Loading...
1999-05-24 SP (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 24, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT PALING ROBERT VOLLARO MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND SENIOR PLANNER-CHARLES VOSS PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 2-99 TYPE II JIM VARANO/VARANO CONSTRUCTION OWNERS: MARK & LAURA SPRINGER ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. APA LOCATION: 64 ROCKHURS ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION TO SECOND STORY FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-95, AV 4-1999, SEPTIC VAR. (5/3/99) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/13/99 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-44 LOT SIZE: 0.09 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MARK SPRINGER, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was back on January 26, and was left open until th tonight, May 24th. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 2-99, Jim Varano/Varano Construction, Meeting Date: May 24, 1999 “Description of Project: The application was tabled at the previous month’s meeting pending the applicant obtaining septic verification and a septic variance from the Town Board. The Town Board granted a septic variance to the applicant. The applicant has received an area variance from the Zoning Board to increase the amount of living space. Staff Notes: The applicant met with Staff prior to submission. The applicant’s proposal is to raise the roofline to create additional living space on the second floor. The footprint of the dwelling will not change. The surrounding neighborhood is congested with structures. There is little or no view of the lake from the road. The proposed addition appears to have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval with the condition that there is no further living space expansion.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that spelled out in your prepared resolution? MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it in there. MRS. MOORE-No, it’s not. MR. RINGER-Staff Notes are in the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but actually, if we approve this, we should tie it right in as well. Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SPRINGER-Good evening. My name is Mark Springer, and I’m the homeowner. Mr. Varano, the contractor, unfortunately isn’t here yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about their proposed project? MR. SPRINGER-Yes. Basically, what we’re proposing to do is alter the roofline and pitch of the existing second story, such that we can obtain maybe 40% more living space in that particular room in question. The angle is rather severe, and we’re just altering it so that we can actually gain that extra area behind there for living space. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems fairly simple and straightforward. Any questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. When we were out there, why did it appear like something had already been done? Or was that another? MR. SPRINGER-I can answer that. There’s scaffolding that’s in the back, as well as the area in the front where the septic is needed to be dug up, and Mr. Varano’s crew were the ones who did that work. So there’s been no actual work done to this structure at all. MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re basically all set up in preparation to start with approvals. MR. SPRINGER-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, just to go on the record, taking a look at the ZBA’s variances, I can understand that variance against 179-79, but I guess I categorically disagree with the Town Board of Health in granting a sewage disposal variance against 136-12, in particular considering the location of the project, and I just wanted that to go on the record. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open. If anyone wants to speak for or against this application, you’re welcome to do so. Come on up and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-There is no SEQRA. So if someone wants to put a motion up, we’ll entertain it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-99 JIM VARANO/VARANO CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: With the stipulation that there be no further living space expansion on this dwelling. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 2-99 proposing addition to second story for additional living space; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received December 1998, consists of the following: Application with map 94-196B dated 9/12/94 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 5/24/99 - Staff Notes 5/19/99 – ZBA resolution 5/17/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 5/7/99 - Meeting notice 5/3/99 - Town Bd. resolution 18.99 1/26/99 - Staff Notes 1/19/99 - Notice of Public Hearing Whereas, a public hearing was held on 1/26/99 and 5/24/99 concerning the above project; and 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) 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 The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 2-99, Jim Varano/Varano Construction. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. The conditions shall be noted on the map. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. SPRINGER-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 24-99 TYPE: UNLISTED PAMELA DE GROFF & LESLEY CORLEW OWNER: STEWART’S ICE CREAM ZONE: NC-10 LOCATION: 347 AVIATION ROAD, STEWART’S ICE CREAM APPLICANT PROPOSES A BEAUTY SHOP IN AN EXISTING SPACE IN THE STEWART’S ICE CREAM BUILDING. BEAUTY SHOP IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 34-86, 40-86, 17-93, 50-93, 20-94 TAX MAP NO. 78-1-8.62 LOT SIZE: 1.037 ACRES SECTION: 179-25 JENNIFER HOWARD & PAMELA DE GROFF, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing last week, on May 18, was left open. th MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any prepared Staff Notes. I do have a letter from Rist-Frost. I’ll read that into the record. This is addressed today. It says “Dear Laura: On your request, we have reviewed the attached septic system modification request. The system modification is acceptable under the assumption that the existing septic tank is 1500 gallons. Applicant has advised me verbally that if existing tank is found to be less than 1500 gallons, they will increase the capacity by adding an additional septic tank to accommodate the additional flow. Please call if you have any questions.” Would you like me to read my letter into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I think we ought to read two or three of them into the record, here. MRS. MOORE-Okay. My letter dated May 19, 1999 It says “Dear Jennifer: This letter is a follow up to the May 18 Planning Board meeting. The Board has tabled the application until the May 24 thth meeting. The Board has requested the following information: An engineer’s approval (stamped statement/drawing) of the capacity of the existing septic system to accommodate all proposed uses on the parcel. A revised drawing showing: (10 copies) Parking, existing and proposed, including handicap (2 spaces are required) Stormwater drainage areas Landscaping, existing and proposed, type and amount Septic location, existing and proposed (as needed) Confirmation of correspondence with adjacent property owner, Barbara Jones, addressing issues of concern. Confirmation that regional meetings are no longer being held at the Stewart’s site on Aviation Road. I would appreciate the requested information as soon as possible. Please contact the Planning Office.” I’ll read into the record her response, dated May 24. It says, “Dear Laura: Enclosed are th 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) the following: a certified as built with the following revisions: 1. A stamped engineered statement regarding the existing and proposed septic. 2. There are five future parking spaces in the southeast section of the parking lot. A handicap space was made out of existing space numbers 8 & 9. 3. The stormwater drainage area was labeled on the original approved plan. The area is on the southeast portion of the property. 4. The existing landscaping has been verified and the site plan reflects the correct types and numbers. 5. The following changes have been made per my conversation with our neighbor, Mr. Richard Jones: a. A hemlock tree has been added in the rear and the split rail fence will be extended to prevent access to the green area coming from either direction around the store. b. Two trees on Mr. Jones’ property will be replaced with the same species. c A piece of curbing in between parking spaces #4 and #5 will be fixed so that no water will drain onto his property. d. The swale located on the northwest corner will be extended 10 feet so the water will not drain onto his property. 6. A letter regarding the meetings at the district office. The above information addresses the concerns of the May 18 Planning Board meeting. However, if you need anything th further please contact me.” Do you want me to read anything else? MR. MAC EWAN-Her letter of the 24 regarding that district office. th MRS. MOORE-Okay. May 24. It says “Dear Laura: Please accept this as a confirmation that the th above office will no longer be used for the district meeting. There will be two employees working out of that office. The employees will be working on the west side of the building at the rear of the parking lot.” MR. MAC EWAN-And I know it’s going to be rather lengthy, but lets read into the record their engineering report. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe what you can do, just Page One, I guess will be fine, kind of summarizing it. MRS. MOORE-“Engineer Report Shop #261 May 24, 1999 I PURPOSE To accommodate a hair salon it will be necessary to modify the existing septic system. The following narrative describes this projects design parameters. II LOCATION The existing Stewart’s Shop is located at 347 Aviation Rd. in the Town of Queensbury. The building is approximately 4,206 square feet. The Stewart’s Shop occupies 2064 square feet of space. Proposed hair salon will occupy 1337 square feet and the balance will remain as office space. The Stewart’s Shop has been open since 1987. The former dry cleaner vacated the premises approximately 1 year ago. III SITE CHARACTERISTICS The total area of the site is 1.04 acres or 45,165 square feet. The site is generally flat. Deep test holes excavated in 1994 indicated 0-6” top soil, 6”-48” dry sand and 48”-84” sandy gravel. The percolation holes at depths of 3 to 5 feet in two holes stabilized at 2 minutes. Bedrock was not found at a depth of 7 feet and groundwater was not found at a depth of 7 feet. IV DESIGN COMPUTATIONS The Stewart’s Shop and office space presently have an existing septic system that handles flows of 504 gallons per day of sanitary effluent. The existing system consists of one 1,500 gallon septic tank with three 8 foot diameter dry wells. The proposed hair salon will require expansion of the system for 400 gallons per day additional effluent. The total flows from the building will be 904 gallons per day. If the existing capacity of the tank is found to be less than 1500 gallons, a 1,000 gallon tank will be installed. All fixtures in the hair salon will be water saving. The computations to determine how many dry wells or seepage pits are required as follows: Proposed dry well size is 8 feet in diameter and 4 feet deep. The stone width minimum perimeter of dry well proposed is 3 feet. The effective diameter of the dry well is the diameter of the structure and the added diameter provided by the annular ring of aggregate. The diameter in total is 14 feet. Required absorption area for a dry well cylinder in square feet = 3.14 x d x h = 3.14 x 14’ x 4’ = 175.84 square feet. The required absorption area in square feet for 400 gallons per day is as follows: The application rate based on a 2 minute percolation rate = 1.2 gal/day/sq. ft.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record. MRS. HOWARD-Good evening. My name is Jennifer Howard, and I’m here on behalf of Stewart’s Ice Cream. MRS. DE GROFF-My name is Pam DeGroff, and I’m here on behalf of Adonis Hair Design. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess at this point, the first thing I’m interested in is your letter about the site improvements you’re going to make. Specifically, can you go over them with us and do you have something from Mr. Jones, an agreement to this? Has Staff heard from Mr. Jones at all saying? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MRS. HOWARD-I met him on site Thursday, and this is where we came up with this plan. MR. MAC EWAN-How does your drawing correspond with this letter? MRS. HOWARD-Okay. Letter Number A, the hemlock tree that we’re going to add in the rear. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s done in the heavy print, one hemlock to be added? MRS. HOWARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the reference? Okay. MRS. HOWARD-The split rail is the same. It starts out behind the dumpster. Presently, there are four sections of it from the dumpster. As it starts to curve, that’s where the split rail extension is going to be. So that’ll prevent people going that way, and then also he had a concern that people would come around the office section, also. So that’s why we put the tree in. So this really prevents access from both ways. There was a tree there, but it’s apparently missing now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. HOWARD-Now Letter Number B, the two trees are labeled on his piece of property where they are planted along the west side. It says two Viburnums to be replaced. They are presently there, but the trees are in very bad shape. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. HOWARD-And Letter C is not on there. That’s in between space Number Four and Five. There’s probably a six inch piece of asphalt that’s missing, probably from the plow, and his concern was that the water would drain down that area. So we’re just going to put in a little bit of curbing right there, with asphalt, and then Letter D, in the rear, you’ll see where the erosion control bold is, the swale has been extended 10 feet to curve over, so the water doesn’t drain on his. It didn’t really go down that far. So we brought it over more toward our property so it would drain over there, and those were his only major concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. That’s fine. MRS. HOWARD-I’m certain I could get something if we needed to from him. MR. MAC EWAN-Your engineering report. The improvements you’re going to make is you are adding two more dry wells. MRS HOWARD-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-For starters. MRS. HOWARD-Regardless, we are adding two dry wells. MR. MAC EWAN-Regardless, and when you start your new drywells, at that time is when you’re going to inspect the septic system to ensure that it’s the 1500 gallons we’re looking for? MRS. HOWARD-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Will someone from the Building and Codes make that visual inspection? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know. I’m assuming, but I can confirm with them. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll make it part of the motion, if we approve this. Okay, and as far as your district office, it’s totally being relocated out of there altogether? MRS. HOWARD-Correct. MR. RINGER-No, the district office is still going to stay there. MRS. HOWARD-It’s going to be office space, but the meetings. MR. MAC EWAN-The district meetings. MRS. HOWARD-Right, yes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. PALING-I’d like to talk about that for a minute. I have trouble with the wording of your letter that says, will no longer be used for the district meeting, like it was one meeting a year. MRS. HOWARD-Yes, it was a weekly. MR. PALING-Could we somehow re-word that to make it a little bit more (lost word). MRS. HOWARD-For the weekly district meeting? MR. PALING-For meetings. Will you have any meetings there? MRS. HOWARD-No. MR. PALING-Then say that there will be no meetings. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the maximum amount of people that occupy that office at any given time? MRS. HOWARD-Two. MR. MAC EWAN-Never more than two, other than when you were holding your weekly district meetings? MRS. HOWARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So if something was put into a proposed motion that said that no more than three employees occupying that office. MRS. HOWARD-That would be acceptable. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-On the design computations, where we talk about this, if the existing capacity of the tank is found to be less than 1500 gallons, a 1,000 gallon tank will be installed. I think what we’re saying is a 1,000 gallon tank will be installed in addition to whatever is there? MRS. HOWARD-In addition, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Not a swap out. MRS. HOWARD-No. MR. VOLLARO-Now that 1500 gallon tank is under asphalt, isn’t it, at the present time? MRS. HOWARD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So, in answer to, just following up on what the Chairman said, when somebody has to inspect that, that asphalt’s got to come up to do that. MR. RINGER-I was up there Saturday, though. I was looking to see where those people were going around, where Mr. Jones said the people, and, to tell you the truth, I couldn’t find how they got through there, but one of the things, going out back there, the dumpster area, I don’t know if I was because it was a Saturday and what the case was, it was really filled to capacity, and overloaded and stuff strewn all over the place, and it wasn’t attractive at all, and I’m just mentioning it, and hopefully you’ll make a note of it, and perhaps see if we can do something. I think with the addition of the beauty parlor going in there, you may be getting additional trash. MRS. HOWARD-Well, I’m thinking they might also need an additional pick up. So that might solve their own, that problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Larry? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open. If anyone wants to come up and speak toward this application, you’re welcome to do so. Please identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 24-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PAMELA DE GROFF & LESLEY CORLEW, 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 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-99 PAMELA DE GROFF & LESLEY CORLEW, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the previous resolutions prepared by Staff, but with the following: to include the engineering report dated 5/24/99, Stewart’s letter of 5/24/99, and on the Stewart’s letter of 5/24/99 where they talk about confirmation, that the above office will no longer be used for the district meeting, we’re going to add to that, not to be occupied by any more than three employees, and the second letter dated 5/24/99, where there are, under Paragraph Five, Sub A, B, C, & D. Building and Codes will do a site inspection of the septic system. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 24-99 to operate a Beauty Shop in an existing space at the Stewart’s Ice Cream building on Aviation Road; and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/28/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/As built site plan dated 12/23/94 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 5/18/99 - Staff Notes 2. 5/11/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 3. 5/7/99 - Meeting notice letter Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/18/99 and 5/24/99 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 with conditions Site Plan No. 24-99 Pamela DeGroff & Lesley Corlew. 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 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, ladies. MRS. DE GROFF-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 15-99 TYPE II JOHN STAALESEN OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, GF-18 CEA LOCATION: GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3626 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION AND PLACEMENT OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM TO AN EXISTING YEAR ROUND CAMP TO CREATE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 18- 1999 TAX MAP NO. 43-2-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1.42 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MR. MAC EWAN-This is off. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s off. MR. MAC EWAN-Staalesen’s still off, correct? MR. RINGER-We’ve still got to have a public hearing on it, though. MRS. MOORE-The public hearing has been left open. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re tabling it, it’s still being tabled, right, pending ZBA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 22-99 TYPE: UNLISTED PAR FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LLC OWNER: FRANK NIGRO, III/c/o NIGRO DEVELOPMENT ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 71 QUAKER ROAD (FORMER TACO TOM’S) APPLICANT PROPOSES DRIVEWAY, PARKING AND SIDEWALK ALTERATIONS TO FORMER RESTAURANT SITE. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: VAR. 1114, BP 86-475 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/10/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/12/99 TAX MAP NO. 107-1-55.1 LOT SIZE: 1.07 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-99, Par Family Restaurants, LLC, Meeting Date: May 24, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing building, formerly Taco Tom’s, for a restaurant. Site Plan review is required for substantial site work and expansion of parking. Staff Notes: The utilization of an existing building with a replacement of the same use is encouraged in a commercial zone. The proposed site work will enhance the site with additional plantings and assist in traffic access. The diagonal parking on the west side will need to be modified to provide a twenty foot drive aisle. The building requires thirty spaces and fifty-one are provided. The proposed project addresses access, parking, and landscaping. The project has received approval recommendation from the County. Recommendations: Staff would recommend approval of the site plan with the condition that interconnection to the adjacent parcels be provided on the final plans.” MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County? MRS. MOORE-They approved the project, and then I have from Rist-Frost, it’s dated May 21, 1999, to Mr. Round “We have reviewed the documents forwarded to us, along with the above referenced site plan, and have the following comments: 1. The sanitary sewer connection is subject to approval by the Town of Queensbury Wastewater Department. 2. A letter dated May 19, 1999 from Nace Engineering, P.C. correcting the infiltration trench dimensions and entrance modification is acceptable.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing Par Family Restaurants. The issues that came up with Staff review and engineering review I think boiled down to, two. One is the parking. In order to achieve a 20 foot parking aisle, which your zoning code doesn’t really address one way circulation in parking lots, we have shown 13 foot one way circulation aisle with a 45 degree angle parking, which is normal, accepted by most codes. However, the Queensbury doesn’t, and in lieu of going back for a zoning variance, my client has agreed to modify it to have a right angle parking on one side on the restaurant side, and parallel parking on the opposite side. It would reduce us to 48 spaces. It would give us a 24 foot circulation aisle. I have just sketches to show that it can be done that I’ll circulate to you. As you can see what I've done is kept the one way entry in, gone to parallel parking with the two handicapped up close to the front of the restaurant. I believe this is adequate, and we would simply make these modifications on the final plans, if everybody’s agreeable. As far as providing an interconnection with the adjacent property, the adjacent property is now a restaurant and a bagel café. If there were diverse uses where there would normally be circulation between the two, I think my client would probably agree to some sort of interconnection. However, I don’t really see that it’s germane in this case, because the two are restaurants. Who would be going into the bagel café and having lunch and then going to Denny’s? There’s really no purpose to be accomplished at the present time. Now I understand there’ll be some discussion during the public hearing. We can address issues on future use adjacent to us and interconnection later. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. NACE-Unless you have any particular questions. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sure we’re going to have a few. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. VOLLARO-Just quickly, can you point out on the drawing, Tom, roughly where the 7,113 square foot of paved gravel and other hard surfaces? I’m looking at the site development plan, and trying to just get in my mind where we’re picking up that other 7,000 square feet. MR. NACE-Of additional paved area that we don’t have now? MR. VOLLARO-That you don’t have now. MR. NACE-Okay. It’s sort of a shaded area here off to the right. That is presently grass, okay. That will be paved. That’s additional pavement. What we’re doing, the existing entrances are wide sort of no man’s land entrances. They’re fairly close together. We're narrowing the western most one down to make it a one way in, and we’re taking the eastern one and we’re expanding the parking lot over a full set of aisles, and we’re moving that entry way to the east. So there’ll be better separation between the entrances. This’ll be an in and out entry. So this area here is all additional pavement. Now we are, in the entry points here, and by closing off the existing entrance here and adding some planting around the building, we are taking away some existing pavement in here, but the net effect is that 7,000 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Just quickly touching on the interconnection between commercial businesses. It’s always been the practice of this Board to try to encourage wherever possible and wherever we seem to have a provision that we can do that, and this would seem to me like a likely opportunity to view this. That’s my opinion. MR. NACE-I think my client would be agreeable, if there were a need for it. Okay. We just, with the existing uses, we didn’t see a need. MR. MAC EWAN-The need simply is to try to keep as much traffic off Quaker Road as we can and just try to internalize it wherever possible, but given that, why don’t we open up the public hearing. If anybody wants to come up and address this application, you’re welcome to do so. Identify yourself for the record if you could, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TAMMY CALABRESE MS. CALABRESE-Hello. My name is Tammy Calabrese, owner of the Adirondack Bagel Café, Inc. I haven’t seen any plans yet. I noticed you were discussing the opening between the properties. I think that’s important. A lot of buses come in and out. If Denny’s is packed and a bus pulls in, I just think to keep the flow of traffic moving there because we’re so close to the light, there have been numerous accidents there that landlocking, you know, curbing the properties and locking them, we’re looking for trouble. Like I said, this is the first time I've ever done this, and I haven’t seen any plans. So I don’t know if I can look at the plan or whatnot. I just want to keep the flow of traffic going through there, and we are a one way flow of traffic right now, and I was hoping that they also would be. With the Lowe’s, I want them to take into consideration that Lowe’s is directly across from them, and even though you’re only supposed to make a left hand turn, numerous amounts of people are getting in the meridian and going the way they want. So I just want to keep that open for discussion, that there are traffic problems there, and we’re open between King Fuels. They’ve chosen to put rocks between us to stop the flow, but I have no problem opening that side also. So that’s all I wanted to question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. MS. CALABRESE-Thank you. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, and with me is Frank Palumbo from the Sear Brown Group, architects, engineers, their Albany office. We're here on behalf of the Nigro Companies. The Nigro Companies is an existing commercial property owner in the Town of Queensbury. You’ll recall some years ago we were here to redevelop the Glen Square Plaza, added the Taco Bell and the Video Store, and reworked that, which was viewed as a big plus, and since then, the Nigro Companies has renovated the old supermarket into the Toys “R” Us, which was done very nicely. They are a large commercial developer in the Capital Region, with a very good and well-deserved reputation for doing quality projects. We’ve been working for some time on a project immediately behind the parcel that’s up for review tonight, coincidentally, totally separate from the Denny’s project. We’ve been working with a 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) commercial tenant for a 65,000 square foot single retail store on an approximately seven and a half acre parcel, and we have the two parcels under contract, which include the parcel immediately behind this and then the parcel immediately behind that, which encompasses just shy of eight acres, and we would have been before the Board in about six weeks, making a submission for the July meeting, in any case, but we felt that once this was on the agenda, that we had to come forward and show you what we have in mind, so that any planning decisions can be done, contemplating what we’re doing, as well as what is proposed for the old Taco Tom’s site, and we’re here, specifically, to talk about 179-66.1, Linking of Commercial and Industrial Park Lots and internal roads, which the Chairman was referring to. I guess we’d like to get started by putting up the conceptual site plan that we have prepared for our site, and talk about access issues from Quaker Road and what might be done in a conceptual way, in terms of interconnecting the parcels to comply with that provision of the Code. FRANK PALUMBO MR. PALUMBO-Good evening. As Jon described, we are proposing a 65,000 square foot retail store, and it would face Bay Road, and have a primary access onto Bay Road. We would, and have been working to, previous to this issue, had been working with the Adirondack Bagel Shop to provide access through at that point, and also had planned an access, what Jon was describing as the two parcels, are this main parcel, then there is the Niagara Mohawk lands, and then a separate section of the property is also under control by the developer. So that land is basically adjacent with the NiMo right-of-way in between. Once we started to get this concept a little bit further, we realized that there was a proposal on for the Denny’s, and Jon had raised the awareness of that particular section of the Code. So what we have done, and what I've colored here, is a proposal to come in and enter with a 30 foot entrance way, where there would be a limited amount of parking to be perpendicular to that, five spaces right there for Denny’s, allowing a connection with the rear of their site plan. This site plan that we have on here is a cut and paste of their actual site plan. In doing so, to provide a shared access there, we realize that they would need some of the spaces that they would have lost, which is still under consideration by your Board, but we allowed for some spaces right up in this area which would actually be on our property. Similarly, the Adirondack Bagel would have access off of this point, with one way flow around the building, but then also connection to the larger tenant’s space through the parking area. That was the attempt that we were trying to make, and providing some means of having a joint access for all three of the enterprises. At that point, I’ll leave it to Jon. MR. LAPPER-We're not suggesting that this is the only conceptual plan that could work. This is just one plan that we’re proposing at this time for your consideration. We think that that would work well, but there are probably a number of other solutions that would also work well, but if you were to suggest to the applicant now that something like what we’re proposing makes sense, right now, there are five curb cuts. There are two curb cuts for the Bagel Café. Two curb cuts for Denny’s, and one curb cut for our project. If this were approved, there could be the one curb cut, we could eliminate our curb cut, the Bagel Café could eliminate its curb cut, and if necessary, Denny’s would still have another curb cut on the other side of their parking lot. So that would go from five curb cuts to two curb cuts, which we think is very positive for traffic on the Quaker Road corridor. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of conversations have you had with the people from Denny’s? MR. LAPPER-We haven’t, because we did not have a conceptual site plan until last week when we knew that this was coming. We’ve been, this just wasn’t our schedule, and Frank had to quickly put everything together to accommodate to our plan, which was in very preliminary stages up until a few days ago, and then superimpose what’s already there and talk about a combined access. So this is all very new to meet the deadline of tonight, to be here to present this during their public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-So, Tom, you’ve not seen this plan at all? MR. NACE-Fifteen minutes ago. We’ll discuss that in a minute. MR. LAPPER-We’re here talking about what’s the right thing to do for planning, and unfortunately we couldn’t get here earlier, but we have to apologize for that. MR. VOLLARO-Jon, what’s the story with parking spaces on somebody else’s property? This just doesn’t sound right to me, from a liability point of view if nothing else. MR. LAPPER-What Frank’s suggested there, what we would be talking about for this whole concept, subject to everybody’s agreement, is a cross easement agreement, and for example, we have a cross easement agreement at Glen Square Plaza where the NiMo power line, which is owned in fee by NiMo, that we have the right to cross over that part of the Taco Bell property. Underneath there we have parking spaces on NiMo’s property. So that would be part and parcel of an agreement for shared access. What we did is trying to be sensitive to the needs of Denny’s, that if this accessway was going to take some parking away from the front of their store, we wanted to add it in close 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) proximity to the doorway, and the best way to do it was to put it on our property, but other advantages of that, because the access now is moved closer to the Bagel Café, it gives them more room between their parking spaces and the building. That’s a very tight site, because it’s the existing Taco Tom’s that they’re trying to reconfigure. This really opens up their site, adds more green space, and keeps the parking essentially the same, because they have parking on our site, and it just seems to work better for traffic management, access management, which I know is an important issue for the Board. We're not trying to stop their project in any way. We certainly think it’s an appropriate use of the site. We're just trying to make the travel corridor work best for everybody. MR. VOLLARO-It seems to me under those circumstances, the two people who were involved, the large box in the back and Denny’s, really have to get together with a cooperative effort and working with our codes to make sure that things work to the best advantage for both parties. MR. LAPPER-We're certainly prepared to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-How far away are you from making a formal application? MR. LAPPER-I think we’re looking at making a submission by the end of June for the July meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The first question I’ll ask is regarding site issues with your proposed site, is how the wetlands that you propose building on play into your project. MR. LAPPER-There’s slightly more than a third of an acre of wetlands that would have to be relocated, which is something that’s part of our project. They would either be relocated on site or off site, and at this point, I mean, that’s one of the, it’s not a huge piece of property that we’re talking about, but it’s an issue that we’ll have to get a permit as part of our project. MR. MAC EWAN-Similar to the concept that was used for K-Mart a few years ago. Okay. MR. RINGER-Jon, your plans, your major entrance is going to be off of Bay Road, not on Quaker? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RINGER-And the major exit probably would be Bay Road not Quaker, also? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s because the store is facing toward Bay, but you have to assume that people would use whatever access is most convenient. MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re proposing another exit, entrance farther up Quaker Road to the, actually it would be to the east of the Denny’s site, and you’ll have one on Bay Road, what’s the necessity of having this one come right between the Bagel Café and Denny’s? MR. LAPPER-Well, we would be eliminating the other access to the east of Denny’s. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. RINGER-The one further down? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That is what we can do on our site without any input from the Town, without you requesting that this be done. We have the rights to do that. We’d have to cross the NiMo right- of-way, and we have an agreement with them that we can do that, but if we eliminated it, it would just reduce curb cuts. It would be probably in the best interest of the corridor. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where is the Bay Road ingress and egress? Is it way up, farther south, the south end? MR. PALUMBO-It’s right here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, right there. MR. VOLLARO-Now there’s a building in there, isn’t there? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. There’s a two story wood frame house that is part of the property that is being developed, and that would be taken down. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s going. MR. RINGER-Where is your entrance in relation to Hannaford’s entrance? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. PALUMBO-I believe this right here is the Hannaford entrance. MR. RINGER-And your entrance is further to the south. MR. PALUMBO-It’s up there. MR. LAPPER-The insurance company is directly across from that entrance. MR. PALUMBO-This is the land that the insurance company is on, and as the owner of the Bagel Shop mentioned, this is King Fuel’s entrance over here. MR. PALING-What are you expecting from this Board tonight? MR. LAPPER-I guess a statement that interconnecting of parcels is important, and encouraging the Denny’s applicant to work toward something that is in the interest of all three developments, all three property owners. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, this is certainly. MR. PALING-I can live with that, but it can’t be construed as any kind of an endorsement. I don’t know even what the nature of the business is that you’re going to put in this store, or what goes with it, traffic and lights and noise and odor and the whole thing. So it’s going to be kind of hard for us to endorse it, especially when this is a surprise to the other two parties involved. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve been talking with the owners of the Bagel Café. So they’re not surprised that we have a proposal behind them. It was really the Denny’s application came up before we were ready, that forced us to get ready, but we’re prepared to move quickly at this point, as I've said, we have the land under contract. So it’s just a matter of getting the application submitted. MR. PALING-But are they willing to move that quick? MR. LAPPER-Who? MR. PALING-Both of these parties to accept your proposal. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess we’re looking for an expression from the Board whether you think it’s in the interest of planning that this, that we all head down this path, and if that is, we’re prepared to move very quickly to try and work it out. MR. PALING-I don’t think I know enough to say whether I would or wouldn’t do it. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess I just want to point out that we’re all familiar with the CVS Plaza and the Hannaford right down the street, and everybody was sorry, after the fact, in 1988, when that Planning Board approved the subdivision, they didn’t require that there be an access, and as a result of that, we have all these separate curb cuts next to each other, which is viewed by the County and by the Town as a problem, and so we’re stepping up to the plate now, before we would have, to say that there’s still time to plan this and to do it right. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think the issue is whether the Planning Board would support interconnections, as shown in our Code. We’ve made that clearly stated right in the beginning of this application. The part that I’m kind of concerned about here is, Number One, the applicant’s not aware of what your intentions are for that site, and reconfiguring their site plan for them without having any input into it at this point. Number Two, the other concern is, even if we were to come to some sort of agreement with the representatives of Denny’s tonight, and approve a site plan that ties into your site plan for the additional parking and reconfiguration, I’m not so sure what kind of teeth we can put in that to make that tight sealed as part of an approval process. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess my answer to that would be that in terms of the right to approve a site plan or approve a site plan with modifications, that in terms of SEQRA, in terms of the environmental review, you have the right to talk about the reduction of curb cuts. I mean, that certainly gives you the ability to modify their site plan, in terms of planning issues, which these are absolutely legitimate planning issues, traffic access, joint access and reduction of curb cuts. We're prepared to move very quickly. So I guess we’re asking you not to approve their site plan the way it was presented, but I think that we could all get together pretty quickly and I know that you have a special meeting or an extra meeting on the third of June, and perhaps by that time we could all get together and come back. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll say that’s a really highly unusual request. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jon, another thing that I have a problem with the fact that your original proposed ingress and egress that’s east of the, the one farthest east on Quaker Road, is so much larger, with a larger turning path radius there, in other words to accommodate all the cars that you propose are going to be parked right there. To me it would seem that coming through that, it’s more of a little bottleneck type, between those two, between Denny’s and the Bagel Café, to get rid of your customers from the big parcel, plus theirs through that little bottleneck type of an ingress/egress. MR. LAPPER-Well, we could keep our other access, if that’s what the Planning Board thought was appropriate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s the thing is that, now we’ve got lots of things going on here. MR. LAPPER-Well, admittedly, our project is a pretty sizeable project, but we didn’t know, as we’ve been going forward, getting control of the land, that the Denny’s project would come on the table now, and we got together as quickly as we could, but in terms of all the discussions that the Board’s had in the past, about joint access, I don’t think it’s inappropriate to wait a couple of weeks and try and get the best plan possible. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t think the issue is whether the Board is not willing or wanting to have interconnection between these two commercial properties. We’ve already had the owner of the Bagel Café saying that she’s willing to accept it. We’ve already had the agent for the applicant saying that if the Board wants that as an issue that they’d be willing to accept it. So I think that issue’s clear. What I think I’m concerned about is basically re-designing this applicant’s site to accommodate your proposed application which hasn’t even come in front of us yet. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, maybe we ought to just hear what the applicant, you know, the Denny’s people have to say about it. MR. PALING-(lost words) I think they knew about this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think they did, because when he was proposing it, the Bagel Café owner was, I’m like how come she’s not listening? Isn’t this a concern? Obviously, she had already, she spent some time with Mr. Lapper. So she knows. MR. PALUMBO-If I could just add, on the redesign of their site, our intention was not to try to redesign it and make it any better for us or any worse for them. When we contacted the Town to update them that we would be coming with a proposal, we had some questions about our site design, and at that time, it was made clear, and I think John was the one who heard this, that the Denny’s proposal was there, and that there was interconnection considerations to be made. We received the site plan, and wanted to see how we could make something that would work for all three properties. In doing so, we realize that what we saw on the Denny’s parcel with the 13 foot drive lane was not something that would work for us, or we thought at that time, for an interconnection with the Bagel property. That is why we chose to do a design which split the property right on the property line, with a 30 foot access lane, and why we limited the number of spaces there to just the five, so that they could have those five, as Jon had said, as close to the door. It was not our intent to make this as a set configuration that anyone would have to buy into, but basically just to show some sort of promotion of how the three properties could work together, and I think Jon had already made that point that we’re not saying this is the end all or anything that should be endorsed at this point, but only opening it up for the consideration that there are three properties. What I didn’t see when I saw the Denny’s proposal, was the location of the Bagel shop access points. I think that you have some access management issues from a deign standpoint. Everything else aside, that the existing curb cuts there are problematic, and that the proposal that was put forth was not really going to do anything to alleviate that situation. It was only our attempt to show something that might work. We weren’t trying to cast anything in place with this. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you this. When you found out that there was a pending application coming in front of this Board for a Denny’s, and you found out from the Town, why didn’t you call the agent for the applicant and ask them about it? I’m just curious. MR. LAPPER-It was mostly timing. This all happened last Thursday, and we just got this together in the last few business days, and here we are. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone else want to come up and comment? Did you want to come back up and comment? Please come right on up. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MS. CALABRESE-Okay. I was approached, some time ago, by both parties, would we be interested in being part of a site plan. My only comment was, as long as it wasn’t a conflicting business, and it worked well for everyone, I would be part of it. I feel this plan, right now, that I’d be losing flow of traffic and it’s very important to my business because it’s a fast-food restaurant. MR. MAC EWAN-Which plan are you referring to, the application that we have in front of us tonight? MS. CALABRESE-Right, or the Denny’s plans, as far as the Denny’s plans go, I don’t feel running curbs between the businesses, that would make more curb cuts, as they’re saying. I think they should leave the parking lot open. MR. MAC EWAN-We would be looking for an interconnect. MS. CALABRESE-Yes, I think to leave it the way it is. It’s paved all as one right now. We were planning on re-paving and painting our parking lot. So if they’re worried that our parking lot won’t match theirs, and it won’t look nice, it will. I mean, we’re willing to take care of it, make it look nice. As far as the second proposal, I’m willing to do anything that will keep the flow of traffic fair to all three businesses, but I don’t want to be landlocked with one entrance and no exit for people who are trying, it’s fast-food. It’s not a sit down restaurant. Denny’s is a sit down. They have time for people to get in, park and get out. A lot of buses come through there. I think that’s something that trucks, a lot of rigs pull along Quaker, which is dangerous, but with the businesses open, they’ll still be able to pull to the back. That’s something else that’s got to be considered. Parking and traffic flow is a major issue there. I mean, we had a rollover, last year, of a vehicle, a rollover trying to do a Uie in the meridian, and now Lowe’s is there, which was not there when the accident happened. So, I’m concerned with flow of traffic and parking, and so whatever works well for all three parties, and I would like to address that before I would do anything, I would like to know what the third party or application, the third business is, us being one, Denny’s being two, number three being that huge building. If they’re a wholesale bagel outlet, no way. That’s all I have to say. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And even though what you’re saying, those five parking spots, I mean, I’m just getting an anxiety attack because basically, the people backing out of those five are backing out onto a thoroughfare, instead of just a parking lot. MS. CALABRESE-And the front of our store is our entrance for customers. MRS. LABOMBARD-And to me those five cars being parked there, where they come out of the restaurant and they pull out, they’re not even going to think that they’re in a zone that’s got traffic going back and forth. MS. CALABRESE-I mean, I think the idea is great to make Queensbury bigger, keep the businesses going. I’m all for progression, but I’m also concerned with traffic flow and safety. That’s it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. MR. NACE-Okay. I guess first of all to say I feel bushwhacked is an understatement, but that out of the way, I can’t speak entirely for my client, because he’s not here tonight, and I cannot commit to a site plan such as this under his behalf. I do know, from discussion with him today, and it’s unfortunate, because he was in Town today. He could have come to the meeting had we known that this was in the wind, but I know from speaking with him today that if there were an interconnection, feasible interconnection, and a good, well-designed interconnection, to a large business like is proposed back here, that he would probably be having palpitations. He’s love it, because it’s got to be good for both businesses, okay. I’m not sure that what I have seen of the proposed interconnection, I’m not sure that that’s desirable for anybody yet, okay. To table our project until it can be worked out I think is unreasonable, for several reasons, okay. Even though you have a meeting coming up in early June, we’re still, if we work out a proposal that everybody’s agreeable to by then, it’s going to be hasty, for one. Two, it’s going to be under a black cloud waiting for the approval of the big box or whatever it is in back, which may not happen until some time in the fall. If they submit in June, who knows, with the wetland issues and what else, it may be a couple of months before it’s approved, and my client would like to construct this summer, so he’s open by mid to late summer. So I would like to make the commitment that we will interconnect with the Bagel shop. I think an interconnection is relatively feasible. I think an interconnection here at the back, we could lose one space here and make a good interconnection where people from this lot can come through, get into the one way circulation and out, where people coming in here, if they want to circulate to this lot, can get into this lot. I don’t think my client would have any problem with that. As far as the future, I think as the adjacent project goes through site plan review, I think the lawyers, the owners can sit down and talk to each other. I think it’s to the benefit of everyone if it can be 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) done, and for a project this size to come through and re-work a little bit of pavement and curbing is an inconsequential expense. So I think if it works for everyone, it’s going to happen, even if you have to rip up new pavement to do it. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of improvements are you making to the site, façade wise? MR. NACE-Well, the landscaped area will be increased, new landscaping. I think you’ve seen the landscaping plan. Obviously, the new curb cuts, new sidewalks, new landscaping around the building, open up the lawn area in back, put a dumpster enclosure in the back. One mistake, and it will be on the final plans, there should be parking lot lighting. We’ve got two proposed lights to go in here, in the parking lot, which will be down light, okay, low overhead, or low height, canned fixtures, two there, and there are two existing fixtures here that’ll remain. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is there a new façade on the building? Are there any architectural changes made to the building? MR. NACE-Yes. They are, I haven’t seen the complete architectural plans, but they’re taking the windows that are in there and squaring them off. They’re completely re-doing the inside of the building, and I’m sure either a new stucco or a new finish, EFS finish on the outside. MR. MAC EWAN-Traditionally, Denny’s restaurants are a little bit larger than this one. Are there any plans for, in the future, to put an expand its seating capacity? MR. NACE-Not that I’m aware of. The site’s limited. The client’s aware that the site’s limited. It’s really at its optimum size, and they’re aware of that. Denny’s has varying restaurants. This is 104 seat. They have some up to 160. I think somewhere around between 125 and 150 is the norm, but 104 is not unusual for them. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, any way you look at it, it’s a marked improvement for a site that’s been idle for a long time. MR. PALING-I think we should go ahead with the site plan as submitted, because any modifications that are going to be made to accommodate the new big box I think can be done anyway, after this is done. I don’t think it’s that much of a deal to re-vamp the parking lot or the circulation, as long as it’s agreeable to both other applicants, and just go ahead with the site plan as it is, expect that at a later date, and I don’t think we’re turning anything down, we’re not shutting anything off doing it this way, I don’t think. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I would agree with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I agree with Bob, too. MR. VOLLARO-You did touch on the lighting, and I didn’t see it on the other plan, but I see what you’ve got now, but what about the building itself? Are you going to do any down lighting on the building? MR. NACE-Under the canopy, or under the soffit, I’m sure there would be lighting, and at the back there would be security lighting headed out toward the rear of the lot. MR. VOLLARO-And now just let me get myself oriented here. The connection with the Bagel shop would be in the lower left-hand portion? MR. NACE-Again, this is the old angled parking, but looking at the current parking proposal, it would be here at the back, okay, which is where it would make sense, so that people coming here don’t try to go one way the wrong way. They can circulate on out through the other part of the lot. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. RINGER-I agree. I think we should move on this application, because the changes to the building are nothing here, and any landscaping changes that the big box may bring in, as Bob said, can be handled at that time. I think the big box is going to be a big project coming through, and as Tom said, may take some time before it does get going. MR. MAC EWAN-True. Any Staff comments? MR. ROUND-Can I make a couple of comments? Mr. Nace’s points are well taken. I just wanted to remind you that our linking of commercial and industrial parking areas is our elementary attempt, or the Zoning Ordinance is an elementary attempt to encourage access management strategies. Other Ordinances have more refined mechanisms, and Tom can probably attest to that. I would just 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) make sure that the Board is aware that, at face value, the site plan that Denny’s has on the table isn’t going to affect this conceptual plan that’s in front of us, but I would just want to make sure that before you go through an approval, that you would allow some discussion to occur, to make sure that this is the appropriate plan. Because we don’t know if the plan that you are contemplating approval on tonight will close the door on some other alternative. Regardless of whether it’s, you say it’s all curbs or parking, etc. Am I making sense? This entrance where they have shown is consistent with the big box proposal right now, and I know we don’t want to have this applicant wait, but planning decisions are going to have impacts on everybody effected on the corridor. Access management strategies effect site layout, also effect private properties, and if there’s some discussion that’s got to take place between this applicant and the big box applicant, I’d like to have them have a greater leeway, rather than be bound by a site plan approval that we have on the table. MR. NACE-Can I respond to that? MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to respond to that first. I guess my first two responses to this would be, Number One, there’s been, in my mind, ample opportunity already to open up discussions with this applicant regarding this site. They could have done it and they didn’t do it, and I think it’s putting an undue burden on this Board to put us in a position to hold up an application that’s come through the process when we don’t even have another one that’s in the pending, a formal application hasn’t even been made yet. The agent for the applicant has been very forthcoming here tonight and saying that if there is some way that they would be willing to work out an ingress and egress that all three businesses could share this common entrance into their spot, they’re more than willing to do it. They’re more than willing to entertain it. They’re more than willing to sit down and talk with them. Someone from that side of the table has got to make the effort to want to sit down with them and open up that dialog. I don’t think it should be burdened on our Board to table this thing, pending any kind of negotiations or discussions they may open up. The provisions in the Ordinance say that we should use interconnect whenever possible. We already have the Bagel Café saying they’d be looking for it. We already have the applicant’s agent committed to say that he would go along with it. There is a starting point right there, and if a third party wants to come in and develop this parcel out back, and albeit it may take a long time before they get an approval, that I don’t think we should hold up this application or any other application under the pretense that maybe something might be approved down the road. MR. RINGER-And if they come up with something in the mean time, they can always come back for a modification of the plan. MR. ROUND-That’s correct. So then you would require this applicant to identify an easement or an interconnect on the south side of this property then? Is that what I’m hearing from you? MR. MAC EWAN-No, you’re not hearing that. He’s agree to put an easement, an interconnect to the Bagel Café, which will be in the southwest corner. MR. ROUND-Our Ordinance says the Planning Board shall determine if it’s feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a 20 foot connection way must be provided. This big box application has shown that it is feasible, and I think we all agree that it’s feasible. MR. MAC EWAN-Stop right there. We don’t have a big box application. MR. ROUND-Well, we’ve got a concept that says where it’s feasible. It doesn’t say where a pending application has determined that it’s feasible. Just be careful making a rash decision, a quick decision just because somebody doesn’t have a pending application. If we can allow greater flexibility to improve our traffic corridor, just because somebody’s here first doesn’t mean we’ve got to go willy nilly into the future. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not doing that, and I’ll take exception to the fact that you’re suggesting that we’re making a rash decision here, we’re not. We’ve got conversation going between two business owners who say they’d like to have the interconnect. We're willing to do that. I mean, if there’s another proposal that’s coming forth that Jon’s representing, then they should take the initiative to sit down with the people from Denny’s and try to work out something with them for the future, because what he’s talking about doing drastically changes this parking concept, and you don’t even know if the Denny’s people would be willing to go with that. MR. ROUND-Well, that’s why I think you ought to allow the opportunity for that discussion to occur before somebody makes a commitment. How does a week effect somebody? MR. PALING-You’re asking us to participate in access design tonight, and therefore we’re going to flash some kind of an approval to the big box applicant who hasn’t even put. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. ROUND-No. MR. PALING-Yes, you are. MR. ROUND-No, all I’m saying is you could identify, on this site plan, a 20 foot potential connection. That’s all I’m asking. I’ll let Mr. Nace speak. It’s not approving a plan. It’s not contemplating anything. We generally do it. We do it with vacant sites next door, that you identify an interconnection. Lowe’s we’ve done it. There’s no connection between Lowe’s and its adjacent site, but we identified a 20 foot interconnect for potential future development. That’s all I’m asking, that you consider that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we did. What’s your response? MR. NACE-Well, okay. I guess, as I listened to the first part of the conversation, my response is, if we were talking about constructing a brand new building, my advice to my own client would be, wait until we’ve designed the interconnect before you proceed, okay, because it could have an impact, but this is an existing building, and the impact to my client’s site is going to be dirt and asphalt. Dirt and asphalt are cheap in this type of a proposal. If the interconnection makes sense to my client, and he’s a commercial establishment. He wants business. He wants people to be able to get to his restaurant. If the physical arrangement of the proposed interconnect makes sense, he’d have to be stupid to go against it, and I think that holding the application up at this point, I don’t think we’re going to have a concrete enough proposal, in a week or two, that is approval for the big box, and isn’t subject to future change. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re willing to provide a 20 foot interconnect in the lower southwest corner of your parcel to the Bagel Cafe? MR. NACE-That we are. MR. MAC EWAN-Which is exactly the same location that they’re proposing access to come through there to it. MR. ROUND-That’s good. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where we’ve been going with this thing. MR. ROUND-But also we wanted on the other corner of the property to allow interconnection with this unknown commercial establishment in the rear. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s not what they’re showing on their concept plan. MR. ROUND-I believe it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Is this their property line right here? Is that their property line? MR. ROUND-This is. MR. MAC EWAN-This is the 20 foot he’s talking about putting in right here. MR. ROUND-No, he’s talking about between these two. You’re talking about interconnection between Bay Road and here. What I’m just saying is make sure that you allow 20 foot here, so that. MR. NACE-But we don’t know where that’s going to be. MR. ROUND-I know, but in concept, if you could put it on the plan subject to final location. The only time the Planning Board has the ability to require that is now. Once we do that, we have support. We have, on face value, the cooperation of the applicant, but if he decides, no, it’s not. MR. NACE-For me to put it on the plans now, the language you have is so wishy-washy. MR. VOLLARO-Because it’s conceptual. MR. NACE-It’s conceptual. MR. VOLLARO-And maybe that’s the word we ought to use. MR. MAC EWAN-Will you repeat your statement for me, please. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. NACE-Okay. My statement was, if we show an interconnection to the south, to the property to the south, to the future big box or whatever, that the language that we put on the plans now, showing that location, is going to have to be kind of wishy washy because we don’t know exactly where that’s going to be, where it’s going to work. Okay. I think in concept probably everybody agrees that the interconnection is good. Okay, but the details have to be worked out in order to make it feasible, okay, so that any language that we put on the plans now, showing that, is going to have to be couched in so many words that it’s probably not worth the powder to blow it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll tell you, I’m satisfied with the fact that we’re going to do the interconnection between the Bagel Café and the Denny’s, and if you are looking to make an interconnect here, and work out something, then you need to sit down with these people and try to work out something together that’s going to be beneficial to all parties. MR. NACE-I hope nobody gets me wrong. We're not negative toward that. We just don’t want to be held up for a week and then a month, and then another month, until the details are firm. MR. RINGER-I feel very much like Tom is saying. I think we should move forward with this. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In looking at this, I agree. I think we make the connection between the Adirondack Bagel Café and the Denny’s, and conceptually, the way they’ve drawn this interconnection to the big box looks doable and feasible, but you don’t want to put it in so many words, and I can understand why. MR. NACE-I don’t know that. I looked at it for a minute. MR. VOLLARO-I still think that the land’s not going to change much, or not going to change at all. The dimensions, when you start building, there’s not going to be a dimensional shift to this drawing. So opening will always probably be ready to serve that purpose. So I see that we go ahead with this site plan here, and then after that site plan you and the big box store can get together and determine whether that’s feasible or not. That’s my position. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I think that, Bob sounds like he knows, that that’s the best, I think. MR. PALING-I agree with Bob. MR. MAC EWAN-One last time. MS. CALABRESE-I don’t know if anyone’s really studied the traffic flow. I mean, I think their plan is fine, but does anyone realize that our exit from the Bagel Café is their entrance to Denny’s? Is anyone taking into consideration that currently there are not parking spots between the businesses and they plan to put four cars. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Which plan are you referring to? MS. CALABRESE-I’m referring to his. Can I step up and show you? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Why don’t you? MS. CALABRESE-Which one’s Tom Nace’s? MR. MAC EWAN-The one we just had up. MS. CALABRESE-Okay. The Adirondack Bagel Café is. MR. MAC EWAN-Right where your thumb is. MS. CALABRESE-Right where the thumb is. MR. MAC EWAN-And he’s not utilizing your site at all. MS. CALABRESE-Okay. Our Bagel store sits here. You come in. You go around, and you exit here. That’s a telephone pole between the two properties. So people are going to be exiting our store, coming in the Denny’s here, and Lowe’s is there. Why can’t this be completely left open, this not as an entrance or an exit, and then down here used as his entrance and exits, you know, to stop all the flow between these two pieces of property, separated by a telephone pole. MR. MAC EWAN-Because they can’t go out that way. That’s an entrance only. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MS. CALABRESE-Then why separate it with four cars? Why not leave it open and leave this as an exit, leave both of these as an exit, and you don’t have two different flows of traffic going there. People can, if they’re exiting and going to the right, they could use that one. If they’re exiting going to the left, they could use that one, and use this as his entrance. We’ve got two different flows of traffic and people are going to be pulling in to that meridian to try to go either way. Do you see what I’m saying? That’s our exit, but it’s his entrance, and right now, there is no parking here. Taco Tom’s had it as the parking was over on the other side and across the back. Do you see what I’m saying? MR. MAC EWAN-I see what you’re saying, but I don’t share that same viewpoint. I think the traffic flow that he has on his site is going to work well for him. I don’t see that it’s going to be a conflict. MS. CALABRESE-You don’t feel someone going to take a right, someone sitting in that meridian trying to come in are ever going to meet heads there? You don’t think this person’s going to try to sneak out and this one’s going to try to sneak in at the same time ever? With Lowe’s over here? MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t say ever. Ever is pretty long term. MS. CALABRESE-I’m just saying, be aware of how tight and how close these driveways actually are. There is no separation between them right now. There’s a telephone pole, and people use them every day, but they’re only used as exits right now because, I mean, our customers are using them as exits. If someone’s going to the right, they use the farther one down. If they’re going to the left, they use the one closer to the Bagel store. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MS. CALABRESE-No, that was it. Just that sufficient separation or, just flow. I’m concerned about flow and people use that meridian. They drive up and down it. I mean, to get into, and there have been numerous accidents there. So I’m just trying to keep the flow between those two businesses going together. I mean, I’m not trying to stop this, but I think there should be more flow there, and I think he’s wrong about people crossing the parking lot. If we’re packed, they’re going to go next door. If he’s packed, they may come to ours. So I do believe that a lot of people will be traveling between the two businesses, not just here and there. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MS. CALABRESE-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-What Tammy’s just commenting on is that you’re going to have two entrances side by side right there, one to the Bagel Café and one to Denny’s, and what we were trying to come up with which was, again, only a concept, we’re not saying that that’s the right answer at this point, but we were trying to come up with a shared entrance. So you’re going to have two curb cuts right next to each other right there, which is not preferable, but regardless. What we’re here asking for is that you do make it a condition, because it’s not premature for us to be here. I mean, we’re coming here letting you know that we have something planned, so that you can take that into account, and when you approve the Lowe’s, as Chris just mentioned, you insisted that we put a 20 foot easement on our plan to the parcel immediately to the north along Bay Road, which is now a residential dwelling, so that in the future, because it was zoned commercial, just as the parcel here to the south is zoned commercial, that in the future, assuming that it would some day, and there was nothing pending and nothing has happened in the last year and a half, but assuming that that would some day be developed commercial, that the easement would be provided. Because once an applicant gets their approval, they no longer have to show that connection, just like Hannaford did not have to connect to the CVS. The only way to insist on it is to put it on the site plan, and show a 20 foot easement. So all we’re asking for, in the interest of planning, is just to show a 20 foot access easement at that back corner going to the south parcel, going to the parcel that we have under contract, and this is better than the Lowe’s because we are coming forth saying that we do have something planned, so this is more immediate, and that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-My response to that would be the two instances that you’re talking about, the CVS and the Lowe’s, was nothing more than a simple interconnect for future or between two existing parcels which was CVS and Lowe’s, for future consideration, but what you’ve done here is you’re redesigning the applicant’s parking area. MR. LAPPER-But in terms of re-design, you can throw away everything that we’ve submitted as conceptual. All we’re asking for is the 20 foot, if you don’t show the 20 foot easement, you have to assume it’s never going to be there, and the Ordinance requires that if it’s feasible, you have to redesign their site, and you have to add the 20 foot strip, just as you insisted that we do at Lowe’s. MR. VOLLARO-Jon, why do you feel that if it’s not on, that it won’t be feasible later on? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. LAPPER-Because there would be no requirement, just like with Hannaford, there would be no requirement. MR. VOLLARO-Still, in the light of good planning, why would a Planning Board reject that concept at some future date? MR. LAPPER-It’s not the Planning Board. It’s the property owner that may decide that they don’t want to bother, or they’d have to lose two spaces and they don’t want to lose the two spaces. Now’s the time to put it as a condition, and what Tom’s talking about, that it would be hard to get to the language. I mean, the language can say that it would be in about that location, that it can shift a few feet one way or the other. He’s right about that. MR. MAC EWAN-How wide is your proposed drive aisle? MR. LAPPER-What we propose, what Sear Brown did was 30 feet. That would be optimum. That would be more than required just for a drive aisle. It was 30 feet to accommodate the Bagel Café, Denny’s, and the proposal in the back. MR. MAC EWAN-Then why would you want Denny’s to give 20 of it? Why not split it right down the middle and ask them only for 15? MR. LAPPER-What we did was 15, but the Ordinance, since you’re saying that you’re not going to force them to consider that at this point, at a minimum, the Ordinance requires a 20 foot strip on the back, and we would hope that it wouldn’t be necessary, that we could do something 15 and 15, and we’re willing to enter into discussions with all parties immediately to accomplish that, but if you don’t make it a condition, it’s never going to happen, or you have to assume it’s never going to happen. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, Jon, the thing with the Hannaford deal was that they had a business in there that was in direct competition with their pharmacy. So, that was their, I always felt that that was their underlying reasoning for not. MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s true. MRS. LABOMBARD-But here, unless, you know, we still don’t know what that business is unless you’re holding out on us that maybe there’s something in your business that’s going in there that’s going to be in direct competition with those two little guys. MR. LAPPER-It is not a, it’s not a restaurant. It’s retailer. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to share it with us? MR. LAPPER-We're not at liberty to. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, then that’s what’s kind of annoying here. MR. LAPPER-We don’t have a lease, that’s the issue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Okay, but here, you know, what you’re proposing sounds pretty good, but you know, we’re going to make a ruling on something that we have no idea what you’re proposing, and again, back to the Hannaford, their pharmacy in direct competition with the CVS pharmacy, they wanted to go with what’s going to keep their bread buttered. Well, you know, maybe, I know you can’t, you’re to divulge what’s going in there, but you’re asking us to come over the line a little far, too. MR. VOLLARO-Jon, supposing the language was to be very broad and not particular and not very defining, but saying that the Denny’s would agree to an interconnect between the property to the south of that, period, at some future date. It doesn’t have to say where along that line or anything else? MR. LAPPER-The only issue with the “where” is that there is a wetland. So there’s not a lot of choice. MR. VOLLARO-Well, then that would be the driver anyway. The driver would be the wetlands would drive the decision to where you’ve got it, but they’re not committed, in any way, except saying, yes, we’ll agree to an interconnect, period. MR. LAPPER-That’s really all we’re looking for. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. MAC EWAN-The Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction for removal and re-establishing of wetlands is up to what, seven acres is it? Size wise? MR. ROUND-Yes. When you disturb in excess of a third, you’ve got to replace, reconstruction. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but there’s a threshold that you hit, where you can’t touch it at all. What is the threshold? Isn’t it seven acres? MR. ROUND-I don’t know off hand. MR. LAPPER-You’re thinking of six acres, which is DEC. MR. ROUND-Yes, jurisdictional requirement, in excess of 12 acres is New York State DEC jurisdiction. MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m thinking of is when K-Mart had to remove and re-establish wetlands there. It was the equivalent of about four acres, I think. You’re saying that the wetlands that are impacting the footprint of your store area, your proposed store area, is only about a third of an acre. MR. LAPPER-Slightly more than a third. MR. MAC EWAN-So, if an interconnect was going to be put anywhere along that southern boundary, and you’re going to, you’re not even going to be close to that six acre threshold if you put a driveway through there. That’s where I was going with that. MR. LAPPER-The third of an acre that we’re proposing to disturb is right in the center where the building is. The wetland behind the Denny’s we propose to leave alone. We can’t take out both. MR. PALING-You’re overlooking one item here, in that the applicant is not here, and what we’re talking about is not a planned part of the program tonight. No matter what we do, he can refuse to do anything about it. MR. LAPPER-Not if you make it a condition, in accordance with. MR. PALING-Well, if he were here, he could turn it down, could he not? He could say, I don’t want to do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but us as a Board, we could say that that’s part of the provision, you have to do it. MR. PALING-He could withdraw his application. MR. LAPPER-Bob, with all due respect, tonight is the public hearing, and we didn’t receive notice of this other than, I mean, we knew from the public notice that this would be on, and we’re here at the public hearing. He chose not to come. I mean, this is his application. MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, I’m not buying into that, because if you knew about this last Thursday, and you had time to sit down and work up a proposed engineering drawing, you had plenty of time to make a phone call to them. MR. LAPPER-But we’re here making this proposal to you. MR. MAC EWAN-But you should have started off with a phone call to these people. MR. LAPPER-But this is the public hearing for the project. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s the application you’re impacting. I mean, we can go around and around and around on this. MR. LAPPER-But we feel that we did this honorably to come here and. MR. MAC EWAN-No one’s saying you didn’t do anything honorably. The point was, you should have made the effort to contact this applicant to say, hey, look, we’ve got something in the works for this back parcel. What are your ideas of maybe we reconfigure things to make the interconnection? Don’t you think that would have just been good business sense? MR. ROUND-Can I just interject? What if there were no proposal here, and the Planning Staff asked for an interconnection between this property, without knowing any development was 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) occurring, and looking at the map, it would look like that this is the most logical location because there’s no wetlands there. Would that be a stretch? MR. RINGER-We wouldn’t have asked for an interconnect to the back portion. We would have only asked for an interconnect to the Bagel. MR. ROUND-Hopefully we’re thinking about those other interconnections. MR. MAC EWAN-Why didn’t we ask for an interconnect between the Lowe’s and the vacant parcel right next to it on Quaker Road? That’s been for sale for at least 10 years. MR. ROUND-There’s a wetlands right there. There’s no access to that. MR. LAPPER-You asked for it. It was because of the wetlands that you withdrew that. You did ask for it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’ll tell you, like I said earlier, I just feel that, I understand where we’re going, where we want to get as many businesses using one ingress/egress as we possibly can, but, boy, for the volume of traffic that looks like it’s going to go through there, I just feel that is a bottleneck, and I think that somebody ought to come up with something better, if that big box is indeed being proposed. MR. RINGER-The main entrance to the big box is going to be on Bay Road, Cathy, not on Quaker. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then, that’s another thing. Maybe their only entrance to the big box might have to be just on Bay Road. MR. PALUMBO-If I could add just one more point about. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s what I don’t think you want to happen. That’s why I have a real problem with this. Because I have a feeling that if we put this as a stipulation, it’s almost going to be a given, like it’s in. MR. MAC EWAN-It will be. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, and I just think there’s a lot more things to be discussed as far as the traffic that’s going through that little narrow area. MR. VOLLARO-I think, Cathy, if we propose that in a broad sense, if we make that stipulation very broad and undefined in the motion, that all it does is it allows that interconnection to go in some place, and that some place is going to be driven by the fact that there’s wetlands probably going to be driven to where it is now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s right. MR. VOLLARO-But the applicant doesn’t have to commit to anything. MR. PALUMBO-Just in terms of the Adirondack Bagel, I think the point that the owner had brought up is very valid. Having sat and tried to design around this, I know that the distance between the two buildings has a very great limitation on what’s going on with the parking there, and also her point about the entrances is very well taken. What you will have is basically a medianed entrance there, where it’s actually travelling in the opposite flow of what is normal. You will have the exit coming out on, if you’re coming in to the site, you’ll be crossing and entering into Denny’s, and the entrance is on the opposite side. There’s an inherent problem directly with that. I think also the fact that these plans did not show any of the existing, you know, there’s a lot of information shown down on the other end, but there’s no existing information shown on the Adirondack Bagel parcel. I think even if we weren’t here with our consideration of our plan, that just the specific or unspecific language of a 20 foot access point to the Adirondack Bagel really it isn’t enough. I think on part of the Adirondack Bagel landowner, there should have been some information provided by the applicant to show, you don’t even see the entrance, which is very, very close, and I think all other things aside. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me. Are you talking about the entrance to the Bagel shop? MR. PALUMBO-Yes, and right now the parking there is basically wide open and shared. I think it, in the least, there should have been some questions raised to the applicant as to where the existing parking for Adirondack Bagel sits, where it’s marked, and how this plan impacts that. MR. MAC EWAN-Obviously, you spent a lot of time trying to reconfigure this. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. PALUMBO-I sure did. MR. MAC EWAN-Why didn’t you make a phone call to them and ask them if they would consider working with you? MR. PALUMBO-Because I was actually busy working on the plan just to get it in. MR. MAC EWAN-Boy, I’m not buying any of this. I’m sorry. I just am not. This is ridiculous to me that this kind of effort is being put forth on this and not one phone call has been made to try to sit down with this applicant and see if something can’t be worked out. It’s smart business. MR. PALUMBO-Does that change the impact on the Adirondack Bagel? MR. MAC EWAN-We're not talking about the Adirondack Bagel. We're talking about Denny’s. That’s the application in front of us tonight. MR. PALUMBO-Right, and they are next door to the Adirondack Bagel. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-And they currently have a parking area that’s shared. So regardless of what our actions were, and what we should have done, I guess I’m turning the table on that. What should have been done for the Adirondack Bagel, in terms of how that is being considered, and what should be done in terms of access management, you don’t even show the entrance, they don’t even show the entrances on Quaker, which are right next door. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. PALUMBO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. You’re welcome. Does anyone else want to come up and comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NACE-Okay. Let me, real quick, address the adjacent Adirondack Bagel. Frank’s right. Only part of this is shown. Right now, that’s a wide open curb cut, the whole length between where I've shown the edge of the curb cut in front of Taco Tom’s, all the way over to the edge of the parking for Adirondack Bagel, okay. We were trying to channelize it a little bit so that there was some direction, okay. Obviously, it would have been cheaper and easier for us to leave it wide open, but we were trying to channelize it so that traffic out on Quaker has some idea where it’s going. Right now, it’s a free for all. It hasn’t effected Adirondack Bagel because there’s been no occupant of the adjacent facility, but if there were an occupant of the adjacent facility, it would not be a good traffic flow situation with traffic, you know, a free for all wide open curb cut. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you proposing to do to use as a separation for those four parallel parking spots? MR. NACE-We were proposing curbing along there. The plans show a detail for curbing there. MR. MAC EWAN-How high is the curbing? MR. NACE-Six inch. Standard. MR. MAC EWAN-Detail B? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Give me your response to the possibility of giving a 15 foot or 20 foot access, which would be in the southwest corner of your parcel. MR. NACE-Obviously, I can’t speak entirely for the client. I think if it were vaguely enough worded that there’s some flexibility, I think the client certainly would want an interconnection to adjacent commercial properties. I think the issue becomes where the demarcation is between a granting interconnection access and granting a piece of land for major access point, okay, and I think even the 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) major access point is an issue that could be worked out, if the engineering, access, parking, all work, but I don’t know, from what I've seen, that they do. MR. PALING-Is it possible, would you agree to delaying this a week? Is that a possibility? MR. NACE-If I thought something concrete, firm could be accomplished, I think I would, but I’m not sure where we will be in a week, that is any different than where we are now. Again, my point is that if it works, we’re going to agree to it. If it doesn’t work, then we’re going to sit down at the table, and the adjacent owners can negotiate something that will work. What we’re talking about having approved is not a new building that would block that access point. We're talking about striping and some curbing. All we’re doing is re-paving. We're not even tearing up the existing pavement there. Okay. We're just topping or maybe even seal-coating that area. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you be willing to next week, if we tabled you? MR. NACE-I would be unhappy. MR. MAC EWAN-I know. I’m asking you, obviously, as a. MR. NACE-If you give me no choice, I have no choice. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I don’t like putting people in that position. MR. NACE-And I don’t appreciate the position I've been put in tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-And I’m telling you right now, Tom, I agree with you wholeheartedly. In the interest of planning, though. MR. NACE-What is it that you think that we will accomplish? We're not going to have a new access point engineered by next week. I can guarantee you that. MR. PALING-Then if we can’t have a new access point engineered by next week, we shouldn’t be fooling around with this thing trying to engineer it tonight in any form. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s kind of where I’m going with this. They’re sitting there telling us that they spent a couple of days or whatever it was revamping this configuration to suit their needs without giving you the benefit of contacting you, at the very least, I’d be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and give them until next Tuesday, make you first thing on the agenda, and if they don’t have something engineered, their loss. Well, I’m only concerned in that, even if something is “engineered on paper”, it can’t be finalized enough by next week to lock in, okay. My client would be crazy to lock in to a plan, that may have to totally be altered because of the approvals in behind, as their plans develop. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I would be partial to a set of words, first of all, you agree that your client would be happy with that interconnect, Number One? MR. NACE-I don’t think there’s any question there, any businessman would. MR. VOLLARO-If we put a set of words together that doesn’t commit you in any way, but says that you would be amenable to an interconnection between these two properties at some future date. Stop right there, and the engineering of it, Tom, is going to drive it probably to that spot. Would you agree with that, it probably is going to drive it (lost word). MR. NACE-It appears to be obvious, but I don’t know all the facts. MR. VOLLARO-The good old engineering thing is going to drive us to the right answer. MR. NACE-Yes. Sure, but it may take, with the engineering on the site behind us, it may take a couple of months to get there. MR. VOLLARO-But still and all, the agreement for the interconnect would be there. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-For you client and for the big box. Go ahead and approve this site plan or disapprove or whatever we’re going to do with it, bring this site plan before us as it is tonight, just with that stipulation. MR. NACE-I would have no problem. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. VOLLARO-Then we don’t have to delay it, Mr. Chairman, at all. Unless you think you want to give it a week. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, what do you think? MR. RINGER-I think we ought to vote on it tonight, go ahead with it, and if Tom is willing to put that stipulation in, except that stipulation if we put it in, then we should go with it. I agree. I don’t think, as Tom said, that he can handle this in a week and we’ll get enough information in a week to make a decision, or for him to make a decision on what’s acceptable. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Let me think a little more. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-If I read Bob right, or whatever people are suggesting in regard to the wording, it says to me that the applicant can bail out at a later date and not be bound by it. Is that correct? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. PALING-Well, then you’re going to bond, then the client is bound by what you’ve put in. MR. VOLLARO-He’s bound by nothing but an interconnect. I don’t say where it’s going to be, how wide it’s going to be. The term “interconnect” would stand on its own. MR. MAC EWAN-But the provision in the Ordinance says, and I’ll quote you, “If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage”. So we just can’t arbitrarily put it in words and say wherever they want to plant the thing, it has to be shown some place on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, by the same token, those words are driving us toward and interconnection tonight. If you read that again, the words are driving us there anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Mark, any comments? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. First, I apologize for being late. As the Board knows, I had to attend another Planning Board meeting. From what I've gathered, in my few minutes here and speaking with Staff, you’ve identified one of the concerns that this Board has been concerned about for a number of years, on a number of our commercial corridors, certainly including Quaker Road, and the issue that you seem to be debating is how to deal with the possibility of multiple access, correct? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And what I’m haring, if I’m hearing you correctly, and forgive me if I’m not, having just come in, but that you’re wrestling with the notion of whether it makes sense to either delay action on this application pending some harder data as to where interconnections might be. The notion, I think, that’s expressed by the applicant, or the applicant’s engineer, is that a week is really not a significant amount of time to do that. Is that a fair statement? MR. NACE-Well, I think because the parcel behind that wants that interconnection has a process, has an engineering process, to go through of their own, and that may be several months. MR. SCHACHNER-And I’m hearing Board members, I think, talk about trying to use words, language, to pin down a concept that we don’t have precisely defined on a plan yet, and I think that that’s not a bad idea. I think that Bob Paling asks an excellent question, and that is, are we talking about what I call feel good language, but that doesn’t bind anybody, or are we talking about language that actually binds the developers to provide interconnect if feasible, and I think Bob Vollaro is heading in that direction, or trying to, and I think that makes sense. I do think we can, you do have the authority to impose a condition that says something like, and I’m thinking out loud, you know, the applicant must provide interconnection to the adjacent parcel, if deemed feasible by, and then we get to the important part, which is, who’s deeming it feasible? You could say if deemed feasible by the Staff, by the Town Engineer, by the Planning Board subject to future review, but I think Bob Paling, if I’m following him, is coming up with a good point which is if it’s up to the applicant, then there may or may not be an interconnection. I don’t think that’s the amount of control that this Board wants. I think this Board wants, typically, to actually make these things happen. Am I on target at all in any of my comments? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think so, particularly since the applicant has stated that he thinks his client would like to have it. MR. SCHACHNER-Would favor, right. So it would seem to me that there are a couple of approaches. If Mr. Nace feels that time would be beneficial, obviously, it would certainly be appropriate to afford him the time. I sense he does not feel that way. MR. NACE-Time doesn’t, you know, as far as we’re concerned, my applicant is ready, would like to occupy soon. MR. SCHACHNER-All I’m saying was that if time was helpful to you, to explore the concept, obviously, it would be very appropriate to grant a request from the applicant. That not being the case, what I’m hearing is the Board trying to formulate a possible condition that binds the applicant to a future interconnection if it’s feasible, and I think there are probably ways we could word something like that. I would have preferred a little more notice to try to do that, but we could try to work something out now or certainly easily could have something worked out by a week from now no question. I mean, we may try something as simple as, a condition of approval is that interconnection to the contiguous property shall be provided at such time, and we pick some time, I don’t know if we’re talking about a time certain or tying it to development of the adjacent parcel, if deemed feasible by the Queensbury Planning Board and its consulting Staff, or its consulting engineer. I think that the key thing is the issue that I think the two Bobs have hit on, which is that we want to make sure and bind this so it’s going to happen, if it’s feasible or not, it just may happen. Am I speaking fairly, Bob Paling, on your point? MR. PALING-I can understand where you’re coming from, and I’d like to go in that direction, but I hate to put the applicant in a position that he can’t move. In other words, if he were to say to us in response, I can’t configure my parking lot or my traffic circulation to match what you’ve asked, in his opinion, and he has an engineer to back him up, and then the Town says, no we think you’re wrong, I think we should have to cross that bridge now, and not later. We're putting the applicant in a very tough position. MR. SCHACHNER-Your point’s well taken, and certainly in a perfect world, the better way to do this is to have somebody really pin it down, and have something concrete to review, and I’m not an engineer person. I honestly thought a week didn’t sound like that was so infeasible, but that’s not my determination. MR. PALING-But we have two companies, both the Bagel Café and the applicant, who are effected by this, and when we say that you’re going to have an access point somewhere, you’re binding them, perhaps, to a different configuration than their parking lot and traffic flow, and I have a hard time with that. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, for what it’s worth, Staff seems to share my feeling, and Staff is more qualified on this point, certainly, than I am, which is that it’s not unreasonable to ask qualified engineer type people like Mr. Nace and others, over the course of the next week, to actually identified a possible potential interconnect area, and then have something concrete to look at and say, yes, this works, no, this doesn’t work. MR. NACE-I think the issue, Mark, is not just the interconnect, okay. There are two concepts here, that are getting confused with semantics, okay. An interconnect between two businesses is one thing, where traffic can circulate back and forth. Having a major access point through adjacent parcels is something entirely different, okay, and that’s really what we’re talking about here, and I don’t think that we’re necessarily negative toward that. We just think that there are an awful lot of details that have to be worked out with that, to be able to analyze and really see whether it’s feasible. If you want me to show an interconnect, I will be glad to show a 20 foot wide interconnect between the two parcels. That doesn’t grant the right for a major access point through those properties. Okay. It simply means circulation between the two properties, and that’s no issue. That’s what your Code says is interconnection. It doesn’t say major access. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the part I’m very hung up on, Mark, is the two examples that we’re given here tonight was the interconnect through the CVS/Hannaford store, which never came to fruition. That was just a simple cut through one property to the other, and the one we did for Lowe’s, that connects to the house next to it. So that if there were any future commercial development, there would be a connection there, from one parcel to the other. Okay. It’s just as simple as that, but what this proposed big box application is, and I do mean proposed, is it’s a major reconfiguration of this applicant’s parking area. So that will allow them their ingress and egress to their proposed parcel. It’s not just a simple, lets put it on a site plan, a future 20 foot wide swath so that we can connect to there. They’re asking this applicant to reconfigure their total parking area for an application that’s not even. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. NACE-And give up a parcel of land, give up a right-of-way across 15 or 20 feet of that side of the property, and again, I doubt that my client would be negative toward that. It’s just that takes a while to digest and to work out the details. MR. VOLLARO-See, the pivotal point I see is that your client would like to have this happen, some how or other. MR. NACE-If it’s feasible. MR. VOLLARO-If you were sitting on that side of the table adamantly opposing an interconnect of any kind, I’d say, this is hopeless, but what you’re doing is advocating it. It’s just you don’t want to be pinned down to a width, to a pre-exchange of traffic and so on and so forth. MR. NACE-And giving away 20 feet of land. As I said, I’ll be glad to actually locate a 20 foot interconnection access between the properties. That’s no problem. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then I think we should just vote on that. We should do the SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-We closed the public hearing, right? MR. RINGER-Yes, you closed it. MR. SCHACHNER-I think you did already. MR. MAC EWAN-We did. We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Could Action result in any adverse effects to the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste protection or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. PALING-Are we going on the premise that that Question C1. can be answered differently depending on we’re judging, and are we saying that there will be or there won’t be an access? MR. MAC EWAN-We are going to put an access, because, what we’re entertaining, as far as I know. MR. PALING-Then it’s going to effect existing traffic patterns. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. MR. MAC EWAN-To the better. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So it’s an enhancement. Okay. We feel that it will effect existing traffic patterns, but in a positive way. MR. PALING-No, I didn’t say positive. We don’t know that. It’ll effect existing traffic patterns. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, Craig said for the better. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It’s not a negative impact. MR. PALING-I don’t know that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, see, if it becomes a main thoroughfare, see, I think it could be a negative impact, also, but we’re not discussing that now. We're just saying it’s an interconnection. A potential interconnection. MR. PALING-Then it could effect existing traffic patterns. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. PALING-Maybe we could say that it could be mitigated, but it does effect traffic patterns. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Yes, and it can be mitigated. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) RESOLUTION NO. 22-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PAR FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LLC, 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: 2. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 3. The following agencies are involved: NONE 4. 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. 5. 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 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-99 PAR FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, and with the following condition: That the applicant shall provide an interconnect between his property and the property immediately to the south of him, somewhere along the property line. Also, an interconnect to the Bagel Café in the lower southwest corner of the parcel. Also, we have two lighting poles on the eastern parking area, in the painted islands location. Also, the Rist-Frost letter of 5/21/99. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 22-99 for driveway, parking and sidewalk alterations to former restaurant site; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received April 1999, consists of the following: 1. Application, Stormwater Man. Report with Map, SP-1, SP-2 dated 4/28/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 5/24/99 - Staff Notes 2. 5/17/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 3. 5/10/99 – Beautification Comm. minutes 4. 5/7/99 - Meeting notice 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) 5. 5/4/99 - T. Nace to L. Moore Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/24/99 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. 22-99, Par Family Restaurants, LLC. 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 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-With the following condition: that the applicant will agree to provide an interconnect between his property and the property immediately to the south of him, somewhere along the property line. That gives you, Tom, enough flexibility to decide where it is. Are you satisfied with that? MR. NACE-Yes, I am. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re also doing an interconnect to the Bagel Café, in the lower southwest corner of the parcel, is where you said you wanted that. Correct? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you’re identifying two interconnect areas. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct, and also, if I could just add to that, or amend that, that we have two lighting poles on the eastern parking area in the painted islands location. That’s where you said your two light poles were going. Correct? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all I wanted to add. MR. VOLLARO-Will that new drawing, Tom, be submitted as part of the application, showing the light poles? MR. NACE-That’ll be submitted as the record final set that’s approved by the, with the Planning and Building Department. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-You had one more, include the Rist-Frost letter of 5/21 of ’99. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-My suggestion would be that, Mr. Vollaro, in your condition, if I understood the precise language, you started it by saying, the applicant will agree to provide, and I would just recommend that you change that language to, the applicant shall provide. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The applicant shall provide, okay. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. NACE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 23-99 TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY SCHWARTZ OWNER: CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT #4, LOT #13 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,000 SQ. FT. METAL BUILDING AND 2 (TWO) 24’ HIGH LOADING DOCKS. ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 6-87 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-1.2, 1.1 LOT SIZE: 26.10 ACRES, 43.05 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-99, Jeffrey Schwartz, Meeting Date: May 24, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to utilize two lots from the Carey Industrial park to construct a 10,000 sq. ft. building. Site plan review is required for all uses proposed in the Light Industrial Zone. Staff Notes: The applicant has complied with all of the site plan review requirements. The applicant has requested a waiver from a stormwater management plan, but has provided information on the direction and the site capacity. The drawing demonstrates adequate parking, access for deliveries, outside lighting locations, and septic information. The elevation of the building will not exceed the maximum height for the industrial zone. The warehousing of electrical components as outlined in the information provided is a compatible use within the designated zone. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan as submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SCHWARTZ-Good evening. Jeffrey Schwartz. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Schwartz, could you tell us a little bit about your proposed project? MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Basically we warehouse electrical connectors and tools, and ship them primarily via UPS around the country. So, basically storage and distribution and sales. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it a Butler style building? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, metal building. MR. MAC EWAN-Did this go to Beautification? MRS. MOORE-No, it did not. MR. MAC EWAN-Because this being in an industrial zone? MRS MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you want to tell us about the project? MR. SCHWARTZ-Whatever questions you have. It pretty much speaks for itself, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. RINGER-What about the letter from Rist-Frost? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. MAC EWAN-I knew there was something else. MRS. MOORE-I’ll read it. It’s dated May 21, addressed to Mr. Round “We have reviewed st the documents forwarded to us with the above referenced application and have the following comments: 1. Calculations for sizing the detention pond should be provided. 2. Construction details for the pavement, sidewalks, and drop inlet are not included. 3. Site lighting plan is not included. 4. Plans should include water line location and any other site utilities to be located on the site. 5. A note stating that erosion control measures will be in conformance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control.” MR. RINGER-Did the applicant get a chance to? MRS. MOORE-Yes, he has, and I’ll let him address those. MR. SCHWARTZ-Basically, we’re going to drain everything to here. Whatever requirements they want us to do to make that to fit what the engineer wants, we can do it. I don’t have it at this time, but we can sign a condition that we’ll meet whatever conditions your consultant wants us to meet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine. MR. RINGER-What about the rest of Rist-Frost? MR. SCHWARTZ-And what was the second point? MR. RINGER-Construction details for pavement, sidewalks, and drop inlets. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Basically, this is the, right now, we’re not sure if we’re going to pave it or just stone, but this would be the area here, that we’re going to clear for that, for parking, and then for trucks, for receiving merchandise. Any questions on that point? MR. MAC EWAN-I think some of the stuff that Mr. Ringer is referring to has to be shown on your drawing, right? MR. RINGER-On the new drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-It would have to be revised on his site plan drawing. Right, some of those details? MRS. MOORE-He’s suggested some of the details be on a final plan. Yes. MR. RINGER-He’s going to put all these things from Rist-Frost on a final print? MRS. MOORE-I would say not all of them, but whatever you, I think there’s some simple ones, construction details. That can be added in. Site lighting plan is something that he has only security lightings, at the moment, proposed. So that, I don’t think that’s an enormous issue, but he could provide that, and the other one is providing water lines that’s available and a note for the New York State Erosion Control. Those are things that could appear on the final plan. MR. RINGER-I didn’t think any of them were enormous. I was just, we had the thing from Rist-Frost, and it hadn’t been addressed, and that was my concern only. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I do have a concern on the retention pond. There’s a note on my drawing that this detention and infiltration basin of 87,900 gallons, and this was all designed by Rist- Frost. MR. SCHWARTZ-No, it wasn’t. You mean the original drawing of the whole subdivision, you mean? MR. VOLLARO-This retention basin was not designed by Rist-Frost? MR. SCHWARTZ-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The drawing would lead me to believe, where it says Northern Distributing subdivision by Rist-Frost, and I thought that that retention pond was in there as part of the subdivision. It was not. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. SCHWARTZ-No. Rist-Frost drew the plans of the whole subdivision, the general plans, but this drawing here they had nothing to. MR. MAC EWAN-Subdivision versus site plan. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Fine. MR. SCHWARTZ-I guess we took the regular dimensions from the Rist-Frost drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Well, in connection with those, I wanted to get an idea, since you’re driving everything toward that retention pond, whether or not that was enough, and it looks to me like it is, just looking at the size of it, but I wonder if, because I think Rist-Frost made a statement that the calculations for sizing the detention pond should be provided. Are you planning to get those calculations done by somebody? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. We can provide that to Rist-Frost’s satisfaction, but we didn’t want to spend a lot of up front money before we were sure this is going to be good, but before, if you want to put a condition to their satisfaction, that would be good. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. SCHWARTZ-Any other questions? MR. MAC EWAN-I guess that’s it for the time being. I’ll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BERNARD L. WILKINS MR. WILKINS-My question is, I’m on the Corinth Road, on Connecticut Avenue, and I know there’s going to be an industrial park that Northern Distributing bought across the road from us. Now is this the piece of property that they’re going to be developing? MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re going down Corinth. MR. WILKINS-I have the corner lot right there on Corinth Road, right opposite where they were going to develop. MR. MAC EWAN-This is over on Carey Road in the industrial park, which would be on. MR. WILKINS-That’s not my place, then. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. WILKINS-That’s all I wanted to know. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. WILKINS-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I have your name for the record, please. MR. WILKINS-Bernard L. Wilkins. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. WILKINS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, 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: 3. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 4. The following agencies are involved: NONE 5. 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. 6. 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 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? Before we put the motion up, I wanted to ask a quick question. You have a fax here that says that he’s asking for a waiver from the stormwater management, but his phrase says I’m also requesting a waiver. Are there any other waivers requested that we aren’t aware of? Is there more than one, or just stormwater management? MRS. MOORE-It’s just stormwater management. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-99 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the resolution provided by Staff, and in addition to the resolution provided by Staff should be added the Rist-Frost comments be addressed satisfactorily, and the site plan drawing of elevations received today. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 23-99, Jeffrey Schwartz proposing construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. metal building and 2 (two) 24’ high loading docks; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received April, 1999, consists of the following: 1. Application with maps, SP-1 titled J. Schwartz-Warehouse 1999 and Drawing 2, Phase 2 Layout & Utility Plan dated 2/89 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 5/24/99 - Staff Notes 2. 5/17/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 3. 5/10/99 – New Information – Data, waiver request and map SP-1 dated 5/1/99 4. 5/7/99 - Meeting Notice Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/24/99 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. 23-99, 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 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-I just might add that, other than it says, Site Plan 23-99 for elevations, it hardly describes the project. MRS. MOORE-All I requested from him were the elevations. I didn’t ask him to date it or scale it. MR. VOLLARO-And this is a regular Butler building? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1993 MODIFICATION ESTATE OF ROGER & GERALD HEWLETT OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING BOARD SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION IS TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF PARCEL 110-1-1.221. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 38-1999 TAX MAP NO. 110-1- 1.221, 110-1-1.222, 110-1-1.21 GREG HEWLETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled for a modification. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-1993 Modification, Estate of Roger & Gerald Hewlett, Meeting Date: May 24, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to modify an approved subdivision. The applicant has received an Area Variance from the Zoning Board to modify an existing parcel to have less than the required road frontage. Staff Notes: Staff met with the applicant to discuss the proposal. The applicant would like to reduce the size of parcel 110-1-1.221. The adjustment of the lot line on this parcel would make it a non-conforming lot without the required forty foot road frontage. The parcel (110-1-1.221) will retain an easement to the existing road accessing Dix Avenue. Recommendations: Staff would recommend granting the modification to the Subdivision 10-1993.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. HEWLETT-Good evening. My name is Greg Hewlett. MR. MAC EWAN-And can you tell us a little bit about your request for a modification. MR. HEWLETT-The roadway here is in question both on this issue and the issue that we’re going to cover next, and what we’re looking to do is to subdivide this roadway from this parcel here, which is a modification because it was previously subdivided from this parcel here. So that we can, in the next application, attach it to this parcel here, which will be subdivided from the other piece. MR. PALING-Am I looking at the same drawing? MR. HEWLETT-No. This is just a section of what you have. This is a blow up of the section that pertains to the map that you’re looking at, in this application. MR. MAC EWAN-So I guess just basically a lot line adjustment. MR. HEWLETT-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Of course this lot won’t have frontage any longer on that main road, either. It would be a flag lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1993 ESTATE OF ROGER & GERALD HEWLETT, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: As written. The Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change to the original SEQRA findings for this subdivision. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Subdivision No. 10-1993 to reduce the size of parcel 110-1-1.221; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/28/99, consists of the following: 1. Letter dated 5/2/99 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 modification to Subdivision No. 10-1993. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) 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 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED ESTATE OF ROGER & GERALD HEWLETT OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 34 TRIANGLE PARK DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE AN 11.42 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 38-1999 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.21 LOT SIZE: 11.42 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GREG HEWLETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-1999 Preliminary & Final Stage, Estate of Roger & Gerald Hewlett, Meeting Date: May 24, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 11.42 +/- acre parcel into two lots. Subdivision review is required for this parcel within the Highway Commercial zone. Staff Notes: The applicant has met with staff to review the proposed subdivision. The drawing demonstrates parcel access and division lines. A letter was also submitted requesting certain waivers from the preliminary review. The applicant proposes to use existing curb cuts as access to the proposed parcels. The applicant has addressed all of Staff concerns. Staff has no additional comments. Recommendations: Staff would recommend granting the requested waivers and approval for the Preliminary and Final Stages for Subdivision 6-1999.” MRS. MOORE-Would you like me to read his requested waivers? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please. MRS. MOORE-It’s addressed to Staff members, dated May 2, 1999 “This letter is to request the following waivers from Preliminary subdivision requirements for application for Subdivision 110-1-1.21, two foot contours, location of all proposed and existing structures, wells, septic, utilities and access driveways, grading and erosion control plan, and a stormwater management plan.” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. HEWLETT-My name is Greg Hewlett. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Mr. Hewlett. MR. HEWLETT-On this application, what we are requesting to have done is to subdivide this parcel, identified as 5.27 acres, from the entire parcel, which includes the 5.07 acres of Quaker Road frontage property and the roadway of 1.47 acres that creates the loop. The darkened line here would be the parcel that would be subdivided, including the roadway that we just subdivided in the last modification from this parcel here. I’d like to note that this has been an existing use. This parcel currently remains vacant and will remain vacant for the time being. This parcel is currently being used separately for the business that we operate there. MR. VOLLARO-I do have a question. When I look a the two lots, the area of 5.270 acres is your corner lot up there, would become the flag lot, or the lot without any access to the frontage. MR. HEWLETT-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the other one is the 5.078 acres right next to it. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MR. HEWLETT-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now if I add those two up, I get 11.242 acres. MR. HEWLETT-If you add this parcel with this parcel. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and now you’re trying to subdivide those up into two lots, one at 4.189 and one at 7.231, and that comes out to 11.42. What I’m just trying to say is the original number and the number after are not the same. MR. HEWLETT-That’s correct, and that’s because of the acreage included in this roadway. The existing parcel does not include this roadway. We’ve just given a modification of subdivision over here. We're taking this roadway which is currently deeded to here. MR. VOLLARO-The roadway picks up the difference. MR. HEWLETT-The roadway is the net difference. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t understand it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? Please come on up to the microphone. 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 RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 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: 4. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 5. The following agencies are involved: NONE 6. 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. 7. 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. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1999 ESTATE OF ROGER & GERALD HEWLETT, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As written. Grant the request of the waivers, in accordance with his letter of May 2, 1999. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 6-1999 to subdivide an 11.42 parcel into two lots; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/28/99, consists of the following: 1. Application with maps 2. Letters dated 5/2/99 – requesting waivers, authorizations Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/24/99 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 Subdivision No. 6-1999. 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 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1999 ESTATE OF ROGER & GERALD HEWLETT, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 6-1999 to subdivide an 11.42 parcel into two lots; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/28/99, consists of the following: 1. Application with maps 2. Letters dated 5/2/99 – requesting waivers, authorizations Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/24/99 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 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) 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 Subdivision No. 6-1999. 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 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. HEWLETT-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 21-99 TYPE II DAVE & JANE HOPPER OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, APA LOCATION: PILOT KNOB ROAD – 1 BOATHOUSE ST ON LEFT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SUNDECK OVER A BOATHOUSE. COVERED BOATHOUSES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION CROSS REFERENCE: AV 40-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/12/99 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-8 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16E(2) FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 21-99, Dave & Jane Hopper, Meeting Date: May 24, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to modify an existing boathouse to construct a sundeck. Site Plan review is required for construction of a covered boathouse. The applicant has received an area variance for the new construction within the required setback line. Staff Notes: The applicant met with staff prior to submission. The overall height from the mean high water level to the top of the rails is 13 feet. The boathouse square footage (448 sq. ft.) will remain the same with the new construction. The proposed sundeck does not appear to impact neighborhood character or views. The Warren County Planning Board has indicated the project will have “No County Impact”. The Board should be aware the County’s right-of-way extends onto the applicant’s property. If there is any proposed road work/maintenance within the right-of-way, it may interfere with existing or proposed construction. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the sundeck application with the condition of only one sundeck for the property. Staff would request any future amendments to the existing docks are reviewed with staff.” MRS. MOORE-The County had “No County Impact”. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The condition was for only one sundeck for the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you quickly encapsulize this? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MRS. MOORE-Okay. They have other docks on their property, and since there’s other docks, I want to make it contingent that they only have one sundeck for the entire property. JANE HOPPER MRS. HOPPER-That’s fine. DAVE HOPPER MR. HOPPER-We agree. MRS. HOPPER-Not a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MRS. HOPPER-Good evening. I’m Jane Hopper. MR. HOPPER-Dave Hopper. MR. DE NARDO-Frank DeNardo. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project. MR. DE NARDO-Basically, we’ll be ripping the boathouse down, reconstructing with a flat roof to the plans, with a railing, a three foot railing up around the top for a sundeck. MR. MAC EWAN-The boathouse that you’re tearing down is the one that straddles the neighboring property, is that the one? MR. DE NARDO-No. There is one section, there’s a lean-to area on the north side of the dock we would be taking down completely, and not replacing. It’s a lean-to. It stands about four foot high off the dock. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and which dock is that on? I’m orienting myself with the drawing. MR. DE NARDO-It would be on the north side. MR. MAC EWAN-North is that way? MR. DE NARDO-That would be, yes. MR. PALING-What is the area to the dock, the length and width? What are those dimensions? MR. DE NARDO-The length of the dock is 30 feet long. The width is I believe 21. MR. PALING-So the boathouse square footage is 448? MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. PALING-That’s fine. Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I can picture it vividly. I just can’t find my map. That’s okay. MR. VOLLARO-The overall height from the mean high water level to the top rails is 13 feet? The drawings look like 14. MR. DE NARDO-Fourteen. MRS. MOORE-It’s 14 feet. I know we discussed it. MR. PALING-It’s 14 feet, maximum. MR. DE NARDO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Has Staff got anything else to add? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing, lets open it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-You have a written comment. Okay. This is dated 5/24/99. It’s to the Queensbury Planning Board “We support the applicant’s proposed construction plans.” This is from Kim and Bruce Hansen, and they’re the south neighbor of the parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-99 DAVE & JANE HOPPER, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: For their boathouse, with the condition that there will only be one sun deck on the property, and that the building conforms to the correct footage above the mean high water mark, maximum height not to exceed 14 feet from the mean high water mark. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 21-99 proposing construction of a sundeck over a boathouse; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received April 1999, consists of the following: 1. Application with attached maps Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 5/24/99 - Staff Notes 2. 5/19/99 – ZBA resolution 3. 5/17/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 4. 5/7/99 - Meeting notice 5. 5/6/99 - Warren Co. Planning from Planning Office – new information 6. 5/3/99 - M/M Hopper from Craig Brown 7. 5/3/99 - M/M Hopper from M. Gallagher, LGPC 8. 3/16/99 - C. Brown to M. Gallagher, LGPC Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/24/99 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. 21-99, Dave & Jane Hopper. 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. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/24/99) 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. MRS. HOPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 43