welcome to. This is what I was sent. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you know if they’re going to make application? MRS. MOORE-I do not know. I also have my letter to the Town Board. Do you want to me read that in? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-It’s addressed to the Town Board, “Sandra Combs submitted an application (PZ 1- 99) to change a portion of property 93-3-20.1, from Light Industrial one acre to Suburban Residential 20,000 square feet. The Planning Committee and Staff completed a site visit and an examination of the comprehensive plan. Based on this information the change of zone would not have a negative affect on the available Light Industrial lands. The comprehensive plan indicates that some properties along Sherman Avenue should be rezoned from residential to light industrial. There would be no net loss of acreage for either residential or light industrial. The attached map shows the existing zoning and a suggested zoning of properties in the area including the referenced properties. I would recommend a portion of the area north of Sherman Avenue be included in the rezone.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Now I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like you to respond to the ingress/egress question that was regarding. MR. DICKINSEN-I don’t know how complex you want to get with this little tiny map here. MR. MAC EWAN-Not too. MR. DICKINSEN-Good. Fortunately for Sandra when she bought this property, it had four 50- foot wide access points from the rear of the property through these little tiny lots that are along the road. Of those four, we have salvaged two for our proposal in the back, and if you were to really squint, you could see we have 50 foot here, I believe it’s Kelly, he’s right here on the side of this first 50 foot entrance. We’ve brought a simple loop road in. It would come back out over here, just opposite this Howland Street. It’s a little offset, but it’s there and we’re stuck with it. It’s 50 feet wide. MR. MAC EWAN-Fifty foot is going to be wide enough for you to meet the Town highway requirements, easements and right-of-ways and such? MR. DICKINSEN-Yes. I’ll have to agree with Mr. Hargraves. As a surveyor, I spend half of my life standing on the highways and by-ways, and I want to tell you, there’s a lot of traffic everywhere, and nobody drives very slowly or cautiously. There’s traffic on here. It’s a main artery into the City from out in Queensbury. There is traffic in here. Fortunately, where we are, the road’s quite straight, good site visibility, and it is flat. So obviously, I’m not going to argue with him. He’s right. There is a lot of traffic, but we do have those assets. We have brought a pretty detailed plan in to the Planning Department and have discussed these issues with them. We feel we’re in pretty good shape. The last item is this area in the back here is presently being well used by motorized vehicles, predominantly. About two or three o’clock in the afternoon when school gets out, they pour across the road from over here, and they’re everywhere. Summer, fall, winter, spring, it’s non-stop. There are a number of people that do utilize this Niagara Mohawk right-of-way for walking, cross-country skiing. Part of our plan is to secure this right-of-way, and make it less accessible for the ATV’s, the snowmobiles, the motorcycles, and have a little more control over what’s going on back there. MR. MAC EWAN-When you come up with a good plan, let me know. I’d like to do it in my neighborhood. MR. DICKINSEN-Well, here it is in a nutshell. We own the property where the power line. We're the only one on that entire right-of-way that actually owns the land. NiMo has a right-of-way over us as opposed to them owning land and we have a right-of-way through them. It’s reverse in our situation. So we have the ability to do more things than people normally would with Niagara Mohawk. We’ve been in touch with Niagara Mohawk and we have a proposal with our subdivision to secure this area, and we can do it, easily. I think that covers all the issues. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we have that luxury in our neighborhood, do we? MR. BREWER-No matter what you do, you’ll always have them, but development slows it down a little bit. Once you build the houses and get the road, people live there, they’re less apt to come in 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) people’s yards. They’ll do it once or twice. I’m in constant contact with the Sheriff’s. I know, with the motorcycles. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put up a recommendation? MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD APPROVAL FOR PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ 1-99 SANDRA COMBS, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To approve the change of zone from Light Industrial One Acre/SR-1A, proposed zone SR-20. Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-There you go. Good luck. MR. DICKINSEN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE – PZ 6-99 DR. KENNETH HOPPER OWNER: SAME CURRENT ZONE: SFR-1A PROPOSED ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF 37.5 +/- ACRES OF VACANT PROPERTY FROM SFR-1A TO SR-1A. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION 228.1999 WARREN COUNTY: 8/11/99 TAX MAP NO. 115-1- 1.31, 2.1, 32.1, 36 LOT SIZE: 37.5 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-20, 179-19 MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are we doing Dr. Hopper? MRS. MOORE-Hopper is not on, but do you want me to read his letter into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, could you? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is from Levack Real Estate, addressed to Mr. Round, “I’m writing to withdraw the request for a zone change on Dr. Kenneth Hopper, Sherman Avenue property.” MR. VOLLARO-That’s it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we ready to discuss? I’ll tell you what happened. John Lemery and John Collins asked to sit down today with Chris Round and myself, regarding a pre-application meeting. They kind of have come to the conclusion they think that they’re inclined to want to prepare a Generic Impact Statement, because we’ve been looking at that. What they are proposing to the Board is the following. Incidentally, there are two parking areas they don’t have approval of. They’re utilizing them. They were put on notice today to not use them. What they’re proposing to the Board to do is this. They have two immediate water rides they want to put in, that they are looking to make application to get on September’s agenda to get approvals, so that they can commence construction of these two replacement existing rides, as they call them. One of them is a twelve passenger water ride called “The Shoot”, and the other one is called a “Speed Slide”, which is basically a flume type thing that you just go down without a raft or a mat. They call them capacity rides, and John Collins said they needed the capacity in the water park area because there’s just too many people cueing up and they figured if they have these capacity rides, it helps disburse the crowds. What they’re prepared to do, in exchange for wanting to come and make application for two site plans, is that they will put together a plan to develop the west portion of Route 9, between Route 9 and the Northway, up and including a proposed hotel/motel complex, whatever you want to call it, the walkway over Route 9, and overall plan, as he labeled it, for the Park, and preparing a GEIS. That’s part of what they want to do. The sense that I got is that John Lemery is still reluctant to want to go this route because he feels that, with the Park itself, that it’s not subject to the segmentation portion of SEQRA, that he feels that he can argue that, you know, they can do this, but he also recognizes, I think, that it’s the Board’s determination that we want to see an impact statement done to kind of take them through the next few years, but what I threw out on the table, what we had talked about, and I realize everything was just idle discussion by the Board with no foundation to it, I think a good idea would be to put together something like a generic impact statement that would give them like a five year window of development within the Park, within certain thresholds, and that can be put together so that you can not exceed certain noise levels, and 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) that you can do this, do that. There’s a lot of things that you could put into that. We discussed that we thought that the two biggest issues that the Planning Board was going to be interested in was noise and traffic, and they kind of made comments that, well, you know, there’s been concerns about crowds and how many people in the Park, and I don’t think that’s really been a major concern with anybody on the Board, whether they’ve had 100,000 people in there or 10,000 people, it’s how you’re getting them there, and how much noise they’re making. That’s kind of the sense I've gotten from the Board, and I kind of relayed that to them, and I said I would come back to you guys tonight, present all this to you, and kind of get some feedback on it. I will add to it what John Lemery said, and this is where you come into the picture, is that, and this is his argument on segmentation. He said a few years ago, when they were putting in the Noah’s Sprayground and the Black Cobra water ride, Reverend Canterbury, over on Glen Lake, and Gary Koncikowski from Water Slide World, filed an Article 78 against the Town, and he said that you had written a brief for part of the court proceedings that said that it wasn’t segmentation. So I guess I need to get clarification on that, and maybe some feedback on that, and then I’d like to hear everyone’s comments. MR. SCHACHNER-Clarification and feedback is simple. There was an Article 78 proceeding filed by the Reverend Canterbury and some other Glen Lake neighbors. My job is to represent the Planning Board to the best of my ability. The Planning Board’s instructions to me at that time were, represent us to the best of your ability. Don’t concede anything. Try to win the case. In order to do that, that required us to try to convince the court that there had not been any errors of law. We were successful in convincing the court of that, and we won the case. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we open this all to discussion, my position to John Lemery and John Collins was that I wasn’t sold on this idea of doing the two site plans now, come back and we’ll do a GEIS. I said I think the Board is pretty adamant about the position that we want to see it start now. We don’t want to put it off. Their concerns are, you know, you get into the construction season, time frames, timetables, dealing with winter coming and cost of pouring footings and such like that. They were concerned about, as it was put, 50 people coming out of the woodwork opposed to it, 50 people coming who are in favor of it. Everyone having an opportunity during the Scoping Session, public comment period, being able to put in their comments and everyone having to address them, and I assured them. I said, you know, that’s part of the process. You have to take the good with the bad, and that’s to be expected. I mean, you know, as far as, and I tried to entail to them that one of the best Environmental Impact Statements that I've seen put together sitting on this Board that’s come along was Lowe’s. That was done right. It was done very well. All the questions were answered, and that went through relatively fast, as far as EIS’s go. MR. BREWER-I don’t like the one word you said in “exchange”. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, me either. MR. BREWER-I don’t like that not even a little bit. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s the way it was kind of put to me. MR. BREWER-I’m just speaking for myself. I think John Lemery, if he wants to build two rides, let him be like everybody else, put an application in, and if he gets turned down, or if we tell him we want a GEIS, then that’s the way it should be. He should come to the full Board and tell us what he wants to do, and we’ll tell him what we want. I don’t want any part of exchange. I don’t even want that word mentioned when I’m around. I mean, that is, and I’m sure he meant that. I’m sorry, I don’t want any part of it. That’s my opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine. Larry? MR. RINGER-I think if we’re going to consider anymore additions to the Park, rides or whatever, it should be a meeting open to the public, and I think I would want an EIS. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that, wasn’t there some proposal that they were going to put out where they were going to state way an Environmental Impact Statement wasn’t needed? MR. MAC EWAN-I asked that question today. They were supposed to supply a narrative supporting their. MR. VOLLARO-To you. Weren’t they going to supply that to you, Mark? Wasn’t that something that? MR. SCHACHNER-Not that I’m aware of. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR. VOLLARO-Not that you’re aware of. MR. RINGER-Just for the parking, as I recall. MR. MAC EWAN-They were going to, the last meeting we had with them last month, that Laura sat in on, they were going to put together a narrative, Jack Lebowitz was going to do it, supporting their position that they, as replacement of rides and attractions inside the Park were not subject to SEQRA review, are not subject to segmentation of SEQRA, they could substantiate it. So we responded to them, if you have a narrative that you want to put together, send it up here. Send a copy to Chris, send a copy to Mark. Let them review it. It never came. I asked about it today, and he said he’s withholding it to see where things go. My guess is that he knows where things are going to go, that’s why he’s withholding it. MR. BREWER-I’m not saying exchange of rides. He never told us what he’s taking out. MR. MAC EWAN-This case, they’re not taking out anything. I asked them. MR. BREWER-How are they exchanging? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I thought in your comments you said this would be replacement. MR. MAC EWAN-He said possible replacement of existing rides in the water park, and I asked him what rides in the water park were they going to be replacing, as the conversation went on. I mean, it wasn’t answered right at that point, but I went back to him and I said, what rides are you, is this replacing rides, or are these new rides? And he said, we’ve got room in there. We think we’re going to put two of them. He said they’re actually not new rides, this is John Collins speaking now, The Shoot ride is a used ride they’re buying from someone else, but they’re doing it, in their position. MR. RINGER-It seems to me, maybe they should come here. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, they want to know, do they have to start the ball rolling to start preparing an application, with the intention that they’re going to have to do an Impact Statement, and the message I want to send to them tomorrow is, yes or no, and I think it’s going to be overwhelmingly yes. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s time for an Impact Statement. MR. PALING-The conversation you had with them, the results are too vague, really, for me to try to do anything with it. I guess I have to revert back to what we’ve said before. Either they’ve got to come in and have a meeting like that with us, or just go for the EIS and get it over with. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, my concerns are, if we give them the opportunity to come in here and have a meeting with us to try to do a sales pitch here, there’s some movement that there would be an indication from this Board saying come in, you might be able to sell us on the idea, and I don’t know if I want to go that route. MR. BREWER-No. We want to know what they want to do, Craig. I mean, if they’re going to replace something, okay, they’re going to replace something. That’s not necessarily going to say that you have to or don’t have to. I would like to know what they’re going to do. I can’t just say, we’re going to put in two water rides and okay you don’t have to do an EIS, or yes you do. What is the magnitude of it? MR. PALING-What is their objection to doing an EIS? MR. SCHACHNER-One of the things I think that the Board may want to be mindful of, a couple of things. The first thing. We don’t, right now as we sit here, have the authority to say, we demand an EIS, because we don’t have an application before us. If the applicant wants, the applicant has the right to submit an application, to have us review the application, and at that time determine whether or not an EIS is required. However, the SEQRA regulations expressly allow the applicant to take it upon itself to prepare a draft EIS and submit it with the application. My big picture comment here is that this particular applicant seems extremely intimidated by the SEQRA process, and you’ve heard this applicant’s representative state that the SEQRA process will take many, many months and many tens of thousands of dollars. I think I even heard them throw around a six figure number, not even five figure numbers. A responsible applicant has an opportunity here to not prolong the agony, so to speak, and take several months to force this Board to reach a SEQRA determination. If the applicant wants, one of the ways they can streamline the SEQRA review process is to simply concede, at the outset, we’ll be preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and get to work. I do this all the time in my private practice. If I know something’s going to require an Environmental Impact Statement, I go to the Planning Department and I say, I’m not going to bother submitting an 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) Environmental Assessment Form and having the Board, whatever Board it may be, take one or more months reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form and struggling to make a SEQRA determination, deciding whether an EIS is required or not, because I’m involved in a, whatever it is I’m involved in, and I say, I would rather just do the Environmental Impact Statement, get the ball rolling, and then streamline the process. The point I’m making is that, it’s up to the Board, and you do, by the way, you certainly can give the applicant informal feedback. There’s nothing wrong with that at all, but the applicant certainly has the right to stretch this out, during the course of a formal application review process, if it wants to. If it does that, the SEQRA process will take longer. If you want to give the applicant informal feedback in the direction of an Environmental Impact Statement, a responsible applicant that wants to get going on something, will get going, and the SEQRA process will be streamlined. The law expressly allows bypassing of the Environmental Assessment Form stage and going right to the Environmental Impact Statement, and applicants do this all the time. MR. MAC EWAN-I know that both Chris and I really tried to reiterate that to them today, that, you know, the impact statement timeline can be as short or as long as they want to make it, make it as cumbersome as they want to make it, and make it as easy as they want to make it, and one of the things that John Lemery said was, well, one big concern is going to be traffic. One big concern is going to be noise. He said, how do we deal with noise? So he started citing some information that evidently they must have pulled of the Web or something like that regarding some noise ordinances recently adopted throughout the State by area municipalities, namely Saratoga Springs, Poughkeepsie, a couple of places downstate, small villages and stuff like that. About half his listing he said that they’ve already been proven constitutionally, I forget the phrase that he used, that they were just unconstitutional, the noise ordinances. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I mean, I can shed some light on that, if you like. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-And I’ll do it very simply, and I have said this, some of you may have heard me say this in meetings of this Board, but I've certainly said this at many meetings of both this Town Board and Town Boards in other towns. Noise ordinances that are framed in adjectives are generally deemed to be unconstitutional because they’re too vague. What I mean by framed in adjectives is, noise ordinances that say, no disturbing noise, no annoying noise, no unduly disturbing, unduly annoying, too annoying, adjectives. Noise ordinances that are phrased in adjectives are usually found to be unconstitutional because they’re too vague and too subjective. Noise ordinances that are phrased in the objective criteria of noise measurements, like decibel limitations, especially ones that have different thresholds and different limitations for different locations and different hours of the day, are almost always, if not always, held to be perfectly valid and constitutional. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Along the issue of noise, where his concerns were, as far as putting together an Environmental Impact Statement and addressing the issue of noise and decibel levels and ambient noise levels and all that sort of thing, he would rather see the Town adopt a noise ordinance. So, on one hand he’s saying they’re no good. On the other hand he’s saying, gee, it would be a lot easier for everybody if the Town had something to adopt. So then we have a guideline to go by and something to gage what’s a nuisance and what’s not a nuisance by, and I told him, I said, that could, with potential for a change of Town Board here in the next couple of months, could never come to fruition. I mean, the Town Board has started to make the initiative to look into adopting a noise ordinance, but literally, that’s probably a year, two years away, before it ever would be adopted. So, I’m getting mixed signals from him. I want to go back to them tomorrow, call Chris in the morning and say, what is our message back to them. MR. BREWER-If he wants to, bring an application in. We’ll tell him whether we want a GEIS or not, or an EIS. I don’t have any idea what it is, Craig. MR. VOLLARO-I've read the SEQRA law, and I think it allows the municipality, if it so desires, to write an Environmental Impact Statement themselves, generic or otherwise, in other words, to take the lead in doing it. Is that true? MR. SCHACHNER-A SEQRA lead agency always has the option of preparing a Environmental Impact Statement itself. No SEQRA lead agencies ever do that, not literally none, but very, very, very rare does that happen, for two reasons, one very obvious one, which is the expense. Most lead agencies, I mean, 99.9% of SEQRA lead agencies feel that the expense should be borne by the proponent of whatever it is that’s triggering the need for the EIS. MR. VOLLARO-Why can’t the expense be transferred? If we decide to take the position of starting off a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, why can’t the expense of that action be passed to the applicant? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MR SCHACHNER-There’s no provision of law to do that. The only way that could happen would be if the applicant agreed, and I will tell you that, I’ll put myself in the applicant’s position. I would never agree to that in a million years, because it would be a blank check. MR. VOLLARO-So what you have, as an applicant, now, you really have a large measure of control, if you want to drag your anchor. You really do, in time. The timeline just gets very long, if you’re uncooperative. The municipality is struggling at this point. MR. RINGER-He can’t get anything approved. So he’s not at an advantage. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I’m agreeing with Larry, and I’m not following you, Bob. When you say the applicant can drag this out, the applicant can drag it out all they want. They can not apply and they can not get something approved, like Larry said. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s right, but so far, they’ve gotten everything approved, up to this point. MR. RINGER-You can’t fault the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-You can’t fault the applicant, I agree with Larry again. You can’t fault the applicant for that. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. MR. SCHACHNER-It sounds like a pretty good job by the applicant, to me. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the impression I've gotten from this Board for several weeks now is that we’re not prepared to move on any further development within Great Escape’s confines without seeing an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. BREWER-I didn’t say that. I want to see what the rides are, Craig. How can we say that we won’t? MR. MAC EWAN-Segmentation. Our attorney’s advised us that if we continue doing this sort of stuff, it’s segmentation of SEQRA law. MR. BREWER-Did you say that? MR. SCHACHNER-I've said it two or three hundred times. MR. BREWER-If they put another ride in there, that’s segmentation? MR. SCHACHNER-He just summarized very well what I've said, I think 300 times in the last, I started representing this Board April 17, 1994. So I just finished five years. So in those five years, I would say I've said what he just said 300 times. MR. BREWER-If they put another ride in there, that’s segmentation? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not what he said. That’s not what I said. What he said was that I have previously advised the Board that the pattern of continuing to add rides and attractions to this large facility, in my legal opinion, will be difficult if not impossible to successfully defend against a SEQRA segmentation attack, if somebody brings one. I thought he said it better than I did, actually, but that’s pretty much what the Chairman said. Is that a fair statement? MR. MAC EWAN-Close enough. So based on that, I don’t want to break SEQRA law. MR. BREWER-I don’t either. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So the message I’ll send to them tomorrow is go ahead and make your application, take your chances, but we’re probably very heavily leaning toward looking for an Impact Statement. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think if that’s the Board’s feeling, that’s a very reasonable way to phrase that, because you don’t have the authority right now to bindingly, we could not, for example, take a vote right now and say, look, we want an EIS, because we don’t have an application in front of us, but if the Board agrees with what the Chairman just said, then what you’re doing is you’re helping the applicant by giving them informal guidance that will substantially streamline the SEQRA process. By substantially, it seems to me there’s a two months savings right out of the shoot, because you don’t have to go through review of an Environmental Assessment Form. You don’t have to prepare an Environmental Assessment Form. You don’t have to review an Environmental Assessment Form. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) You don’t have to make the initial SEQRA determination of significance, and again, just so you are comfortable. You’re not going out on a limb in doing this. The SEQRA Regulations expressly authorize an applicant to furnish an Environmental Impact Statement with an application, without forcing the lead agency to make any formal determination requiring it. So if you want to streamline the SEQRA process, that’s one way to do it. MR. PALING-What I could live with in this situation is if they would commit to us for a complete EIS, then come in for an application for the parking lot which I could approve for the rest of this year, pending the outcome of the EIS, and then let them come in with the new rides after that. MR. MAC EWAN-Considering the fact that they didn’t come in here and make application this month for the parking lot, and it doesn’t look like they’re going to make application next month for the parking lots, they gave the indication, today, that they haven’t been utilizing those lots at all. MR. PALING-They haven’t been utilizing them? They’re full of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I reminded them that two weeks ago I visited The Great Escape and it was directed to park in the Kay’s Motel parking lot. MR. SCHACHNER-They used them today. I happened to have driven Route 9 today, which I almost never do. They used them today. MR. MAC EWAN-I think there’s a sense of having to be, a willingness by the applicant to be straightforward and forthcoming with what their intentions are. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not in the enforcement business, and I never drive Route 9. As it happens, I did today, and they definitely were in full use today. MR. BREWER-It’s like, I don’t remember how many years ago, they had a condition not to park over by the wetlands, and they’ve been parking over there for years. MR. MAC EWAN-My response to them, with everyone’s blessing, will be to go ahead and make application. You’re going to take a chance, but the Board still seems to be leaning very heavily toward wanting an Impact Statement. Are we all in agreement on that? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and you might want to add to that that the Board feels that they can substantially streamline their process if they just do an EIS. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have something else. Was this given to us today, on Rich Schermerhorn’s little hiland springs? Well, it must have gotten mixed in with my stuff, but I just saw it. Now he doesn’t have to come in front of us? MR. RINGER-He will at site plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’s already part of the PUD. So he still has to come before us for site plan? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know, he still has to come before the Planning Board. MRS. LA BOMBARD-He does? Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-He definitely has to come in front of the Planning Board for site plan approval, no if’s, ands or buts. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, he’s talking about townhouses. MR. MAC EWAN-They will be, according to what he had given to the Town Board, and we will hold him to it. He had told them that the design standards that will be utilized for this part that he’s going to be developing will be in harmony with what the original intent of the PUD was for. So they are going to be Tudor style, in line with what the original Hiland Park PUD called for for that portion of the development. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, because I know we don’t have an architectural review board, and I was wondering how far are we going to just. MR. MAC EWAN-We are the architectural review board. MR. SCHACHNER-And just for the Board’s benefit, that concept that Craig just referred to was specified and stated at the Town Board meeting when the Town Board adopted its resolution, two weeks ago, confirming that Schermerhorn could proceed with the project, proceed meaning he can go to the next step. One of the next steps is, in fact, site plan review by this Board. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Coming to us? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so we get this down. You’re suggesting that he can streamline his application process by submitting an EIS, a Draft EIS, with his application? MR. SCHACHNER-Just as the SEQRA Regulations state, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-If the Town Board does the rezoning on the Cracker Barrel, the Cracker Barrel has to come back to us for site plan? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, to build a restaurant, sure. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a zone change. MR. SCHACHNER-The zone change authorizes a bunch of different uses, and if the zone change happens, then when somebody wants to go do one of those uses, it’s subject to site plan review, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-See, that’s what people are very confused about. People have said to me, and I've learned this through my campaign efforts, is that you approved a zone change for the Cracker Barrel. No, we did not. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/17/99) 41