Loading...
1999-06-15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK TIMOTHY BREWER ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER ROBERT PALING PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 20, 1999: NONE April 27, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 20. 1999 AND APRIL 27, 1999, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN NO. 52-98 EXTENSION REQUEST WISWALL CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING APPROVED ON 9/22/98 EXTENSION REQUEST TO 9/30/2000 AL BLUMBERG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 52-98, Wiswall Center for Independent Living, Meeting Date: June 15, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant has requested an extension of Site Plan 52-98. The proposed playground was to be completed by June 30, 1999 according to the Planning Board resolution dated September 22, 1998. Staff Notes: The applicant is in the process of obtaining funds to build the project. The retaining wall and the sidewalk have been constructed so far. Since a portion of the project is completed the Board may consider phasing the project. Phasing the project may aid in timely completion of the project and maintain the site in an appropriate manner. The site was subject to a landscape modification in September of 1997. The plans addressed an area of the site that was graveled. The gravel removal and the plantings to be installed along Glendale, as identified in the Site Plan 72-96 modification, have not been completed. The resolution for modification is included. Recommendation: Staff would recommend granting a one year extension with the condition the area between the side walk and the curb cut along Glendale Road have the stone removed and installation of the plantings, topsoil, and sod be completed according to Site Plan 72-96 modification of landscaping.” MRS. MOORE-Would you like me to read his letter into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Mr. Round. “I herewith request an extension. Circumstances beyond our control have made it impossible to meet the original date. We have just received our physical plan and have completed all site work. Our hope is to actually begin installation in late fall, 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) and continue until completion in Spring of 2000. We will adhere to whatever formal process you would like us to follow.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BLUMBERG-Good evening. My name is Al Blumberg. I am the Director of Physical Development at the Wiswall Center. MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re looking at an extension for one year? MR. BLUMBERG-Yes. I’d like to be able to complete it in the fall of the following year. We just, this last two weeks, received the grant application from the State Department, Rec Department. Betty Little and myself have been chasing the application since January 1 when it was supposed to st be in our hands, and because of this we’ve lost the entire year. It will be another three months that the application is due back in now, at August 18, because we won’t hear back from them until mid- th September or something like that. Just as a bonus, and the fact of the matter is I can’t stand looking at it, the front yard will be completed in the next several weeks. That will be graded and seeded. MR. MAC EWAN-Once you actually start construction, how long do you think it will take to complete? MR. BLUMBERG-That’s the hardest thing in the world. We have so many people who want to be included in the actual nailing of the nails. Besides the entire Kowanis Club of Glens Falls, which is 150 people, Fleet Bank’s employees want to be in on it. Lowe’s want their employees to be in on it. So I don’t know, there’s not going to be room for more than 15, 20 people nailing at the same time. So I don’t know how we’re going to work it out. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Historically, we don’t grant extensions, I don’t recall ever granting an extension beyond a year. Do you, Tim? We have done it before? MR. BREWER-You mean at a time? More than a year at a time? MR. MAC EWAN-At a time, yes. MR. BREWER-No, a year at a time is what I can typically remember. When does your extension run out now? MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t. It’s just the original site plan. MR. VOLLARO-It was to be completed by June 30. th MRS. MOORE-It runs out in September. MR. BREWER-Why would they need an extension if they’ve started some of the work? Typically, if they start the work, the it’s in process, isn’t it? MRS. MOORE-I wouldn’t consider this starting work. I would consider implementation of the playground as starting work. MR. BREWER-They’ve done grading and landscaping. MRS. MOORE-But they haven’t obtained a building permit to construct the playground. MR. BREWER-Okay. So if they got a building permit, they could go get a building permit, which you have to get anyway, then they would have a year from that date, right? MRS. MOORE-You granted him, the Planning Board made a deadline to him, and he’s not able to meet that deadline. So he is asking the Planning Board for an extension. He hasn’t completed the playground, which is due on June 30. th MR. MAC EWAN-So we’d be looking at granting an extension to June 30 of the Year 2000. th MR. VOLLARO-Could we get just some clarification on the recommendation that Staff made, with the condition the area between the sidewalk and the curb along Glendale Road have the stone removed? Is that what you’re talking about, before? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. BLUMBERG-The stone’s already been removed. All I've got to do now is fill in the dirt and plant the seed. The work has been ordered. It just hasn’t been completed. We have a couple of dead trees also that the landscaper was supposed to replace it, and I call him, not daily, but more than often. MR. RINGER-You’ve seen the Staff recommendations? MR. BLUMBERG-No. MR. RINGER-Maybe you want to take a look at it and see if, it’s on the bottom. They want you to plant some seeds and soil. MR. BREWER-So you just want the landscaping done before the end of June, is that what you’re saying, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I’m concerned about the area that’s between the sidewalk and the curb cut. Right now it contains a lot of gravel, and our recommendation last year was for him to remove that. MR. BLUMBERG-The gravel is gone. The gravel is gone and the dirt is going in and the seed is going in in the next two weeks. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. BLUMBERG-The gravel we dug out of there when we did the wall. We picked it up and put it in. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. BLUMBERG-If you notice, when you go by, the trees are sticking. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. RINGER-That’s your recommendation, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. PALING-I have no objection to the extension, but I want a clarification on how phasing might enter into this thing. MRS. MOORE-Phasing, with the project that’s going in, depending on what units go in first, like the whole, I don’t know if he intends to complete the entire project in one summer, versus putting, there’s different units in this project. So one play toy may be installed so many months or something to that effect. May Al can answer that. MR. BLUMBERG-Maybe I can just talk to them for a second. We have to pour all the foundations for the posts to build all the platforms and rampings, and we have to do that first before we can pour the rubberized flooring that’s going to go in, to handle wheelchairs and canes, crutches. So everything has to be done at once. When the posts get poured, the posts have to be in already. Then the struts have to be put in to keep the posts apart. So it’s going to have to be built all at once. MR. MAC EWAN-With the amount of volunteers they have, they should be able to put it up in about 15 or 20 minutes, wouldn’t you think? MR. BREWER-If there was room, right? MR. BLUMBERG-Lowe’s has agreed to take the whole thing in at their docks, and pretty well assemble it and just roll it on down the street. So we’re going to, yes, it’s going to fly. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. MR. PALING-It sounds like phasing isn’t necessary. MRS. MOORE-It doesn’t seem appropriate at this time. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Does someone want to put a motion up? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MOTION TO GRANT EXTENSION FOR THE WISWALL CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING – SITE PLAN NO. 52-98, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until June 30, 2000. Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Al. MR. BLUMBERG-Thank you for your time. SITE PLAN NO. 35-92 HOWARD CARR/QUEENSBURY PLAZA APPROVED ON JUNE 16, 1998 EXTENSION REQUEST TO JUNE 30, 2000 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-92, Howard Carr/Queensbury Plaza, Meeting Date: June 15, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant has requested a one year extension of Site Plan No. 35-92. Staff Notes: The applicant is in the process of obtaining the title to a portion of Bank Street prior to construction of the site plan. The applicant has indicated the project is intended to begin within the next 12 months. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the extension request.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper. This project, this part of it, was approved two years ago. So it’s already been extended once for this. The ’92 was when we did the Olive Garden, and then Red Lobster, and now this building in the back. I have a copy of the site plan. So immediately behind the Red Lobster in the back, Evergreen Bank is here, Bank Street. We’ve been negotiating with the Town Board to purchase this portion right here, which is an unnecessary “T” intersection that was there before the Plaza was built, so that plows can turnaround. About a month and a half ago, we came to terms with the Town Board, a purchase price, and the Town now has to declare that surplus property and sell it. That’s undergoing the legal work in the Town Counsel’s office. The owner of the Plaza is negotiating with a tenant for the space, and we’re very close to a lease, and we expect that within the next, really, two to three months we’ll be back before the Board because we’ll have to amend the site plan, most likely, just a little bit, in terms of the footprint, based upon the tenant’s needs, and it will be constructed after that. So we’re pretty close, finally. The other thing I wanted to show you, if you’ll recall, and for the members of the Board who weren’t here at the time, as a condition to this approval, you required additional substantial changes to the plan. It’s been approved, of course, all along as to the new tenants went in, but this involves increasing the width of that main drive, which is the Bank Street extension going to the driveway, making it 24 or 26 feet wide, and including significant street trees to make it look like a boulevard, just visually, so that it’ll look like an extension of Bank Street and be a lot better for traffic because of the extra width. So this is going to continue to clean up the Plaza. MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, without looking at the resolution we passed, there was also significant change to the planter islands in there and removal of the yellow painted rocks, and pressure treated timber and so on and so forth. MR. LAPPER-Some of that already has started. The area in the back that faces Quaker Road, there was an issue. When that was done, it wasn’t properly done in terms of the soil. So they had to remove a bunch of asphalt, reseed that, plant trees. That happened last year, just because it needed to get done, visually, but there are other improvements, as the Chairman’s mentioning. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions from the Board? Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 35-92 HOWARD CARR/QUEENSBURY PLAZA, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: The extension will be to June 30, 2000. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 66-98 MODIFICATION CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK NORTHEAST POWER SYSTEMS OWNER: CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: LOT 8, CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION INVOLVES TURNING THE BUILDING 90 DEGREES, AND REVERSING THE ENTRANCES. TAX MAP NO. 137-2-1.1 LOT SIZE: 43.05 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 TED BIGELOW & PETE STOICHUK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is no public hearing scheduled tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 66-98, Northeast Power Systems, Meeting Date: June 15, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan. The new plan reconfigures the facility and site work to have access on the Native Textiles Road. Staff Notes: The proposed modification is still in compliance with the Light Industrial Zoning. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the modification.” MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it for your comments? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BIGELOW-Good evening. I have Mr. Pete Stoichuk, the principal with Northeast Power, and myself, Ted Bigelow. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your modifications? MR. BIGELOW-Yes, sir. I think you all have a copy of the plans in front of you. As you can see, the original plan showed the building being, the long side, being parallel to Carey Road, and what we’re proposing is the same building, same plan, but turning it 90 degrees, keeping it within the same envelope with the same setbacks. The reason for the request for the modification is that when the plan was originally drawn, a wrong measurement was pulled off of the plans on Carey Road. We used a figure of over 300 feet, when actually there’s only about 180. So we didn’t find the mistake until the builder was actually out there laying it out, and once we found the mistake, we just held everything up and found the mistake and trimmed the building, and it fits, and now the other change would be that the main entrance would be off of Carey Road, and the truck entrance would be off of Native Textiles’ road. The front of the building will now face Carey Road. We think it’s actually a better plan this way. MR. BREWER-I would agree. I think it’s a better plan to have the tractor trailer traffic in where the other building is, instead of on the main road. MR. VOLLARO-And you’ve widened that up to 30 feet from the previous 20 foot. MR. BIGELOW-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-For the tractor trailer entrance, and put a little wider radius on those curb cuts. MR. BIGELOW-It works much better. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think so anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments, questions from the Board? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would just like the applicant to give us a quick overview, it has nothing to do with this application. That 4500 square feet of potentially expandable space that sits there, what do you see on a time line for that, if anything? I guess I've got to ask the principal that question. MR. BIGELOW-Yes. MR. STOICHUK-I guess there is no time line. It’s just that, I mean, we’ve been growing. So the possibility of needing more space, more manufacturing space, it’s probable that we’re going to need that in the next couple of years, and that’s why we kind of have the envelope there, is to say, this is what our maximum expansion can be here. MR. VOLLARO-So your business plan shows a sufficient expansion, or a high probability of building that extra building? MR. STOICHUK-Yes. There’s certain components in our business right now that we do not manufacture that we may manufacture in the future, and if we do that, we’re going to need that additional space. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now the present use of the building is roughly, what, 10 employees did we say? In other words, where you are now in your business plan, you’ve got about somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 plus or minus employees? MR. STOICHUK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And that new addition, if you start manufacturing, how many more employees would you think, just roughly? MR. STOICHUK-Well, that 10 would probably include some of the manufacturing inside. We’ve got room here to do some manufacturing inside, but if we increase it, it would be more. I don’t have a number. MR. BIGELOW-They wanted to make sure that their future expansion would fit within the existing envelope. So that’s why you see that on there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can see it just makes the setback, but I was just kind of looking from a Town point of view, to the future, where you intend to take this business. MR. BIGELOW-Because it’s a corner lot, we’ve got two 50 foot setbacks, instead of a 50 and a 30. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see that. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 66-98, CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK/NORTHEAST POWER SYSTEMS, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To rotate the building 90 degrees, and we also find that there is no significant impact on the SEQRA findings, as written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 66-98; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/26/99, consists of the following: 1. 5/29/99 – Letter from T. Bigelow to Planning Bd. w/3 maps dated 5/18/99 (proposed) and 1 map dated 11/25/98 (existing) Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/15/99 - Staff Notes 2. 6/3/99 - Meeting notice letter Whereas, a public hearing was not held 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 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) 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 the modification to Site Plan No. 66-98 or Carey Industrial Park/Northeast Power Systems. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. BIGELOW-Thank you. MR. STOICHUK-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 23-99 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION JEFFREY SCHWARTZ OWNER: CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOTS 4 & 13 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION INVOLVES REPOSITIONING THE STRUTURE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION 6-87 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-1.2, 1.1 LOT SIZE: 26.10 AC., 43.05 AC. SECTION: 179-26 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-99, Jeffrey Schwartz, Meeting Date: June 15, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan. The intent is to re-position the structure and site work to accommodate utility hook up. Staff Notes: The proposed project still meets the zoning requirements of the light industrial zone Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the modification to the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Read in the Rist-Frost letter of June 10. th MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Mr. Round. “We have reviewed Morris Products, Inc. site plans dated May 30, 1999 and letter dated May 31, 1999 submitted in response to our comment letter dated May 21, 1999. The additional details and the change in the building location are acceptable, however we would suggest that the roof be sloped to the north side of the building. The applicant did not include pavement details or stormwater management plan calculations, but has requested a waiver from providing a stormwater management plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SCHWARTZ-Hello. My name is Jeffrey Schwartz. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Basically what we’re doing is when I was here last month we had the building over here, and when we got into it, we found out that there’s no Niagara Mohawk utilities over here. So there is utilities over here. So we would have had to dig a trench all the way around here, and there’s nothing at all over in this road. So we decided that, for cost reasons, we had to 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) move it over here. We really wanted it here originally, but for cost reasons, we decided to move it over here, and that’s basically the reason for the change. MR. MAC EWAN-Has Staff reviewed this as far as its comparison to the original site plan approval? No changes, just mirrored on the other side of the lot? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-I see Rist-Frost’s comment on the sloping of the roof to the north side. If you take a look at your building, your planned view of the building, it actually shows it sloping to the south. So the plan is not in conformance with what Rist-Frost is recommending. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Our future plans, we plan to, at some point, add on to the, we’ve got it sloped that way, because in the future what we want to do is maybe add it this way, and come back that way. So we’d lose all that. We couldn’t add on to the building. MR. VOLLARO-That’s one of Rist-Frost’s recommendations is to slope it the other way, and I think that has to do with the next question, and that’s that big retention pond you have out in the back. He’s looking to slope that roof so that the water runs toward that retention pond. I think that’s Rist- Frost’s comment. MRS. MOORE-But that’s a suggestion. So, I've spoken with Mr. Schwartz about this, and I’ll let him explain the rest. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHWARTZ-If you look at the slope, also, in the back, we’ve got it coming around. We’ll grade it so it’ll head to that direction. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This is a flat building. So 90% of the water is going to run to the south side of the building, off that sloped roof, and then you’re going to take it around the building after it gets, falls off the south side, and bring it around, northbound and into the retention pond? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn’t you just, I just have something about the retention ponds. It’s not you, it’s everywhere everybody puts them. Why wouldn’t you push that water, I mean, you have enough land that you could push that water out like a sheet and let it just go into the ground, because the soil is so sandy there. I don’t really see a need for a retention pond. MR. SCHWARTZ-Well, one reason we’re doing it, too, is we’re going to use the dirt for fill, to raise the building up. So we actually have two uses. I don’t know if we really need the retention pond, because it is very sandy there anyway. MR. BREWER-Yes, that’s my thought. MR. SCHWARTZ-But we want to, we’re going to use it for fill, also. MR. VOLLARO-That would be a reason. Right now they’re requesting relief from a stormwater management plan. If there is good perc in there and it’s sandy soil, it seems to me that a stormwater management plan could quickly state that. Clean that portion of it up. MR. BREWER-Were there any perc tests done at all? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. There was one done, I think in one of your, here it is right here. MR. BREWER-I mean, just I know from experience that it’s all sand there. MR. SCHWARTZ-There was one done originally when they, see, they approved this, the whole subdivision, and there was a whole, actually, they had done typical drawings when Rist-Frost originally, Rist-Frost originally drew this and approved it, 10 or 15 years ago, and had done all these testings and stormwater management and all that back, you know, when they first did the subdivision. So actually all the figures that we have were done by Rist-Frost, actually, that they had done previously. We put it in there because we figured it is a good way for the water to go in. I 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) don’t know if we definitely would need it, but, you know, we figured it was a good use because we could use the soil, use the dirt to raise the building up and save on some costs there. MR. BREWER-Why do you want to raise the building up? MR. SCHWARTZ-Well, we have to have the loading dock. MR. BREWER-All right. I wasn’t here when this was originally approved, but I just have something about digging a hole and filling it with water. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a swimming pool. MR. BREWER-Yes, but this doesn’t have a liner. MR. RINGER-Yes, but they’d only fill it if they had excess water, and they’re not going to get the excess water. MR. BREWER-That’s my point. Why do they need to do it? MR. STARK-What’s that, the retention pond, Tim? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. STARK-They don’t need a retention pond. The water would soak right in. MR. VOLLARO-That’s probably true, and if you had a stormwater management plan that said those words, just quickly. MR. STARK-On the modification, just state that. MR. VOLLARO-How does Staff feel about that? Do you feel okay with the bypass of a stormwater management plan? MRS. MOORE-Based on what the perc tests are and based on the size of the lot and the size of the building, I didn’t. MR. RINGER-When they expand, they might need something. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. If he expands in the future, where it takes up the majority of that lot where the permeability becomes an issue then I could see. MR. VOLLARO-Is 1.6 typical, or, because there’s only Test Hole #2 at 1.6. Is that typical of the drainage throughout the lot? MRS. MOORE-I believe so. MR. BREWER-I would say that it’s all the same out there, Bob. I mean, that whole part of the Town is nothing but sand. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you utilizing a french drain type arrangement to get the water to the retention pit? MR. SCHWARTZ-What is a french drain? MR. MAC EWAN-Stones building a trench, and you usually have some sort of a drainage pipe in there. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. We were just going to swale the property to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 23-99, JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As prepared by Staff. There’s no significant change to the original SEQRA findings. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 23-99; and 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/1/99, consists of the following: 1. 5/31/99 – Letter from J. Schwartz to Planning Board w/data information and 3 maps dated 5/30/99 – Topography, Site Plan, and Elevations and 3 maps of previous subdivision, Carey Ind. Park Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/15/99 - Staff Notes 2. 6/3/99 - Meeting notice letter 3. 6/10/99 – Rist Frost comments Whereas, a public hearing was not held 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 the modification to Site Plan No. 23-99 for Jeffrey Schwartz. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. SCHWARTZ-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 24-99 TYPE II MARY MATTSON OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, APA, LGPC LOCATION: 361-363 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A U-SHAPED DOCK WITH SUNDECK. COVERED DOCKS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL PER § 179-16. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 14-1-6 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 KEVIN O’SHELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-99, Mary Mattson, Meeting Date: June 15, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with a sundeck. Staff Notes: The applicant has complied with site plan review requirements relevant to construction of a boathouse with a sundeck. The plans identify the square footage of the dock (576 feet), the height of the sundeck (13 feet), and the setback of the structure to the property lines. The project does not appear 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) to be a visual interference to neighboring properties. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Didn’t you have something from Warren County in here? MRS. MOORE-Yes. No County Impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we can get it on the record. Good evening. MR. O’SHELL-Good evening. My name’s Kevin O’Shell. As a preliminary matter, I just wanted to bring it to your attention that I received a copy, or I received the Lake George Park Commission dock permit yesterday, and I have three copies. I didn’t bring enough. MR. MAC EWAN-Just give one to Staff. MR. O’SHELL-The proposed project basically differs from the Lake George Park Commission Regulations, in that the Town of Queensbury requires a maximum of 13 feet in height for the covered sundeck, whereas the Lake George Park Commission permits up to 16 feet, and you will note that on the plans it shows that we are in compliance with the Town of Queensbury requirements. MR. PALING-It’s 14 feet. MRS. MOORE-It’s 14. MR. O’SHELL-It’s 14? MR. VOLLARO-It’s 14 feet here. So you’re a foot under. MR. O’SHELL-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t go adding an extra foot, though. MR. O’SHELL-I must have the old reg’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-I had one, on my old plan. The piers are connected on the lake front. How do you do that? How do you connect those piers together? MR. O’SHELL-To be honest with you, I really have no idea. MR. VOLLARO-Not that it would effect this, but it’s kind of interesting that the piers are connected on the lake bottom. That’s kind of an interesting way to do it. I just was wondering how you’d maintain rigidity. It’s not going to bother this application. It was just something I was interested in. That’s it. Nothing else. MR. PALING-Just a comment. I think a few of your neighbors have gotten a little creative up there, in so far as shading is concerned. Anything above what’s on your plan would be a violation. I think you realize that. Any roofing or whatnot above it. MR. O’SHELL-Above? MR. PALING-Fourteen feet, or above, in this case thirteen feet. MR. O’SHELL-Okay. MR. RINGER-We saw some places up there with canopies over the sundecks and so on, and it was a concern to us. MR. O’SHELL-The intent of the owner, and also the contractor, is to construct the deck according to the plans that we submitted. I haven’t heard anything. MR. PALING-That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess we’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA. So we need to have someone put up a motion. MR. O’SHELL-Actually, I did have to submit a SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Not on a Type II action. MR. BREWER-It just comes in the packet. MRS. MOORE-You’re right. It just comes in the packet. MR. O’SHELL-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-99 MARY MATTSON, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: With the resolution as written by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 24-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/26/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/drawings 2. Map dated 1/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/15/99 - Staff Notes 2. 4/22/99 – K. O’Shell from B. Wieczorek, Office of General Services 3. 6/9/99 - M. Gallagher, LGPC from L. Moore 4. 6/8/99 - Notice of public hearing 5. 6/3/99 - Meeting Notice letter 6. 5/26/99 - LGPC Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/15/99 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 Site Plan No. 24-99 for Mary Mattson. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. O’SHELL-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 29-99 TYPE: UNLISTED MARK SATTLER OWNER: GEORGE ROOP ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 438 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR A MEAT BUTCHER SHOP/DELICATESSEN. RESTAURANT IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE CR ZONE AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 111-4-2 LOT SIZE: 1.11 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 MARK SATTLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-99, Mark Sattler, Meeting Date: June 15, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to operate a delicatessen in a portion of an existing building. Staff Notes: The applicant met with Staff prior to submission to discuss the proposed use, access, and parking. The applicant intends to sell meat products, including sandwiches, and prepared steaks. Upon a site visit there appears to be adequate parking for the delicatessen. The plans show an outside cook area where certain foods will be prepared. The Fire Marshal has indicated there are no fire code issues as described in the attached letter. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the condition of governmental agency (NYSDOH or Department of Agriculture and Market) approval as applicable to the handling and distribution of meat products.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could you read your memo of 5/27. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have 5/27. This is a memo addressed to Mark Sattler from Laura Moore. “The Planning Office has received your site plan application for a meat butcher shop/delicatessen. We understand there will be no changes to the site, however the plans should demonstrate site adequacy for the proposed use. Your plot plan should clearly show the following. Wastewater disposal facilities, internal layout of the entire building, identification of each business use on the property, access to the site, identifying curbcut width, sign design, type and size, parking spaces; standard 9’ x 20’ show five spaces, one of the spaces must be a handicap space 13’ x 20’, outside cook area The above information is to be submitted by June 1, 1999 by 9:00 a.m” MR. MAC EWAN-Now he wrote you a response on the 31? st MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you read that one in, too, please. MRS. MOORE-This is to Mr. Round and Ms. Moore “Please accept this letter as response to your memo dated 5/27/99 in regard to 438 Dix Avenue the new location of Alley’s Place. I trust my answers to your concerns are satisfactory. Wastewater Disposal Facilities: Town water at site. A new stainless steel sink to be installed. Internal layout of the entire building: Internal layout of Alley’s Place enclosed. Any other internal layout questions, please contact Mr. George Roop at Hess Ice. He is the owner of the property. Identification of each business use on the property: Alley’s Place is a butcher shop/delicatessen. Any other business identification on the property, please contact Mr. George Roop at Hess Ice. He is the owner of the property. Access to the site: identifying curbcut width: 80 Feet on Queensbury Avenue; 30 Feet on Dix Avenue. (Note on map) Sign design, type & size: Lighted sign, 8 feet in length; 6 feet in width. (Please see attached) Parking spaces: Designated on the map. Outside cook area: Designated on the map. Near outside exit with a fireproof canopy. I hope I have provided all relevant, specific information for decisionmakers on the Site Plan Review/Town Board. I thank you all for your time and anticipate a favorable response. Sincerely yours, Mark B. Sattler President” MR. MAC EWAN-And then you’ve got a letter from Kip Grant, May 18. th MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Mr. Sattler. “I am writing in response to your proposal to cook on a “gas grill” outside your proposed location at Dix and Queensbury Avenues. As we discussed in person yesterday, there would be no fire code issues should you choose to cook meat on an LP gas- fired grill similar to those used residentially, and using a 20 pound propane cylinder, providing: 1. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) Using common sense, such cooking takes place a reasonable distance from the structure to protect it from the cooking fire. 2. The cylinder relief valve is 3 ft. horizontally from a building opening lower than the valve (such as a doorway); and 5 ft. horizontally from any exterior source of ignition, opening to direct vent appliances, and mechanical ventilation air intakes. You mentioned the possibility of an overhead canopy to shelter the cooking area. I am unable to find any requirements regarding the type of construction of the canopy, although again common sense would favor a non- combustible type of construction. Be aware this information is written with fire safety in mind. Your proposal would still, of course, be subject to review for compliance with various Town regulations. I would suggest contacting the Planning Department for starters.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And we had something from the County that said No County Impact? MRS. MOORE-No County Impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. SATTLER-Hi. Good evening. Mark Sattler. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your proposed project, Mr. Sattler? MR. SATTLER-A meat butcher shop/deli shop. I’m trying to provide USDA inspected meat products, good price, good customer service, and hopefully give a good addition to the community, aside from Grand Union, Price Chopper and Shop N’ Save. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m curious about the outside cooking facilities you’re proposing? MR. SATTLER-There’s just two items I want to cook there. One is hot dogs, 3/99 cents, an extra 50 cents for the Hormel Chili Sauce, and the other is steak, two different types, a low end, low budget steak and a high end, Delmonico Porterhouse Steak. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m assuming that would be done seasonally? MR. SATTLER-Year round. MR. MAC EWAN-Year round. MR. SATTLER-I don’t own the building, I rent it. So I was first considering cooking it indoors, and that’s about $8,000 to install this with the ventilation and the fireproof, all the stuff that you need with that. So I figured this would be an easier way to do it, and a more cost-effective way to do it. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess that’s all I have for the time being. Any questions? MR. BREWER-Yes. Is there going to be anywhere for anybody to sit down and eat? MR. SATTLER-It’s going to have two picnic tables out in the front there, with two little umbrella things over the picnic tables. It’s really a fast-food type of, it’s not a sit down restaurant. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess I’m wondering, what about the wintertime, if I go over there on my lunch hour and I want to buy a steak? MR. SATTLER-Yes. The Fire Marshal mentioned that for a couple of tables inside wouldn’t be a problem. MR. BREWER-Then does it become a restaurant? MRS. MOORE-There may be Codes, if he puts seats inside, I believe there may be some building inspection codes that he has to comply with. MR. BREWER-It doesn’t become another site plan if he has a restaurant atmosphere? Doesn’t he have to have bathrooms and? MR. SATTLER-There is a bathroom inside the place. MRS. MOORE-Well, it becomes building inspector issues, and then, he has to comply with the building inspection. My understanding is that there was no seats inside and that all seats were outside, basically. So, this is new to me. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. BREWER-We want to get everything out and straightened out before we approve this and then go down there some day and see tables and chairs and everything inside. MRS. MOORE-You could say, you could provide. MR. BREWER-I don’t care if he does. I just would like to know what he’s doing, that’s all. MRS. MOORE-Okay. If that does happen, then he would have to come back here for a site plan modification, as well as update his building codes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RINGER-If he put tables inside he’d have to come back for, why? MR. BREWER-It becomes a restaurant. MRS. MOORE-If it becomes a full scale, sit down, he has to come in for compliance. MR. RINGER-We distinguish, in our Code book, between a deli and a? MRS. MOORE-No, I’m just, I would look at it and say that he has to come back for a modification because it’s a change in his site plan that you approved. Because if you approve it with seats inside, then you can do so. MR. RINGER-Normally when we see a site plan, we wouldn’t shows seats inside. We’d look at a building. MRS. MOORE-But he hasn’t proposed any sides. MR. BREWER-Yes, but what’s the use, Larry? The use has something to do with it, to me. I mean, if he’s going to have a stand there and sell meat, you go buy the meat and leave, then that’s one site plan. If you go to a restaurant, order your meat and sit down and eat and have a meal with your family, then that’s a different use, to me. MR. RINGER-I don’t see any difference between this and say the Hess Station right next door, where they have seats in there. MR. MAC EWAN-But that building is also complying with what the Ordinance and the Building Codes call for for inside eating. MR. RINGER-And this one would, too, from what Laura said, there’s no difference. The building inspector would determine if. MRS. MOORE-If it was in compliance. Currently, under New York State Building Codes, if he were to call that a restaurant per Building Codes, he’s not in compliance. So that’s why all of his cooking is outside. MR. RINGER-The cooking is what determines if it’s a restaurant or not? If he cooks outside, it’s not a restaurant? MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily. My understanding is when Dave Hatin spoke with him, certain things within the building need to come into compliance for him to be considered a restaurant under New York State Building Codes. It may include cooking and other items. MR. RINGER-I can understand what he’s saying. If he starts cooking inside, then he’s got to put this fan in there, and he’d have to have this special extinguisher and stuff, which is extremely expensive, then a restaurant, if he stays outside, he doesn’t have to do that, and that’s why he’s doing it, but I don’t have, I don’t see what this has to do with tables. MRS. MOORE-Right now he’s not proposing to have a sit down restaurant, full service. Once he puts tables in there and decides that he has a full service restaurant, then he would have to come in for a site plan modification. MR. RINGER-That’s what I don’t understand. MR. BREWER-It’s a different application. MR. RINGER-I don’t see that as different. MR. BREWER-Well, I do. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. RINGER-I mean, when we put the Hess Station in, that has a restaurant, they cook inside and they have tables. MR. MAC EWAN-We approved it for that purpose. MR. BREWER-They came in with the application that showed the seating. MR. RINGER-It didn’t show the seating. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it did. MR. BREWER-Maybe it didn’t show the specific seating, but the assumption of seating and cooking and whatnot inside, where he’s saying he’s going to do all the cooking outside. So my question would be, if I go over there in February, and I want to have a steak, I wouldn’t expect him to think that I’m going to sit down at a picnic table outside and eat a steak. MR. MAC EWAN-Eat quickly. MR. RINGER-I agree with everything you’re saying. All I’m saying is, if he put a table in there, what difference does it make to us? MR. BREWER-Because it becomes a different application, Larry. MR. RINGER-I don’t see it that way. MR. VOLLARO-The fact is that his internal layout doesn’t show tables. I mean, if he had plans on having people sit down, I would assume in his internal layout he would put. MR. RINGER-Normally, we wouldn’t get a site plan that showed an internal layout like he’s shown here. We would get a building. MR. BREWER-Red Lobster we did. MRS. MOORE-Yes, you do. MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t think we did. MR. MAC EWAN-Applebee’s we did. On that issue, just to add a footnote to that, you don’t show any indication on your site plan of any outside seating whatsoever. MR. SATTLER-I just thought it might be nice, when it’s nice out, to have a couple of picnic tables out there. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-But in order for us to review this, it’s nice to know what we’re reviewing when we sit down here tonight. It’s kind of like we’re planning the thing now, and that’s not really what it’s all about is to take your plan and see if it’s fitting in with not only the Zoning Ordinances and how compatible it’s going to be with fire and safety issues. So where do you propose putting these outside tables? MR. SATTLER-Right in the main entrance, on the left side and right side of the doors, I was proposing to put two small picnic tables, when the weather’s nice out. MR. BREWER-For safety’s sake, traffic and whatnot. MR. VOLLARO-Would those tables go in to the parking spaces that are, because you’ve got a handicapped space, did you write that in? MR. SATTLER-Yes. The handicapped is to the right side. MR. VOLLARO-The handicapped is right next to the main entrance, and then you’ve got parking in the front. So those tables would have to take up some of the parking spots do you think, or what? MR. SATTLER-Not really. I mean, there’s, if this is the door, just put the two smaller picnic tables, and then people could park, you know, right near there. MR. MAC EWAN-Your intent is also to have the seating on the inside as well? MR. SATTLER-My intent was never to have a full scale restaurant. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think the Ordinances or the building codes differentiate whether it’s a full scale, half scale or part scale restaurant. Are you planning on having seating inside for people to sit down and have a deli sandwich or whatever? MR. SATTLER-That was not my original plan. When the Fire Marshal came over, he suggested, my understanding, was that a couple of tables right in there would not be a problem. In terms of 20 different tables, that would be a full scale restaurant, and that would be a different conversation. That was what my understanding was with him. MR. MAC EWAN-Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter whether you have one table or twenty tables, it kicks it into that scenario. MR. VOLLARO-This conversation you had with Laura on 6/10, and I’ll just read this, it says “The proposed project will require a permit from the Department of Agriculture and Markets. The Department of Ag & Markets will review the existing septic system for capacity and compatibility.” You’re aware of that? You know that that septic system is going to be checked out, do you? MR. SATTLER-Yes. I talked to the owner, and I talked to his secretary also to try to get some more detailed, specific information on that, and when he purchased the property, he doesn’t have specific information on the septic tank or the size. There was another commercial business there before I was there, and the bathroom facilities were used. MR. VOLLARO-I wonder if that’s under any flat top or anything like that, it depends, but somebody’s got to. MRS. MOORE-If he needs information for Ag & Markets, there’s information in our Office that, I already spoke with Mr. Roop about this and I said, he’s more than welcome to obtain it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And Ag & Markets may not even need it. MR. VOLLARO-May not even need it. Yes, I just wanted to bring that to his attention so he knew that was a potential inspection. MR. MAC EWAN-Any approvals we grant tonight is not inclusive of that sign, right, that’s a whole different ball of wax? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-You are aware of that? That if we grant any approvals tonight, it does not include the sign? You have to retain a sign permit application. It’s a new different avenue. MR. SATTLER-Okay. I wasn’t aware of that specifically, but if that’s what I've got to do. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was just purusing over Fire Marshal Grant’s letter, and she says you mentioned the possibility of an overhead canopy to shelter the cooking area, and he said common sense would favor a non-combustible type of construction. Well, after all these years, I just bought a gas grill, because I've had a Jen-Air grill in my kitchen, for all the times I've built a house, and I finally went out and splurged and put one out on my patio on my deck, and the first thing in the directions which I just read tonight, by the way, was, do not put this under any kind of a canopy or roof. Keep it out in the open. MR. PALING-They build these under canopies all the time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gas grills? MR. PALING-Sure. Just go to LARAC for the first one there under the canopy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. Well, like I say, I never bought one because I like electricity, and even though I light my Bunsen Burners all the time in school, I really, you know, I’m just saying, he just said to use a non-combustible type of construction. So that means you’re not supposed to use canvas. You’re not supposed to use wood, you know, and I’m concerned about people, if they’re sitting there at picnic tables, how close they’re going to be to the gas grill. MR. SATTLER-There’s a side entrance, and that’s outside on the side entrance would be the gas grill and the little picnic tables. It would be on the other side of the entrance. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Which is how many feet, eight feet, ten feet? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. SATTLER-There’s a main entrance and there’s a side entrance, like 35 feet, approximately. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. I have this diagram here. Okay. MR. STARK-You’re not going to do any slaughtering there or anything? MR. SATTLER-No. It’s all USDA inspected. It comes from meat packing plants, and big companies like John Morrell and Hormel, New York Stock Exchange. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is this kind of like an offshoot of the little, the guy that sells the hotdogs down around there, Ronnie St. Germaine? He’s got his little hotdog stand that he puts on the corner there and he wheels it around. Is this going to be kind of like that, only not mobile? MR. SATTLER-I don’t know the gentleman’s name. There is a guy across a corner that’s got a little mobile hotdog stand, and when it’s nice weather, he goes over there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, people don’t have places to sit, and they just kind of buy their thing and kind of stand around and eat? MR. SATTLER-Yes, just stop by and get a hotdog, and they’re gone. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And this is basically what you’re proposing, except for a couple of picnic tables? MR. SATTLER-The bulk of the business is selling meat product, and it’s a delicatessen, and just two items to cook there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just two items. So if I wanted some cold cuts, I could stop by? MR. SATTLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So are you going to be preparing all of your salads and stuff like that there as part of the delicatessen, I’m assuming? MR. SATTLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-I’d like to have some things clarified, maybe by Staff. This is called a delicatessen and it’s referred to also as a restaurant. Now are we approving this as a restaurant/delicatessen, and if we are, which we’ve done before, but just hasn’t been called a sit down restaurant. I don’t think we’d tell him where to place the stools inside or how many or anything like that. So we’re approving a restaurant here. MRS. MOORE-You’re approving a restaurant with no inside seating. MR. PALING-All right. That’s different, but that’s the way I’d like, I’d like to see it approved that way, but we’ve just never attacked it that way. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess in my mind, our assumption of like an Applebee’s, when we did that, we’d just take it upon ourselves, we know they’re going to have an arrangement of tables and whatever, but we’re just uncertain here, because we’re going to have steaks, and then when it’s warm we’re going to put tables out. MR. PALING-If we can try to stipulate, no inside seating, then I don’t think I have any trouble. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know what Department of Health requires for food preparation facilities? MRS. MOORE-For how many seats? MR. MAC EWAN-For a delicatessen or a restaurant? MRS. MOORE-When I spoke to Brian Fear, he indicated that it would be a Department of Ag & Markets topic. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have any information from them? MRS. MOORE-And I haven’t spoken to anybody from Ag & Markets, no. I guess, what type of information are you looking for again? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he was saying that, his first comments were about having all the seating inside and saying, gee, you know, it’s going to be a great expense to do all of this modernization or facilities changing to accommodate the Code and stuff to have all this inside, and then he said that he wanted to start having just a couple of picnic tables outside and cook outside, to get away from that $8,000 or whatever expense it was going to be. My question is, is there requirements under the Ag Law, or Department of Health law, as far as having stainless steel facilities or whatever for food preparation? Whether it’s a walk-in take out delicatessen, whether it’s a sit down restaurant, or whatever. MRS. MOORE-I would have to speak with them, and maybe he’s dealt with it before. MR. VOLLARO-It looks like Brian Fear said that he would require a permit. So he still has the permit application? Because that’s what this says, “proposed project will require a permit from the Department of Agriculture & Markets”. MRS. MOORE-Brian Fear’s understanding is that the Department, the Department of Ag & Markets may not require, I don’t know the requirements. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see. So that’s, all right. Yes, I was looking that if Ag & Markets required a permit for this application, then that would be a, what’s your understanding? Would you make application to Ag & Markets for a permit? MR. SATTLER-Yes, I went down to the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets on Wolfe Road down there in Albany, and I talked to the guy, the head honcho there, and he’s got field representatives that go to different areas in New York State, and his field rep. came by, and he said as long as there’s a stainless steel sink installed, there wouldn’t be a problem. MR. VOLLARO-So he said you did not have to apply for a permit? So, in your mind, you don’t have to go for an Ag & Markets permit for this operation? MR. SATTLER-I’m not sure whether I need a permit or not from New York State Health Department on that. I know they come by periodically to inspect anything when it comes to food and food supplies to make sure that things are done right, and that the public well being of everything is done the right way. MR. PALING-Can’t we make the septic approval as well as the cooking be approved by the proper authorities, the DOH, in one case, and the local Department of Health for the septic system? Just make it a condition of the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you up to speed on this? MRS. MOORE-You’re asking if the septic system needs to be, right now it’s like a 750 gallon tank, that I’m aware of, from what we have in-house, but the way Brian Fear explained it to me is that it’s possible that he may not need to upgrade his septic system because of the extensive use. How extensive is the use going to be that currently exists there? If he sits down and has a full scale restaurant, I could see the extent being greater, but if he just has people running in and out, obtaining food, then it’s a less extensive use. So he may not have to upgrade it. MR. PALING-He does have to get it approved? MRS. MOORE-That, again, Brian Fear was not certain if Ag & Markets required them to have their septic approved for what their proposed use is. In the past, Ag & Markets has referred septic issues to the Department of Health, but hasn’t always. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a lot of unanswered questions here tonight. MR. BREWER-How does, let me give you an example that maybe we can compare this to. How does The Grill up there, how does he cook? I know he does outside, or does he do it inside? At Martha’s? MR. STARK-He cooks inside, portable wagons. MR. BREWER-I don’t know how he does it. I thought he cooked outside. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s got all stainless steel equipment in there. He has all the right fire safety equipment. MR. BREWER-I’m sure he does. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you up to speed on this? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’m up to speed enough I think to answer the second part of Bob’s question, if I understood it correctly, which is that you could if you wish, and I believe this is essentially the Staff recommendation, I think you could if you wish issue, as a condition of approval, compliance with whatever State agency requirement there is for the operation in question, whether it’s New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets or the Health Department. My own guesstimate, or my own prediction, is that it’s the Health Department, not Ag & Markets. I mean, I think you have the authority to do that if you want, which I think was the second part of Bob’s question, if I understood it, and he seems to be nodding. MR. MAC EWAN-How does everybody feel about the outside cooking and eating areas? MR. BREWER-As long as it’s done safely, I don’t have any problem with it, but how are we going to know it’s done safely? That’s my question. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of gas equipment are you using? I mean, just like a portable Strepto Grill or Weber Grill, something like that? MR. SATTLER-The exact brand name I haven’t decided upon yet, but it’s going to be a stainless steel one. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what you’re looking at, something like a home type use, right? MR. SATTLER-Well, better than a residential one, a commercial one that’s going to get a lot of use, but a stainless steel one that’s built quality, and probably cost about $2,000 to buy, approximately. MR. PALING-And it’s propane? MR. SATTLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And the seating, your two picnic tables are going to be right in the vicinity of the doorway area? MR. SATTLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Which will be on the Dix Avenue side of the complex, right? MR. SATTLER-Yes, on the Dix Avenue side. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Delicatessens have to be inspected periodically, inspectors come in. MR. BREWER-By whom though, Cathy? That’s what we don’t know. MR. SATTLER-The health inspectors come by all restaurants, from what my understanding is. I went down to the New York State Health Department, right here in Glens Falls, and they referred me down to Wolfe Road, the Department of Agriculture and Markets, and that’s where I got my information from. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Don’t they also go into any kind of store that’s selling meat and checking to make sure they clean their cutters correctly and? MR. SATTLER-Yes, the deli slicers and all. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But we don’t know what category this is going under, that’s the thing. MR. SCHACHNER-It sounds to me like you have two options here, as far as this particular concern. I mean, the things that all the Board members are saying are correct. We don’t know exactly which agency, and therefore we don’t know exactly what the inspection process will entail, and Tim and Cathy have both expressed concerns about that. If you have an independent concern that you want to know more about how safety and public health will be monitored, then obviously you have the authority to get more information about that, and to not rule on this application tonight. If you’re concern is not really a separate independent concern, you just want to make sure that whatever State agency has jurisdiction will approve the operation, then I think that can easily be handled just with issuance of an approval with the appropriate condition, and I think you have the authority to go either way on that. MR. PALING-The second option is the best. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I can live with that second option. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. BREWER-I can live with the second option, also, but my concern with the outside grill is, and I’m sure you’re going to use common sense, that the grill’s going to be here and to keep people away from the grill, because I know you don’t want to be responsible for anybody getting hurt. That was a concern I had, and the seating arrangement, not necessarily where the tables are going to be, whether you were going to have them or not. So I don’t care if we do it that way, it’s fine with me. The one last thing I’ll say about is the dumpster will be enclosed? MR. SATTLER-Yes. It’s a metal, enclosed dumpster. MR. BREWER-Enclosed by a fence. MR. SATTLER-Yes, I can get that done. MR. BREWER-That’s a requirement. MR. SATTLER-Okay. MR. BREWER-And that’s all I’ll say. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? We need to open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? Please come up and speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 29-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MARK SATTLER, 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. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-What was our conclusion regarding the septic? MRS. MOORE-Either the Ag & Markets will inspect it or Department of Health. MR. BREWER-How are we going to find out who does that? MRS. MOORE-That’s up to the applicant to determine. He needs to obtain a permit from, he needs to obtain something that says that he can prepare food there. MR. MAC EWAN-Wouldn’t that be the Town’s responsibility to determine if he needs a? Well, I guess I don’t want to say the word “responsibility”. I feel comfortable, sitting here on the Planning Board, to know what the requirements are to open up this business, if it’s up to him to go get the proper permits from the State, whatever agency is involved, I’d like to know that there are permits that he would have to get. How do we find that out? MR. BREWER-Have him give us those permits before he is allowed to open up. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Why don’t you phrase a condition along the lines of that the applicant is required to obtain the appropriate approvals, New York State approvals, and make that a condition, and that those approvals have to be provided to Staff, or to the Board, whichever you prefer, prior to issuance of whatever. MR. BREWER-Give them to Staff. We don’t need to see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up, then? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-99 MARK SATTLER, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As written in the resolution, with the following conditions: That the applicant is responsible for providing any necessary approvals for this application involving specifically the septic system and any items of health and food handling. Another condition is that this restaurant does not provide any inside seating, and that the dumpster shall be enclosed, probably by a wooden or metal fence. The outside picnic tables will be situated on either side of the main entrance. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 29-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/26/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map titled Lacinda Hess dated 8/16/83 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 5/12/99 – M. Sattler from L. Moore 2. 5/26/99 - C. Round, L. Moore from M. Sattler 3. 5/27/99 - M. Sattler from L. Moore 4. 5/31/99 - C. Round, L. Moore from M. Sattler – New Information 5. 6/3/99 - Meeting Notice Letter 6. 6/8/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 7. 6/10/99 - Record of Phone Conversation between L. Moore and Brian Fear, NYSDOH Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/15/99 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 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 29-99 for Mark Sattler. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. BREWER-Were we going to say anything about inside seating, or don’t we care? MR. PALING-All right. And another condition is that this restaurant does not provide any inside seating. MR. BREWER-Unless he comes back, actually. MR. VOLLARO-I think you want to put something about your enclosed dumpster in there, too, that the dumpster shall be enclosed. MR. PALING-Yes. That the dumpster shall be enclosed, probably by a wooden or metal fence. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. The outside picnic tables will be on the Dix Avenue side, away from that grill area? MRS. LA BOMBARD-He said 35 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so we have it delineated. There’s nothing marked on this site plan as to where they’re going to be. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Do you want to say on either side of the main entrance, as noted on the plot plan? MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not noted on the plot plan. MRS. MOORE-Either side of, the main entrance is noted. MR. PALING-Shall be situated there. MRS. MOORE-Situated, location of the tables is on either side of the main entrance. MR. BREWER-Does the applicant agree to that? MRS. MOORE-That’s what he’s indicated. MR. SATTLER-Yes. That sounds, no problem. MR. PALING-Okay. That’ll be part of the motion. MR. BREWER-Then we’re going to say that the tables are located on either side of the entrance? MRS. MOORE-Main. MR. PALING-The picnic tables will be located on either side of the main entrances. MR. MAC EWAN-Then I’ll ask another question, regarding the canopy over the cooking facility. How does the Board feel about that? MR. PALING-I think we should leave it alone. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. BREWER-If he does put it there, and it’s combustible, he’ll only do it once. MR. SCHACHNER-I think if you have that concern, you should make it a condition. MR. BREWER-I don’t know. George says they do it all the time. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not saying you should. I’m saying, if you have that concern about the combustibility of the canopy. MR. PALING-We always have a concern about that, but I don’t see where that’s our, we’re involved. MR. BREWER-Safety, Bob. If he’s going to be doing it outside. MR. VOLLARO-Kip Grant’s letter very clearly talks to that subject, in his letter of May 18. It says, th “You mention the possibility of an overhead canopy to shelter the cooking area. I am unable to find any requirements regarding the type of construction of the canopy. Although again common sense would favor a non-combustible type of construction.” So there’s some direction from your Fire Marshal, for a non-combustible. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, again, I’m not saying you should do this. I’m just saying that public safety is one of the areas that you’re allowed to be concerned about under your site plan review authority. If you have that concern, you certainly can impose an appropriate condition about the combustibility of the material or the location of it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, will Fire Marshal Grant go back and check this out after it’s been opened? MR. RINGER-He checks every commercial building in the Town. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, there, then as long as he goes back and checks it out, I’m okay with that. MR. VOLLARO-You could reinforce the motion and say that the canopy shall be of non- combustible material, if you wanted to. MR. PALING-If you get into the construction of the canopy, and something happens, other than a flame, then they’re going to say we said it was okay, and I don’t think we belong in that. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the difference between suggesting a non-combustible material for a canopy like this that’s going to be over an area that could potentially have fire problems, on the other hand, we say that we want docks and boathouses on Lake George to use non-leaching material? MR. PALING-I think that’s an entirely different thing. If you tell them to put a canopy on this, and something happens because they put a canopy on it. MR. BREWER-No, we’re not telling him to. We're saying if he does. We're talking about open flames, Bob, and people there eating. MR. PALING-Okay. I just think it’s something we should stay away from. He’s got the Fire Marshal guidance. He should go by that, and we can step away from it. MR. BREWER-That’s fine with me. I don’t care. I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. BREWER-It’s kind of like saying what kind of material they should make curbs out of. MR. SATTLER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED BYRON & JUDY RIST OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-3A, APA LOCATION: LOCKHART MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 26.74 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 11.61 ACRES & 16.14 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 28- 1-16 LOT SIZE: 26.74 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1999, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Byron & Judy Rist, Meeting Date: June 15, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to subdivide a parcel into two lot, 11.61 acres and 16.14 acres. The applicant has complied with the requirements of subdivision review for preliminary and final stage. Staff Notes: The proposed subdivision is naturally subdivided by a road. The applicant has requested a waiver from Sketch Plan and other preliminary requirements. The intent is to sell the parcels for construction of single family dwellings. Recommendations: Staff recommends granting requested waivers and approval of the proposed subdivision.” MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a letter in here from him for the waivers? MR. STARK-It’s right here. MR. VOLLARO-A waiver for Sketch Plan only. MRS. MOORE-This is dated May 26, it’s addressed to Chairman and Board members, “Our clients, th Byron and Judy Rist, are subdividing their property into two lots, one on each side of the road. Since both are large lots, we are asking for waivers from the following subdivision requirements: Two foot contour intervals, Location of existing and proposed dwellings, septic systems, driveways, wells, and other utilities, Construction Plans, Clearing Plan, Grading Plan, Drainage Report” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves, and I represent the Rists on this application. I took this to Chris Round, who took a look at it, and because of its location within the APA, it falls out of the jurisdiction of Chris as an administrative two-lot subdivision. So we’re in front of the Board. We’ve requested the waivers because it exists as a one lot on the tax rolls, but it is, no question, divided by Ellsworth Road, and my client is just looking to have the two lots as they exist by the division of the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Any plans for future subdivision? MR. STEVES-He was thinking about possibly doing something with the northerly half. He’s not quite sure because there’s a little bit of ledge and some steep areas on the northerly end. That’s something we’ll take a look at down the road, but not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the 16 acre parcel? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Ellsworth Road is a Town road, maintained by the Town? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) RESOLUTION NO. 8-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BYRON & JUDY RIST, 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 15 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-We need a motion for Preliminary. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1999 BYRON & JUDY RIST, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: In accordance with the resolution as written by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 8-1999 to subdivide a 26.74 acre parcel into 2 lots of 11.61 ac., and 16.14 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/26/99, consists of the following: 1. Preliminary Stage application w/map S-1 dated 5/26/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/15/99 - Staff Notes 2. 6/3/99 - M. Steves from L. Moore 3. 6/3/99 - Meeting notice letter 4. 5/26/99 - Planning Bd. from M. Steves – waiver request Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/15/99 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 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) 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. 8-1999 for Byron and Judy Rist. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 15 day of June 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1999 BYRON & JUDY RIST, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: In accordance with the resolution as written by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 8-1999 to subdivide a 26.74 acre parcel into 2 lots of 11.61 ac., and 16.14 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/26/99, consists of the following: 1. Final Stage application w/map S-1 dated 5/26/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/15/99 - Staff Notes 2. 6/3/99 - M. Steves from L. Moore 3. 6/3/99 - Meeting notice letter 4. 5/26/99 - Planning Bd. from M. Steves – waiver request Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/15/99 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. 8-1999 for Byron and Judy Rist. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 15 day of June 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about the letter we received from Billy Higgins, the Queensbury Superintendent of Schools? MR. MAC EWAN-I responded to that on behalf of the Board. Just to let him know, actually, I thought everybody was going to get a copy of it. MRS. MOORE-It’s in their packets. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in our packets. MRS. MOORE-Your response. MR. MAC EWAN-I responded to him, just to let him know that our Board has not started the review process of it yet, that the Town Board had not taken the modifications to the PUD under consideration, blah, blah, blah. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I guess I have a question about what his concern is, the potential increase in hazards due to proximity of the residential homes. Well, what kind of hazard? Educate me. MR. RINGER-Well, we haven’t even gotten the application yet. MR. BREWER-Where’s your letter, Craig? MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the packet. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want me to read it? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It says, “Dear Superintendent Higgins: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the proposed Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development. At this time, the Planning Board has not begun site plan review of this project. The Queensbury Town Board has not yet considered the modifications the developer has proposed. Upon acceptance by the Town Board and the signing of the revised PUD agreement, the Planning Board will then commence with the review process. When our Board begins this review, your office will be notified of our meeting dates and times. Participation by the school district with this project is important and welcome. The school district’s concerns are valid and will be addressed during this review. I encourage you to contact the Supervisor’s Office, and members of the Town Board with your concerns prior to their acceptance of the project’s modification. In the meantime, should you have any questions, please contact the Community Development Department.” MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now I have another question. He says, they have a very pressing need to have another major roadway to enter/exit the Queensbury School campus. Is he implying that he would like the Indian Ridge road to be part of that? MR. BREWER-That’s the way I took it, from the school to Indian Ridge. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. That’s what I’m wondering. That’s the way I inferred it. MR. VOLLARO-That would be an impact on the developer, as far as infrastructure in the community is concerned. He’d have to provide that road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. That’s what I was wondering. Thank you. Well, he won’t be here after another two weeks. The new superintendent. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. PALING-Yes, I've got a couple of things. If Staff hasn’t already done it, maybe if they have done it, they might even consider re-doing it, is how about jumping all over Lowe’s for their dead trees and lawns. When we approve these projects now, we say to plant and maintain. I’m quite sure we said that to them, and they’re doing a lousy job. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, they are. MR. BREWER-And what about Hewitts with no trees? Didn’t we have some trees along the road there? I thought we did. MR. MAC EWAN-White birches. MR. SCHACHNER-By a certain date though that hasn’t happened yet, right? MRS. MOORE-I don’t think so, and it has to be approval by the County. It was dependent on County approval. The County DPW had to approve that trees be planted in the right-of-way. I am not aware of. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you check on that for us and give us a report next Tuesday? MR. PALING-Have you approached them already? MRS. MOORE-Lowe’s? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. How long ago was that? MRS. MOORE-I would have to speak with Craig Brown. MR. PALING-But, I mean it was a while ago, wasn’t it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I asked Craig Brown to pay them a visit about a week ago, and Craig did pay them a visit, and the Manager of Lowe’s said that he was in contact with his landscape contractor to make the necessary replacements. What prompted his visit up there was the fact that Lowe’s has all this seasonal stuff outside their fenced in area, which is bags of peat and fertilizer and fencing and landscaping blocks and so on and so forth, and that was basically what prompted the visit, to let him know they were in violation of the site plan, and the Manager of Lowe’s comment was, well, if you’re coming after me to make me move all this stuff, why aren’t you doing it with Wal-Mart and all the other ones that are doing it. That was his response. So I think that Craig Brown, after our discussion, was going to pen a letter off to him and let him know that he was in violation of site plan. If he wanted to ask for modification, he was to make application to the Board so he could come in for a modification, and also I believe letters were being sent to Wal-Mart and K-Mart, and to, don’t hold me to this, but I think also Garden Time was being sent a letter to, for all the stuff on the other side of the road. MR. BREWER-The buildings are allowed there, aren’t they? MR. MAC EWAN-He was allowed to display, but, you know, he set up parking spaces over there. He’s done some pretty extensive work over there. MR. BREWER-Then he should be back in here for a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s basically. MR. PALING-We let him put buildings there, on the other side. MR. BREWER-Right, absolutely we did. MR. PALING-The other question I had, is there any kind of new date on Cracker Barrel, though it’s not really Cracker Barrel, but the zoning thing? MR. SCHACHNER-You mean for the Town Board or this Board? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-No, the answer is no. MR. PALING-It’s pending, so to speak? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-They were supposed to entertain taking a vote on it on the 21, but there was st some additional information the Town Board was seeking, and has yet to receive it. Is that true? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Yes, it is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, help me with this. What did I see in another packet, and I don’t know if we have gone there yet to visit, something about the Town of Queensbury C & D development landfill? What’s all that about? MR. BREWER-That’s up by Jenkensville. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn’t matter, it’s not going to be pursued. MR. BREWER-It’s not? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-Why? MR. SCHACHNER-I believe that the Town Board will be entertaining a resolution at its meeting Monday night to not pursue that project as a result of some limited public opposition that was expressed at the public informational meeting last Wednesday. I’m not 100% certain that that resolution will carry, but I believe they will be entertaining a resolution to that effect. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, what was their proposal? What did they want to do, extend the landfill? MR. MAC EWAN-No, they wanted to have a demolition landfill. Scott McLaughlin’s permit is expiring this fall. MR. SCHACHNER-He’s closing. MR. MAC EWAN-So the Town was looking to establish one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So where do you dump construction and demolition? MR. MAC EWAN-Now you go up to Essex County. Essex has one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What kind of stuff is that? MR. BREWER-Building. MR. MAC EWAN-Construction debris. MR. VOLLARO-If you tear a house down, all the stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-Insulation, sheet rock, roofing shingles, cement blocks. MR. BREWER-Either that or you can take it to Batease’s. Have you seen that lately? What a disgrace. MR. PALING-Can’t they take it to the burn plant? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. That’s a good question. MR. PALING-It says construction debris or materials. Are we taking any burnable material to a new landfill, when we’re paying through the nose for a burn plant? MR. BREWER-I think what happens is, Bob, that for them to separate it, it would be so costly that they just won’t do it. They just tear a building down, crush it up, and take it away. I mean, any contractor, they want to get in and out. MR. PALING-I want to stop paying taxes on that plant, too. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/15/99) MR. BREWER-Well, I do, too, I want to stop paying school taxes, too, but I don’t think it’s ever going to happen. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 31