Loading...
1999-11-16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT PALING ALAN ABBOTT ROBERT VOLLARO MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-99 TYPE: UNLISTED GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC OWNER: SAME AGENT: LEMERY & REID, JACK LEBOWITZ ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: NYS RT. 9, NORTH OF ROUND POND RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE KNOWN AS THE WHITE WATER RIDE (45 FT. IN HEIGHT) WITHIN AN EXISTING DEVELOPED AREA OF THE PARK (SPLASHWATER KINGDOM – LAZY RIVER RIDE). WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 248.96 ACRES, PROJECT SITE IS 0.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-21 JOHN LEMERY & JACK LEBOWITZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Applicants? Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. LEMERY-Good evening. Members of the Planning Board. My name is John Lemery, law firm of Lemery & McKrell, Counsel to the Great Escape. Jack Lebowitz of our law firm, Counsel to the Great Escape. Tom Stringfellow who is the Marketing Director for the Great Escape. Jeff Anthony of the LA Group, Planning Consultants for the Great Escape. Since we were before this Board the last time, there was a meeting on October 26, with the Planning Staff, consisting of myself, Stu th Messinger, Chris Round, Dean Long of the LA Group and my partner Jack Lebowitz and John Collins, the Vice President and General Manager of the Great Escape. John Collins is in Atlanta this evening at the annual convention for amusement park operators, and asked us to convey his excuse for not being here, that he had to be at that meeting. Tom Stringfellow is here in his stead. At that meeting, a discussion ensued regarding the implementation of the Environmental Impact Statement, which this Board has requested and we’ve discussed the Scoping and a plan whereby it might be possible to come before you to determine whether or not you would entertain a small change in the developed park by way of an attraction which is needed for the 2000 season, before the EIS is completed. So there is a procedural question here before you, before we get to the merits of whether or not you will entertain this application, which is, should you review the impact of a minor change in developed park before an EIS is completed. We’re mindful of the issues that you raise concerning that. There has been filed with the Planning Staff and with your consultants information relating to the Scoping which is scheduled for next Tuesday, the 23 of November. Today, the Great Escape rd filed with the Town of Queensbury a check for $10,000 pursuant to an escrow account which the Town Board asked to be established to provide for the payment of fees by the Great Escape to the engineering firm represented by Mr. Messinger. That resolution was passed last night by the Town Board and the Great Escape deposited the funds with the Town today. My partner Jack Lebowitz is going to discuss the procedural issue and the implication of the segmentation issue which you’ve raised before, but before we get to that, I just want to, with your permission. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to delve into the project itself with a presentation here, or what? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. LEMERY-No, I just wanted to show you where this is located on the map. Just for reference for the people in the room, this is the Great Escape project location map Area A, Park Area A, is the actual amusement park itself on the east side of Route 9, which is the developed park, or the developable park zoned RC-15 for amusement park. Area C is the lands on the west side of Route 9, some of which have been owned for years by the Great Escape, some of which were acquired this Spring. Park Area B is the wetlands to the west of the Northway. This is a site plan of the entire developed park, as shown on Park Area A. This is the attraction that we’re asking that you review this evening, which is located in the Pirate Ship ride. It’s totally within that ride, and in terms of the area of the park that it will encompass, it’s up here in this corner. It’s a very tiny half acre piece of land that would be developed within the confines of this island, a double shoot, which is really a waterslide down into this area. Tom Stringfellow, if we get to that, would like to address for your comment the issue of why this is necessary and why it needs to be done at this point, and with that, I’d like to ask my partner, Jack Lebowitz, to go into the issue of the procedural matters that need to be resolved first. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we go that far, just maybe we can try to get ourselves on the same page here. I think for the past 11 months or so, this Board has been requesting of the Great Escape to do this Impact Statement, more so since the June 30 meeting when all these land acquisitions took th place and then the plans for building your hotel across the street, the motel, and obviously the expansions that the Park wants to do in the coming years, and I think that the Board feels that it’s more important now to get this process going than waiting, and I think the Board has been very adamant to you folks, all summer long, about wanting to approve another ride before we get this Impact Statement, and I think it’s somewhat unfair of you to say to us that you want to put pressure on this Board to approve a ride because you need it for the 2000 season, when we’ve been asking for this since February of this year, and had that whole process started back in February or March at the latest, you probably would be finished, if not near finished, with doing an EIS now, and I don’t think it’s fair for us to review a project when we said that’s not what we want to do. We want to do the EIS first. MR. LEBOWITZ-Not to argue with you, Mr. Chairman, you know, hindsight is great, but one of the things about the SEQRA process is, and I’m sure you’re aware of this, having been through several Impact Statements before, is it takes a long time. Not only the SEQRA procedures, in terms of reviewing the document, once it’s completed, but all the studies that go into deciding what the baseline, the noise measurements that have to be taken, the traffic studies that have to be done. We had started working on this EIS, in terms of the underlying studies, around the time that we appeared before this Board on June 30 of this year, which was after the Park acquired the new land on the th west side of Route 9 this Spring. We were mindful, at that point, that the Board had been asking for a Generic EIS of the Park’s operations. At that point, the new lands, obviously, changed what we would have to do, but we’ve been working full tilt on this thing since that time. The lands you see on the west side of the Route 9, surveys had to be done this summer. That took most of the summer. I mean, there’s a lot of study that goes into this thing. So I’m going to just take it from the SEQRA perspective, and talk a little about segmentation and a little about the discretion that this Board has to apply review requirements sensibly. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we do that, Mr. Lebowitz, I guess I would like to hear from my fellow Board members as to how they want to proceed with this. I mean, the indication that I’ve been getting as Chairman, and as you’ve asked me, at least two occasions prior to tonight, how would the Board feel about doing an application, approving it before you do an EIS. MR. LEMERY-I think you need to understand a couple of things. Number One, to my knowledge, there has never been a vote by the Planning Board to actually demand an EIS. We tabled and withdrew the applications that we had here at this Planning Board while we discussed the question of what would be contained in the EIS, trying to understand what it was that the Planning Board was trying to accomplish with an EIS. It’s a very complicated matter. Mr. Paling, for example, said we’d like to see an EIS of the entire Route 9 corridor. We discussed the issue of that and what the Great Escape could do with respect to that and its share of the problem. Somebody else wanted to know what about the Exit 20 area. As soon as this started to gel, as Jack Lebowitz said, the Great Escape engaged traffic consultants, sound consultants, an engineer to start designing the pedestrian bridge, and to do all the things necessary to complete a Statement. It’s a several month process. It’s not just something that, I mean, you can get an impact statement put in front of you within 90 days, but that’s not what you would want, and that’s not what the people who live in the community would want. You want a document that will work, and that will, on a long term basis, provide the kind of information that allows everybody to make reasonable decisions. The problem that we have here is that we don’t believe this to be a fair way to deal with the Great Escape to shut the Park down, in terms of what it needs to do, awaiting an Impact Statement that could take a very long time to complete. There will be public hearings. There will be comment, and all we’re talking about here is trying to get this one attraction approved, which they’ve got budgeted, and which they lose if they don’t get done this year. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. MAC EWAN-If this project didn’t get approved, would you close up the gates and not open up in the Year 2000? MR. LEMERY-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Then we’re not about to shut the Park down. It seems to me like you folks just keep trying to whittle away and whittle away and whittle away at this Board, and I believe this Board has been more than fair, and has tried to be more than accommodating with you guys. We recognize that the Park wants to grow. We recognize that the Park has some very ambitious plans for the new few years, and we’d like to help you accomplish those plans, but we also recognize that the Park has got some severe problems right now, and how are we going to address those problems? I think that needs to be done. MR. STRINGFELLOW-Let me try to make a little bit of understanding as to why we’re asking for this now, if this helps a little bit. I’m Tom Stringfellow, the Director of Marketing. Obviously, next year we’re not adding any big capital that’s going to be marketed to the folks. We’re asking for you guys to take a look at this waterslide for mainly one reason. During the course of this summer, we had some extreme heat, obviously, this summer. The attendance that we had was really good at the Park, and when we get capacity crowds in the water park area, we have to close the area off. We would like to add this facility, this slide, to increase the capacity in the water park as a guest satisfaction demand only. It’s not a ride that I can go out and market. It’s not going to be put in our brochure. It’s not anything that I can add to the whole scope of the Park, saying this is something that’ll bring guests from far, or even local. It’s something that, if we’re not going to be able to expand like we want to next year, until we go through this whole EIS process, I would at least like to maintain the status of the Park by giving the guests a better experience, and adding a ride like this or slide, it’s a 45 to 50 foot slide, is going to help disperse that crowd a little bit more and maintain this year, until we can finish the Impact Study, but it’s more of what happened here in July and August. We have to wait until the Park closes down, and for the little money that we have to spend, I would like to ask you guys to please consider that, so we can at least maintain, during the course of this year, our guest’s satisfaction for next year. That’s the crux of why we’re asking for this piece, while the big picture is being put together, but it means a lot for us to at least keep that status of the Park next year, you know, since we’re not making any major impact on any new rides. So this would give us the ability to maintain that status. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll say it again. I think that you folks are putting an awful lot of undue pressure on us, that’s something that we should have been addressing way back when, and now here we are, going into the Year 2000, and the pressure’s being put on this Board to approve an attraction, because we’re into the construction season, we need to get it opened up for next season, and we just keep hearing the same old drum beat. MR. LEMERY-Actually, you don’t, because the Planning Board, the last few times we’ve been before the Board, the issues have been traffic, and the noise relating to the one ride. There has been no other issue before this Board for several years now, except, what are you going to do about traffic, and over the last summer, the Bobsled ride. So the way that has been addressed is that the Park went out and bought the land to create the parking. We’re sort of in a situation where we’re getting punished for going out and doing the things that the Planning Board asked us to do in the first place, which is get the land to provide for the parking. We are going to do something about the traffic going on Route 9. The bridge has been ordered, and the Impact Statement, as I think your consultant will tell you, is well on its way toward getting drafted. So, everything that you’ve asked to be done by the Great Escape has been done. What the Great Escape is saying, is there a reasonable way here to treat this business, which allows it to be able to keep its competitiveness, in terms of next summer, by dispersing some people within that water park. It has no consequence to the other issues that are before you. It has no noise consequence. It has no traffic consequence. It has no environmental consequence whatsoever. So, is there a problem with that, whereas, at the same time, the environmental process is starting, which is a complicated, long and drawn out process. We’re not asking for anymore rides. We’re not asking to come back here and do something else. MR. MAC EWAN-You are asking for another ride. It’s sitting right there on the easel. MR. LEMERY-But this one was known to the Planning Board for some time. MR. MAC EWAN-For how long? MR. LEMERY-Six months. MR. MAC EWAN-It has not. You asked us way back, well, there’s no point in beating around the bush on this, really. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. LEMERY-But what’s the issue here? Lets talk about the real issue with regard to what it is the Town Planning Board is trying to accomplish. You just can’t say, you’ve got serious problems at the Park. We don’t think there are serious problems at the Park. There may be several people here who disagree with that, Mr. Chairman, but we’re talking about fairness and equity here, in terms of, what’s a reasonable approach? We’re doing the Environmental Impact Statement. Everybody, at the end of the day, is going to be very pleased with the results and how the issues that people have raised are mitigated. In the meantime, is there any harm done in allowing them to put this attraction in, and keep in mind, everybody needs to understand that there’s no zoning required here. What they’re asking to do is perfectly within their rights within the zone, and what they’re asking to do on the west side of Route 9 is perfectly within their rights within the zone. Route 9 is zoned HC-1A, and the Park is zoned RC-15. So we’re not, there’s not even a zoning issue here. MR. MAC EWAN-It all requires site plan approval. MR. LEMERY-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ll say it again. To my last conversation that I’ve heard out of fellow Board members over recent weeks, that we’ve had meetings with you regarding the Great Escape’s ongoing expansion, I still hear the same message from my fellow Board members, they don’t want to approve another application until we do the Impact Statement first. If you want, we’ll poll the Board right now and ask them. MR. LEMERY-I guess then it’s our turn, since every time we’ve come before this Board, you’ve heard everybody who claims to have a problem with the Park, we’d like you to hear from some people who are concerned about the Park, the economic impact of it, who work there, who are involved, who are citizens of this Town, and who want to be heard here. So we’d like you to hear from them before you have a vote. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think we have basically three choices in front of us tonight. One, we can ask you to withdraw the application, and incorporate it into the EIS starting next week. Two, this Board can table the application and include it in with the EIS next week, or, three, we can open up this application and we can Pos Dec it and include it in the EIS next week. MR. LEMERY-You have a fourth choice to approve it tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-That is a fourth choice, but it’s probably not doable, but again, I’ll poll the Board if you want me to. MR. LEMERY-I think the Board needs to hear from some people who are concerned about it. MR. MAC EWAN-That means I’m going to open up a public hearing, and I’m not ready to do that yet. Mr. Paling, I’ll start with you. What would you like to do? MR. PALING-Well, so far tonight I’ve heard nothing new. I would have said something, except, if there’s going to be something new said tonight, I’d like to hear it, before I come out with what would be a final opinion, which I have, unless it’s changed somewhat by what happens here. MR. STRINGFELLOW-Mr. Chairman, we say we’re expanding, when all we’re doing is trying to, as any good industry would do, would be to take a look at their products that they have and try to provide a good customer experience, and granted, we want to provide that, and if we are handcuffed to not being able to do anything in this Park, we’re going to start losing the attendance that helps pay for the property taxes, the school taxes and sales taxes. MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re being very, very unfair right now. No one is handcuffing the Great Escape, not at all. No one on this Board has done that. MR. STRINGFELLOW-Well, how can we not add something in the Park that’s not going to create an impact on traffic. It’s not going to create an impact on attendance. It’s just taking care of the guests in the meantime, while you guys and us work together on trying to get the EIS completed, but for the rest of, you know, the folks that live here and depend on our guest’s satisfaction, so that in the Year 2001, our guests will come back, and I’m not putting the burden on you guys to decide that. I’m just asking that you consider please letting us attend to our guest’s satisfaction issues that we have, as the Year 2000 rolls in, until we can get this EIS done. It’s not a huge ride. It’s two slides. It’s a 45 to 50 foot tall waterslide, and it’s something that we feel like we’ve got to have in order to survive this coming year. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan, how do you feel? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. ABBOTT-I’m trying to get a grip on the history here. I read a lot of background material before tonight’s meeting, and this has gone on and on and on, and I think it’s time to draw the line in the sand and say, no more until the EIS is done. This has gone on long enough. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sitting up here with all you people out there kind of puts some pressure on us. It’s four against 150. I’m going to tell you right now. I’m not an expert in marketing. I’m a school teacher, but I sure as heck would hate to have the Great Escape start loosing attendance and becoming a ghost Great Escape where all of a sudden we’ve got this Park up there that’s not making money, and you talk about an eyesore, that would really be sad. I don’t know why we can’t come to some kind of an agreement here. I’m probably taking an unpopular stand here, but I’ll tell you, I’ve been thinking about this a very, very long time. I know that you people have a lot of concerns, and if I had any idea that that Bobsled ride was going to be annoying you to the extent that it has, that thing probably never would have gone in. because that’s all we hear about. I know, we hear about other things, too, and I don’t want to sound naïve, but is there the possibility of building this new ride, all right, still continuing on with the EIS, and lets say it comes out with some really, really serious negative impacts, tear the damn thing down. All right, now I’m being naïve, you’re right. Once something gets up, it’s not supposed to come down, but there are stipulations that can be made, and if you want to put your money where your mouth is, the applicants, if you really feel that the Great Escape isn’t pouring on the negative impacts, like the rest of the people here feel like it is, then maybe we can come to some kind of a compromise. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think you answered the question. Would you proceed with an application? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I really, at this time, you mean proceed with a positive, you mean, make a motion that they continue on? MR. MAC EWAN-The last three messages, I guess you could say, that representatives of the Great Escape asked us for, would the Planning Board entertain granting approvals for an application for another ride in the Park, prior to doing an EIS. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that it could be worked out. If we could find some kind of a way that we could work it out, I would go for it. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re undecided at this point. Is that a fair statement? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right now, I would say, the way things are going, I wouldn’t approve it, but if we could somehow meet each other 50/50 and come up with some kind of a way where they could continue with building the ride, but yet we could get our end of the bargain, too, as far as all the studies being done. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re undecided at this point? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t like that word “undecided”. The way you’re wording it, yes, but I’m not a person really to walk the fence. All right, as far as you’re concerned, lets say I’m undecided right now, but that’s the way I feel. I’m undecided right now, but the way I feel is that I think that we’ve got some good heads in this room right now. We ought to be able to come to some kind of agreement where we could all give a little bit and get what we want. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve taken a long time to sit down and try to study this SEQRA, as a State Statute, and I don’t think that we’re in a position here to negotiate a statute which emanates from Federal law. You just can’t negotiate on the SEQRA law. What I’m going to do is to try to set the stage what’s in my mind. We had a meeting on June 24, 1999, and there were Staff Notes at that meeting, and during that meeting, and in those Staff Notes, and I’m going to read them because they’re very short. It says, at the time the Planning Board conducted site plan review of the Nightmare Ride, which was on 11/24/98, that’s better than a year ago almost, our office, that is the Planning Staff, recommended the Planning Board examine the cumulative impacts associated with the incremental expansion of the Great Escape. A comprehensive evaluation of the impacts associated with the growing Great Escape is good planning as well as fundamental to the concept of SEQRA. That’s back in November, that’s a year ago that this statement was written. So this is not something we’ve been toying with just recently. Now, in the SEQRA law itself, under the area of segmentation, it talks about, in a multi phased action, how does an agency, and the agency in this particular case is this Planning Board, address uncertainty about later phases. All known phases of the project should be considered in the determination of significance. If later phases are uncertain as to design or timing, their environmental significance should be examined as part of the whole action, by considering the 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) potential effects of the total build out. If after completion of the review, it can be determined that the subsequent phases will cause no significant impacts or that such impacts may be mitigated, initial phases can be approved and no further analysis under SEQRA will be necessary. Later, if substantial changes to the project are proposed, such changes should be evaluated and a new determination of significance made, and it goes on to talk about if an EIS was produced for earlier phases, a supplemental Impact Statement or revised SEQRA findings may be needed, but the key words in there, to me, the thing that I’m looking at, it says, the environmental significance should be examined as part of the whole action, by considering the potential effects of the total build out. That’s where I’m hanging my hat on this. I noticed that in the letter that’s October 7, and written to the th Honorable Mr. Paling, by Mr. Lebowitz, and in that letter it states that the incremental, small site plan modification existing Park approved in recent years, and it is distinct and severable from the project to expand visitor support facilities being considered within the proposed scope of the DGEIS. What he’s really saying there is we’ve been approving things on this Board incrementally for a long time. That was a mistake. I admit the mistake of the Board. The Board admits its mistake, but to continue, and to continue to approve this ride, further sets down the fact, and the next ride that comes up, this same statement could be made. You’ve been approving these rides incrementally all along. How come you want to look at the Park as a total entity now? We’ve got to draw the line here. MR. LEBOWITZ-Mr. Chairman, could I just speak to that last comment? Since it was my letter, and I’d like to just clarify. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me take one more poll, and we’ll get back to you. MR. LEBOWITZ-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, how do you feel? MR. RINGER-I find it difficult to believe that one ride is going to make or break the Great Escape for next year or 2001. So when you say, if we don’t approve this ride, the Great Escape is gone. I don’t think that’s going to happen. So to ask us to, you know, this is imminent that we have to approve this to make it survive. I don’t agree. I believe, we have asked or indicated to you, actually I believe since December, that we’ve wanted an EIS or were looking to have you do an EIS, and just to come in here and say, we haven’t heard anything about it, or June was the first time, I don’t believe June was the first time, and since we’ve asked for EIS now, I think we should have the EIS before we approve any additional expansions to the Park. MR. MAC EWAN-I think you know where I’m coming from. MR. LEMERY-Before you get to that, you know, you’re talking about an expansion to the Park. It’s not an expansion to the Park. It’s within the Park. It’s within the zone that they’re allowed to put these attractions in. Mrs. LaBombard is exactly right. There ought to be a way to work this out so that nobody’s backed into a corner here over positions that were taken. The Impact Statement is going to get done. What will a value be at the end of it? You’ve got to decide, as a Planning Board, what the value of the Great Escape brings to the community, and whether or not, you talk about drawing the line in the sand. This doesn’t draw any line in the sand. This is just simply something that allows them to meet their competitive requirements the following summer, and to disperse people who come in and wait, where they had to shut the water attractions down several times this summer, in order to accommodate the people. Now, the Town, it seems to me, you have an obligation as a Planning Board to look at those issues. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re doing that. MR. LEMERY-You’re not doing that because the Impact Statement is not going to be ready in time for this attraction to get built and operating for next season. It’s not going to be ready. MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s responsibility is that? I’m asking a question. MR. LEMERY-Well, I think I could take the position that we’ve tried for several months to try to figure out, as a company, what was going to be in this Environmental Impact Statement. It wasn’t until we just recently sat down with your Staff and discussed what we’re going to talk about within the area of the Park marked Area A, which is the existing Park, Area B and Area C. The question, Mr. Vollaro, of the issue of the segmentation was litigated by the Town Board and by your present Counsel and ourselves some time ago, and the courts found in favor of the Town and the Great Escape. When the Noah’s Sprayground was put in, a property owner in Lake George, Gary Koncecowski, sued the Town Board and argued segmentation, and the Supreme Court found that it wasn’t segmentation, and this kind of implementation within this zone is not segmentation. Now I’ll leave it with this, because it’s not a good thing for the entire area, and the reason we wanted you to listen to some people tonight is because this audience is not made up of 150 people who don’t want 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) this to get done. Let me say that we cannot respond to letters that you get from somebody who says that the Great Escape has destroyed the fish in Glen Lake. That’s so far out in left field and so outrageous that it doesn’t even deserve to be discussed. It’s not fair, either, that the Great Escape has to sit here and hear about water into Glen Lake. That issue has been before this Board on numerous occasions, and we’re here to tell you what’s going on, and you know because the Great Escape paid for a study, the water quality of Glen Lake is not impacted by the Great Escape. So you could get 15 letters, but there are 40 to 50,000 people in this Town who want to proceed in a way that Mrs. LaBombard has described, as how can we be fair to everybody. How can we be fair to the residents who are concerned about the water quality, who want that ride taken care of, and at the same time, how can we be fair to a company that, by the way, paid in sales taxes $800,000 in 1999, plus another property $300,000 in sales taxes, school taxes of $156,000, and Town and County taxes of $135,000. Now that’s the company. We have 50 full time employees, and they’re here, and they’d like to be heard, too, and I think your Board, Mr. Chairman, ought to listen to them. For every time we’ve been in here, we’ve heard from two or three people from Twicwood, two or three people from Glen Lake. You’ve not heard from the people who make up, who are your neighbors, who live in this Town and work at the Great Escape, and what we want is the opportunity, before you vote here and kick us out of here, we want you to hear what they have to say, and we think that’s a fair way to deal with this issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Fair process is that a process happens. Everyone who wants to participate has an opportunity to participate. MR. LEMERY-Not unless you let us be heard. MR. LEBOWITZ-I just want to speak to SEQRA for a minute here, in response to Mr. Vollaro. First, it’s not true that there’s never been an Impact Statement of the Park, and I don’t know how many people are on this Board, or if you recall, nine years ago, there was an Impact Statement for the Comet, which also dealt with the Park, because at that time, it was the perception that the Comet was going to ratchet the Park up to a whole new level of visitation, and some cumulative impacts associated with that. The point is that it’s simply, it’s very hard, and I know that Mr. Vollaro’s read through the SEQRA Regulations, and I hope he’ll agree with me. It’s very hard to figure out how you apply SEQRA to a facility that has basically been in the same configuration, the same land use for 40 years, okay. It’s one thing when you talk about applying SEQRA to a Wal-Mart being built on a green field, or a Lowe’s or something like that. It’s another thing when you talk about incremental change, and the proverbial problem is, what’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back? When you get to segmentation, and the issue of, what’s the action, what’s the project, how are these pieces related to each other, I think our point is very simple. That there’s nothing wrong, in SEQRA, with doing an independent determination of significance, in other words, looking at that EAF that we filed for that ride, and deciding that it has no impacts. The thing that comes closest to a possible impact is that a balloon test shows that it can be seen for a very short distance along Round Pond Road, in the context of other buildings. I think there’s a misperception on the part of this Board we’re trying to evade environmental review. We’re not. We’re trying to get up to speed, to do something that takes a long time to put together, and a long time to review, and once we get into this review cycle, even if we were to file this document next month or the month after, we’d be looking at four to six months of the things that are mandated in that Statute, the review of the EIS by the consultants, public participation, Final EIS, and so forth. What we’re saying here is that it’s reasonable to consider, and will preclude any changes being made for the Year 2000 season. Now, you may scoff at the idea that the Park is going to, no, the Park is not going to fold up and blow away if this ride doesn’t get approved, but what is going to happen, and we were discussing this before this meeting to prepare for it, is there are complaints, right now, with the number of people who are currently visitors to the Park, when this water park area becomes overly congested and has to shut down. People have to cue up and have to wait for a half hour to an hour outside of that. If you look at the provision of SEQRA that deals with segmentation and the general rules 617.3G, you will see that the Board has the discretion, when there is good cause, to allow for projects to be divided for review purposes in ways that make sense, and we simply can’t get you what you need, even if we started, even if I accept that we should have started earlier, with 20/20 hindsight, last November, after the Board first started to talk about this, and my partner is right. It was never Pos dec’d . I mean, we’re not clairvoyant. We’re working together to try to get something that satisfies people’s concerns. There’s no reason why this small change could not be reviewed tonight. It makes no difference, in terms of the overall Impact Statement that we’re trying to put together, because the opposite decision is that, if we’re going to go through this process, and nothing can change, then you should be very mindful that you’re saying, we can’t do anything for the Year 2000 season, that requires any site plan change, and just about anything requires site plan change, and I don’t really see how the public benefits from that. MR. MAC EWAN-Number One, it wouldn’t be benefiting the public. It would be benefiting the Great Escape. I don’t agree with a lot of things you just said in your little speech. The Park has tremendously changed in the last 40 years. It went from a little Mom and Pop kind of enterprising amusement park, that was basically open from nine to six daily, to summer months, to a Park that’s grown rapidly in the last three years, with expanded hours, expanded attendance, and expanded rides 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) to create a more older attraction for young adults and adults in the water ride theme, and amusement rides that were not the same as they were 40 years ago, and as far as you agreeing to do a SEQRA, I believe there’s letters on file with the Staff that said, quite emphatically, that you’ll do a SEQRA for the west side of the road and not the east side of the road, when this Board has been asking for a SEQRA, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, for the entire holdings of the Great Escape. We have said that right along, and you’ve been fighting that right along. So I don’t think it’s fair, and I think the things that are concerning the Board right now is the tremendous growth cycle that the Park is going through, the ambitious plans that it has for the next few years to come, the addition of a hotel, motel complex, convention center complex, that in the June 30 meeting you had with this th Board and the Town Board, said you had no plans for a hotel/motel complex, and just a few weeks later you turn around, and here’s the plans. I think this is why the Board wants to do this now. The timing is right. We want to help you grow, but we also want to do it in such a way it’s not going to have adverse impacts on the community as a whole, and under 179-38 of our Zoning Ordinance, that empowers this Board to keep an eye out for the health, safety and welfare of this community, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do. MR. LEMERY-Well, let me respond by the following. When Charles Wood sold the Park in 1989, to IBC, the revenues in the Park started to decrease because IBC didn’t put any money in it. The money was taken out of the community, and sent some place else, and over a period of time, the patronage in the Park decreased by several hundred thousand people a year. When the Park was acquired in 1992, bought back out of bankruptcy by Charles Wood, the attendance had shrunk to some 300,000 people a year. The first thing that Mr. Wood did was to get the Comet approved here, which took some doing and cost him over $100,000 in an Impact Statement, but it got approved finally, and it started to increase attendance, back to the point where it was before he sold the Park. The benefits to the Town have been 10 fold as a result of that. You have to look at this from a Townwide and an area wide perspective. You can’t just look at this in a very narrow perspective. This property and this business has a significant impact in the entire area. The Town tax has gone down substantially, year after year, because for one of the reasons, this company has spent millions of dollars marketing the Lake George area. I asked the Director of Marketing, how much money do you spend locally here a year on services? Five to six million dollars or more is a very modest number. Now, it makes no sense, due to the economic impacts of all this, to draw lines in the sand. It makes no sense, and nobody’s asking that you draw a line in the sand here. We’re saying, we’re going to give you everything you want. In terms of trying to resolve Impact Statements within the Park and outside the existing Park, yes, that was a serious struggle with the Planning Staff and the people on the Town Board, or the Planning Department here, what is it that you want? Do you want us to go back? We’re not going back and discuss every single item that has gone on in this Park, because it’s been the subject of site plan review and a very thorough site plan review, at every single instance. So it really doesn’t serve anybody’s purpose, the neighbor’s or the community, to draw a line in the sand and say, that’s it, you don’t put one more thing in this Park until you give us an Impact Statement. Impact Statement here is going to take time. As far as the hotel is concerned, the Chairman finally said, well, all right, we don’t know whether we’re going to build a hotel, but it’s possible. So we’ll talk about it. We’re not going to build a convention center. The Great Escape has absolutely no plans whatsoever to build any convention center. It’s not going to build it, and it’s not going to own it, but it’s said, if you, the County, in your efforts to build a convention center, want to take a look at putting it here, we’ll entertain that, and we’ll pay for that as part of the Impact Statement. If you want to put it someplace else, put it someplace else. That’s all a part of how people can work together in a town and a community to make something good happen. So I don’t think, to draw a line in the sand over a .5 acre piece of land, well within the boundaries of this Park, that allows for one more tiny attraction to alleviate the problem Tom has talked about, ought to be where we go tonight. It really ought not to be the issue here, and if you listen to some of the people who are here whom you haven’t heard before, you might agree. So they’d like to be heard. MR. MAC EWAN-We can sit here, we could probably discuss this until 11 o’clock tonight, and I really don’t want to. We have other items on the agenda. I think you’ve gotten the impression from this Board, there’s four of us up here that don’t want to proceed, and I don’t think you’ll get an approval tonight if we proceed with it. I’d ask you to withdraw the application and incorporate it in the Draft EIS. MR. LEBOWITZ-I just want to say one thing about the Draft EIS that kind of disturbs me, Mr. Chairman, and that’s part of his line in the sand scenario. We’ve been working, for the past month or six weeks, with representatives of the Planning Board, Planning Staff and third party consultant to get an Environmental Impact Statement that’s generic, that study’s the cumulative impacts of the Park operation, but that complies with SEQRA and the case law and basic reality, again, of how do you do an Impact Statement for something that already exists? Okay, and something where the incremental changes in the attractions area, that is changing one ride here or one ride there, within a 90 acre parcel, that’s surrounded by another 270 acres of buffer, the wetlands, it seems to me that what you’re saying is, you know, we’re not going to be able to go in there and look at things on a ride by ride basis, to either predict what rides we may want to add in five or six years, or to get into, with all due respect, ridiculous exercises of trying to say, yes, the Comet’s over here, what if we move it 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) over there as an alternative. I mean, you’re dealing with a facility that does exist, and we’re trying to conform with SEQRA so that we’re looking at the new stuff, the expansion, and then the cumulative impacts of that expansion. There are cases that we’ve provided to Counsel, and I’m sure you’re familiar with some of them, that basically say that you can apply SEQRA meaningfully to phases of a development that are already there, and I guess one of the things I’m hearing that, just so we’re clear about this, if this Board were to say tonight, fine, we’re not considering any new incremental change, any new change, until an EIS is complete, I’m a little distressed. I think we’re going to be here, from what I’ve heard tonight, next week again arguing about something that we thought was fairly flat, which was how do you do this Impact Statement? You misunderstand one thing. There’s not going to be a discussion in this Impact Statement of that ride. Because first of all, if tonight you’re not going to entertain it separately, it just goes away. I mean, there’s no way of saying whether there’ll be any money in the capital budget for that next year, or that that will be where the Park wants to focus its energy. As well as the fact that the approach that we’re talking about taking, we’re not going to be talking about individual rides, and I think that Mr. Vollaro, we’ve sat through a number of meetings with Staff and with Board members that have agreed that that’s a reasonable approach. So I’m a little bit distressed hearing that what we think is a reasonable approach, and trying to work our way through something that’s analytically difficult to pull off, you know, we’re just going to run into some unreasonable attitudes in terms of what we’re able to do, and what the Board is able to review. We will be back here next week, but I don’t think that we’re going to talking about this waterslide ride. It doesn’t even come up to the radar screen of something that’s significant within the terms of the impacts of this Park. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is it my understanding you’re withdrawing the application, then? MR. LEMERY-No, that’s not the case. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Would you like us to table it. MR. LEMERY-No. MR. MAC EWAN-What would you like us to do, Mr. Lemery? MR. LEMERY-We’d like you to listen to the people who are here from the Great Escape. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Lemery, I’m not going down that path. MR. LEMERY-What you’re telling the Great Escape is, then, that you get no more approvals for anything until you complete an Environmental Impact Statement and it’s accepted by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, which could take several, several months. MR. MAC EWAN-You finally got it. That’s exactly what we’ve been asking from you since February. MR. LEMERY-Over a question, if you don’t mind, of a noise generated by one ride, and the fact that these people bought some land on the west side of Route 9 for parking. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill, here. MR. MAC EWAN-That I might add are being used without site plan approval. MR. LEMERY-That’s not true, either, and don’t say it because it’s not true. You know it’s not true. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get site plan approval on them? Have you been served with a violation notice on them? MR. LEMERY-Do you want to get confrontational about it? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not trying to get confrontational, Mr. Lemery. I’m only trying to express to you this Board’s. MR. LEMERY-They were told by the Town Planning Staff that they could use the land, and then when they found out they couldn’t, the Town Planning Staff made a mistake and went out there and said, you know, you can’t use the land, and they said, fine, and they immediately stopped it. So, I mean, what’s the point? What’s the point of all this? MR. MAC EWAN-The point is, and that’s exactly what we’re digressing to here, and I don’t want that to happen. MR. LEMERY-Yes, but. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. MAC EWAN-And all I want you to understand is that this Board has been trying to convey to you for 11 months now, we want to do an Environmental Impact Statement with a three to five year plan of the Park before we approved another ride. We have been sending that same message for 11 months, and you make an application, come in here tonight, hoping that we’re going to change our minds. MR. LEMERY-We discussed it with the Planning Staff. They felt it wasn’t an unreasonable approach. MR. MAC EWAN-You have four members up here who don’t want to proceed with it. That’s a quorum. MR. LEMERY-I guess you need to take a vote then, if you’re prepared to turn it down. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want us to open up the application and do a review? Mark, what alternatives do we have? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I wasn’t going to speak to alternatives you have. I was only going to make sure that you don’t do what the applicant just asked you to do, which is take a vote to reject the application. That would not be appropriate at this time, procedurally. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I agree with you. I’d like to table the application is what I’d like to do. MR. LEBOWITZ-Until when? MR. MAC EWAN-Until when? One option we have is to incorporate it in the review, and the scoping session for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and how it will impact. MR. LEMERY-We’d like you to deal with it tonight, please, because it doesn’t even get involved in the Impact Statement. It’s not even something that’s going to be involved in the Impact Statement. If you want to turn it down, just do what you have to do procedurally and turn it down. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking for some guidance here. MR. RINGER-Our other option could be to table it until the EIS is completed. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, again, it’s not really up to the applicant to tell you, as the SEQRA Lead Agency, what will or will not be included in the Environmental Impact Statement. So, Larry Ringer is correct. One of the things you can do under law, if you wish, is simply table the application, pending its inclusion in an Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant’s correct. There has not been, as I understand it at least, there’s not been any SEQRA Positive Declaration issued yet, but I guess that’s what’s contemplated a week from tonight. Is that the case? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-So you could certainly, for the time being, table this until a week from tonight, and then, if in fact a Positive Declaration is issued a week from tonight, and if that Positive Declaration includes this application, then that will be included in the Environmental Impact Statement. Does that make sense to the Board? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’ll make that motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 55-99 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: Until November 23, 1999. Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. LEMERY-Do we understand this to be reviewed? MR. LEBOWITZ-Next Tuesday? We’ll be back trying to get an independent determination of significance if we can get the Scoping thing flat next week? MR. MAC EWAN-You guys are tough, I’ll tell you. MR. LEBOWITZ-Well, no, I just want to know what we’re doing, because, I mean, you’ve got to understand that we’re not going to voluntarily table it because there’s, if this thing can’t be approved 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) in the next couple of meetings, and built this year, there’s no point in going through with a theoretical review about something that there may or may not money for next year. MR. LEMERY-What’s the point in tabling it? Why not just face up to it and turn it down? It’s not going to be back here. It’s not going to get built. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve put a motion up. Maria, call the vote, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute, I’ve got a question. You said that next week we’re going to receive a Positive Declaration? MR. MAC EWAN-No. We’re going to table this application, pending the outcome of the starting of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I thought I heard you say that next week we’re going to have a Positive Dec? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I didn’t say that. Next week, we’re going to have on the agenda the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. MR. STRINGFELLOW-Mr. Chairman, the only thing I have is this money is allocated in ’99, and if we don’t get started on it and have it 2/3’s built by the year, then we will not build it. So that’s why rd we’re trying to get it approved now. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re trying to get a vote through. MR. STRINGFELLOW-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, unfortunately, I am not going to be here next week, and at this point, I’m going to abstain, because I can’t carry it through. MR. LEMERY-May I ask what the purpose of a table is? Can I ask you what it was? MR. MAC EWAN-No, let us finish our vote. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-There you have it. MR. LEMERY-So what is the purpose of tabling it, please? MR. MAC EWAN-We just got through telling you, Mr. Lemery. MR. LEMERY-Would you tell me again, I didn’t understand. MR. MAC EWAN-This is the outcome of what we’re going to do next week with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. MR. LEMERY-So it’s tabled until next week’s meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Next item on the agenda. SITE PLAN NO. 56-99 TYPE: UNLISTED SUTTON’S MARKETPLACE OWNER: SAME AGENT: NORTHFIELD DESIGNS, JAMES MILLER ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1066 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF A 4,200 SQ. FT. DISPLAY/OFFICE SPACE AND 8,000 SQ FT. STORAGE SPACE TO EXISTING MARKETPLACE. THE EXPANSION/ADDITION OF COMMERCIAL USES REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 120-1992 AV 119-1992, SP 48-89, 39-96, 18-97, 5-99, 17-99 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 11/8/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 68-1-15, 68-1-13.2 LOT SIZE: 5.96 ACRES, 1.03 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JIM MILLER & STEVE SUTTON, PRESENT 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 56-99, Sutton’s Marketplace, Meeting Date: November 16, 1999 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a 10,200 +/- square foot addition to the “Furniture Store” structure. The addition will be used for office, storage, and retail space. Site Plan review and approval is required for construction of new facilities. Staff Notes: The applicant proposes a two- story structure that will be architecturally consistent with the existing furniture store. The storage building portion will be accessed from a drive that encircles the toy cottage. The impervious surface increase on the Toy Cottage parcel does not appear to effect the permeability calculations for the parcel. Site Plan review criteria from § 179-38: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed addition will be consistent with the existing furniture store building. There will be similar window styles and fixtures as seen on the other buildings in the marketplace. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The applicant proposes a reconfiguration of the parking area to assist in traffic circulation. There are two existing curb-cuts and an interconnection to the joining parcel. The NYSDOT is in the process of completing road improvements in this area. The improvements include sidewalks and turn lanes, this should also assist with traffic circulation to and from the site. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off street parking and loading: The applicant proposes 147 parking spaces with five to be utilized as handicap spaces. There is sufficient parking for each of the commercial uses. The plans provide a breakdown of the parking requirements that meets the town’s standards. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. There does not appear to be a need for pedestrian controls on the site. Both the furniture store and the restaurant/store have areas in front of the entrances that accommodate for pedestrian movement. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The location of the addition does not appear to require re-grading. There are three new dry wells proposed to accommodate the stormwater generated from the new addition. The plans have been forwarded to Rist Frost Associates for review and comment. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The proposed addition will use the existing furniture store utilities. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant’s and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The applicant proposes landscaping that is similar to the furniture store. The adequacy of fire lands and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The plans identify one hydrant located on Route 9 near the store/restaurant. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The proposed addition does not appear to have any impacts on areas susceptible to ponding, flooding and or erosion. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan as submitted.” MRS. MOORE-I have one comment from Rist-Frost. I’ll read that. It’s addressed to Mr. Round. “We have reviewed the information from Northfield Design submitted in response to our comment letter dated November 11, 1999. 1. The additional stormwater calculations and information are acceptable. 2. In a telephone conversation on November 15 with Mr. James Miller of Northfield th Design, he advised me that the addition would not include the hiring of additional employees or restroom facilities.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County Planning? MR. RINGER-Beautification. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s part of the record. MRS. MOORE-Approval by default. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please? MR. SUTTON-Steve Sutton, of Sutton’s Marketplace, and Jim Miller from Northfield Design. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours. MR. MILLER-Good evening. This is the latest scheme for additions to Sutton’s Marketplace. What we’re looking to do is have a dual purpose building that will be a storage facility for furniture in the 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) rear portion, and in front of that, toward Route 9, will be a display and office space space that will serve as a façade in front of this more utilitary building that’s to the rear. What we have currently is an open site, no trees. It has a greenhouse on it that will be taken down as part of this project, and that the new addition to the furniture store would be built on this basically flat site. Previously, there was an addition approved, back in this area, of about 8,000 square feet. We are not going to do that, but do this project in lieu of that. If you take the combination of the previous approved addition and the greenhouses, there was more floor space than what’s being proposed in this one building, as a net result. We’re not proposing any new black topping for our parking. The current count meets all the requirements. Actually, we have an additional 20 spaces than what would be required. We are going to re-organize the existing parking lot, and re-stripe it in a more efficient manner. One of the problems that Steve has had at the facility has been the movement of cars around the facility, people searching for a space. So we feel this new layout will remedy that current situation. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you gain more parking spots by going that route? MR. MILLER-We, by going with the new Ordinance, and just re-doing it, we actually do gain a few more parking spaces. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. MR. MILLER-The new building will have a look that I think supports the theme or the architecture that’s going on there currently. If you can piece this in, this is where the furniture store attaches. So it’s a different look, but what we’re trying to do is promote, between all the buildings there, kind of a village type atmosphere in appearance, and trying to maintain natural materials and something that’s more in the vernacular of Upstate New York. We’re not trying to create something that’s totally new. I’m going with familiar forms, and things that are appropriate, we feel. The lighting scheme for the project will basically be a low impact type situation. We will light the building from ground mounted flood lamps, like the rest of the facility, and then where there’s an entrance, and back at the loading docks, there’ll be lighting for that area in particular, but it will all be building mounted lighting, and we’re not proposing any tall pole type lighting or large area floodlights, again, trying to keep in the current scheme of things that are going on at the facility. To talk a little bit about what’s going to happen here at the new addition, out front there will be an addition of space that will be display space for furniture, plus, some offices. Behind that, it’s going to be a more utilitary type building, a metal building, that will be used for furniture that’s been ordered but can’t be delivered yet. So it will be basically a storage facility. Suttons anticipates maybe one, at the most, one truck a day that would be coming in. Currently, they’d have maybe two, three trucks a week. That would be accessed by way of the Toy Store property, which is also owned by Steve and Donna Sutton, back this way, to keep the truck traffic out of the parking lot, and we’re proposing a nice landscaping theme to tie in with the rest of the building. So, basically, that’s the concept. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, we’ll start with you, any questions? MR. RINGER-None right now. Perhaps later. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have any questions. I just think it’s a great improvement over the last time. I’ll tell you that. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are these little windows next to the little dormers that come out, on my plan? I’m just curious. I think the building is absolutely beautiful. These little things. What are those? The way that is? MR. MILLER-No, that’s metal snow slides. So that’s a continuation of the roof. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Because I saw it on the colored rendering, and I just couldn’t quite make it out. It’s just a beautiful building. MR. MILLER-Thank you. When it’s colored, it’s more obvious. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. ABBOTT-How tall is the building? MR. MILLER-It’s approximately 30 feet tall. MR. ABBOTT-How does that compare to the existing building? MR. MILLER-It’s a little bit short of it. I believe the tower currently is some 32 feet. It’s about the same massing and scale. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. It’s hard to get a feel when you’ve got a picture of the existing building and a drawing of the proposed building. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-Yes, you asked the same question I was going to ask. It’s no taller than the other building that’s abutting it. MR. MILLER-No. MR. PALING-And don’t you gain a safety measure in the re-striping of the parking lot because of turning a vertical to where they were horizontal? MR. MILLER-We feel that’s true. Because you have less lanes, you know, the lanes are more defined, versus where currently there’s probably four, maybe six, lanes that you can go down to turn into your parking spaces. Now there’s two. It’s more organized, we feel. MR. PALING-That’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to make a comment for the record. I scaled this off at an eighth to one, and to the top of your cupolas, it’s 37 feet, just so the record shows that. Okay, because this is not a typical one to twenty, one to forty scale. It’s a one-eighth to one. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. It scales off at 37 feet to the top of those cupolas. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, did you have anything else? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-All set? Question. How far into the bank are you going? Are you cutting into the hillside at all? MR. MILLER-We will not be cutting into the hillside at all. Building on that flat portion of the site. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll ask you gentlemen if you’d give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. If anyone wants to come up and comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. Any questions that you have, we’d ask you to direct them to the Board, and we’ll certainly get them answered for you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KAREN SABO MRS. SABO-Karen Sabo, 12 Twicwood Lane. I’d like to comment and say I agree. I think it’s a big improvement over the last plan, and I think it’s a very nice building, and I am surprised that the Suttons have come forward with this at this time, because we thought it was going to be in the 2000 building season when they would present a new plan. As you know, Twicwood, Glen Lake and Courthouse have had a very disturbing summer with all of the problems we’ve had, which I don’t need to get into, but because of basically what I’m thinking of is the noise and the pollution problems, light pollution, we have circulated a petition, and what that petition says is I have a letter drafted to the Board, with all the petitions, and the Twicwood Homeowners Association Board has made resolutions, and before I say them, I would like to say that the reason for these resolutions is that while the Chazen Company is doing their study now, and this is also on the petition, what the 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) petition says. They’re looking at all of the issues that are presented in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and a lot of these issues that have already been voted on in the plan, but they’re looking to do the Zoning Ordinance on, are re-defining the buffer zones, possible tree ordinances, and stuff like that. So our petition that we’ve circulated mentions that we would not want any further development along Route 9 until the Zoning Ordinances are in place, just for the protection of the neighborhoods. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, who are you going to give these petitions to? MRS. SABO-You, the Planning Boards and the Town Board. MR. MAC EWAN-I would encourage you to give them to the Town Board, because they’re the only one who are able to enact a moratorium on any kind of building. MRS. SABO-But the reason that I brought that up tonight is just that our concerns that it is a beautiful building. However, if it were okayed now, I’d have questions about what kind of buffering there would be between this, particularly where the trucks will be coming in, and where the residential neighborhood is, because if I understand right, it’s on the side of the Toy Cottage? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but there would be no buffering required because he’s well within his property line. MRS. SABO-Right, but I’m just worried about noises, from like trucks loading and unloading, and if anything. MR. VOLLARO-I think that hill in back of them is going to buffer a good deal of that sound. Probably a good deal of it would be absorbed by that hill, as a matter of fact. MRS. SABO-It doesn’t right now. Right now we can hear everything going on, from his land and also from Route 9. So that’s why I’m concerned, and just would hope that maybe new Ordinances are being created right now, I’m hoping, that would help with noise buffering and also there’s a recommendation in the Land Use Plan to make the east side of Route 9 less intense than it is right now, because of the residential areas, and those are my concerns. I will present this to the Town Board, but I would like those questions answered, and there’s things I think need to be looked at, such as the light on the warehouse. If that, you know, how it’s going to be faced and stuff, but mostly with the noise and also with the loss of trees, because another issue that’s in the Land Use Plan is, and also talked with the Chazen Company about, is how Route 9 actually looks, and there’s a clump of large pine trees that are right on the side of the Toy Cottage, and I’m just concerned that those are going to have to be all wiped out, for the way the road is right now, and I think for the benefit of the Town, I think it would look a lot nicer if we could keep as many large trees out to the road as possible, and I think I’d like that to be looked at, and that’s a concern, and like I said, I think it’s a great improvement, and I think it looks good, but those are my concerns from the neighborhood. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll ask those questions. Anyone else? BILL MORE MR. MORE-Yes, my name is Bill More. I live on Twicwood Lane. I don’t know all the laws about the Environmental Impact Statements and that kind of stuff, but I don’t understand, in reality, how you can turn down the Great Escape, which I’m glad you did, but you also will let this guy get away with adding stuff on his property that was not anywhere near what it started out there when it was originally started, when it was a little store, many years ago. Now you’ve got a big complex, and it’s growing and growing and growing, by steps, just like the Great Escape. It’s really no different than the Great Escape situation, just on a smaller scale. So how can you let one person get away with it, and not let the other group get away with it? I don’t understand it. That’s all I really have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? JOANNE BRAMLEY MRS. BRAMLEY-Joanne Bramley. I would like to say that I also feel that this new plan is a considerable improvement since the last time. My only question is, is there any provision for timeframes on deliveries, you know, where there’s certain hours that deliveries will be accepted and other hours that they won’t be accepted. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that answered for you. Thank you. Anyone else? IRWIN FUNK 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. FUNK-My name is Irwin Funk. I live on 17 Twicwood Lane, and I was at some of the meetings before, and it seems that there was a major question here about whether this was a storage facility or whether this was a warehouse. Now, all of a sudden, we’ve got a building that’s 2,000 square feet bigger than the one we had before, and it’s still operating under the same purpose, to bring in temporary storage, and it was considered, at least by our legal representation, looking at precedents, that that facility was a warehouse, and it may have different sheep’s clothing, but it’s still the same warehouse, and if you change the rules on this zoning, and allow this large building there, then you’ve set a precedent, and you’ve got to be dealing with that every time somebody else comes along at Route 9, wanting to do the same thing. They’re going to point to this facility as an exception that you made to the law, and I oppose it and I think you should oppose it on those grounds, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? PHIL MANCE MR. MANCE-My name’s Phil Mance. I just want to take a moment to look back at what Steve Sutton has done for the community. I think he’s built a beautiful business. He’s always done it in great taste. He takes the time and effort to go through the Planning Board like he’s doing now. He’s got a beautiful facility there. Every time I drive by there, I say, gee, he brought in some great contractors. He’s done an excellent job. His construction work and the design work is beautiful, and I think he’s doing a great job for the community, and I’m proud to drive by Route 9 every time. I really think he’s an asset, and I hope you will approve it. I think he’s doing a wonderful job. I think, what is furniture? The furniture comes boxed up in boxes all the time. It’s not something that’s going to clink and clatter and cause problems for people to hear. I really think Steve bends over backwards to help people, and as far as Queensbury goes, I think it’s looking beautiful on Route 9. They’ve done a nice job down through there with the new roadwork and everything, and his new layout of his parking lot, I can see it’s going to be improved, going lengthwise instead of vertical there, and he takes the time. I hope people will agree with me that it’s great to have a business in Queensbury that does as well as Steve’s does. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JOHN ORTON MR. ORTON-Hello. I’m John Orton. I live on 180 Montray Road. I’m a newcomer to the area. I’ve been here about two years. I’ve developed my property a little bit. I’ve come to a few meetings. What I see is that if a person, a resident or a commercial person, follows the proper guidelines, gets all the approvals and does what he’s supposed to do, or everything’s approved, then things should be allowed. The commercial people in this area, in Queensbury, have developed Queensbury the way it is now, and people love Queensbury. They come here from far away. The businesses are coming in here because there’s more residential people coming in here. If people follow the guidelines that the Board has set up for them, the Planning Board has set up for them, and they get shot down after they do what they’re supposed to do, then people are going to stop wanting to come here and wanting to do anything here. That’s just my opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? SHERILYN VAN ORT MRS. VAN ORT-My name is Sherilyn Van Ort, and I think the facility is a phenomenal facility for retail, for people coming in, but the other thing I want you to realize is that this area is not just for Suttons. They also hire many small businesses to help them in their decorating, and that can be painters. That can be different kinds of artists, and so really they help the small business, the very small business that no people see, really, and they love to support local people. So it’s not just what they’re doing for, to sell furniture. It’s also for us small businesses who are trying to make ends meet. That’s all I have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. SABO-Karen Sabo. I just have a question. Nobody’s denying that Suttons is a very good business, and is good for Queensbury, just as people are glad that Great Escape is in Queensbury. I mean, it’s good for the business, but on the other hand, my question is, if there is a problem with the noise from the delivery trucks, the intensity of the property, the increased parking, so there’ll be increased cars, if this plan gets passed, as it is today, I mean, I just want, I’m just wondering if it gets passed as it is, and there’s problems that arise, what is the recourse? I mean, there is no recourse. I think this may be a feasible plan. It may not, but I believe with all the problems that the neighborhood has faced so far, that maybe it should be looked at a little closer. Maybe sound studies. Maybe increased plantings, maybe a possible berm. I’m not sure, but those would be my 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) concerns before I approved a plan like that, because if there’s problems, which there may well be, as we’re experiencing so many problems now, we have no recourse, and it just lowers our property values and makes our life more difficult. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would you gentlemen come back up to the table? Two questions I’m going to refer right to Staff. MR. SUTTON-Mr. Chairman, can I respond to some of the things that were said? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll let you, but let me just get these questions answered first, because there are some of these that you’re going to have to respond to anyway, and I’ll go right back to them. I’ll refer back to you, Mr. Funk was questioning warehouse versus storage facility. Could you kind of give a summary on the determination regarding the ZBA, and also what our Zoning Ordinance says regarding accessory storage facilities? MR. ROUND-My determination was challenged and overturned, that warehouses were allowed in the Highway Commercial zone, and re-phrase that that the Zoning Board determined that warehouses are not allowed in the Highway Commercial zone. During the hearing, and during that discussion, we’ve tried to ask for direction on drawing a distinction between an attached storage space and a warehouse as a stand alone. The Zoning Board did little to bring clarification on that issue. It was my determination that this is an allowed use within the zone, and it’s common practice to have storage areas attached to commercial facilities up and down the corridor. We’ve approved several projects similar to this in the last six to twelve months. MR. MAC EWAN-And the second question was from Mr. More, regarding segmentation, and I’ll put that right off to you, Mr. Schachner, and his question was related to, if we did this for the Great Escape, why aren’t we doing this for here. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I’m not really sure I followed the question. I mean, like for the Great Escape, and like any other application, I presume this Board, before you render any decision, will consider whether you think that the project, as proposed, will either on its own or in conjunction with any other projects proposed by Suttons, have any potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. You always make that consideration for any application that’s before you, unless it’s exempt from SEQRA. This application is not exempt from SEQRA. So I’m sure, I assume you will be making that sort of determination on this application as well, and I would certainly counsel you to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-While I have you, and you’re going at a good pace here, could you just touch on the procedures for a town to impose a building moratorium? MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, the procedures are not all that complex. That’s not to say I say it’s a good thing or a bad thing, but the procedures are not all that complex. As you pointed out earlier, Mr. Chairman, the only body that has the authority to enact a moratorium would be the Town Board, as the legislative body of the Town. In doing so, a town board has the legal authority to enact a moratorium as a local law. That means that any proposed moratorium is subject to a mandatory public hearing requirement prior to its enactment. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Some questions that were brought up. The lighting on the building, specifically in the shipping/receiving area, what kind of lighting? I’m assuming it’s going to be down flow lighting on the building? MR. MILLER-Yes. I spoke to that earlier. There’ll be building mounted lights that will flood just that immediate area, very similar to what you might have on the back of your house, to light your back yard. Because of the frequency of trucks, we don’t really need to light the area in order to function. It’s a daytime activity. It’s not a situation where there’ll be trucks coming in in the middle of the night and trying to unload at that time. Steve opens his doors up at, what, seven, six, seven in the morning. That might be the earliest time. MR. SUTTON-But our delivery people are, we don’t receive any deliveries before 8:30, 9:00 in the morning, and the fellas go home at five. So we don’t accept any deliveries after five. So it’s certainly a business hour, Monday through Friday. MR. MAC EWAN-Would the lights be on all night long, or are they on as you would need them by flipping a switch, per se? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. SUTTON-I haven’t given it a second thought. I mean, it’s not a high item for crime. I mean, we don’t have high priced jewelry in there. A tractor trailer would have to back up to empty the place out. I don’t think that that has been a concern of mine, as far as lighting that area up. I would like to point out that, going right from the loading to the noise issue, I mean, come on. We’re taking the trucks from up on top of the property, which is within 50 feet of our property line, and bringing it down to 160 feet from our property line, the Ordinance certainly more than covers the buffer zone there where, you know, I don’t think noise is an issue at all. Suttons is a low impact business, if anything. I just feel I have to address some of the things that have gone on here. MR. PALING-Could we go back to the lighting just for one minute? MR. SUTTON-Sure. MR. PALING-Instead of an open fixture, could those be boxed such that the lighting is directed? MR. SUTTON-What we have on the building now, they’re the amber, low sodium. They’re like a yellowish light, and they don’t, it’s not a bright white light. MR. PALING-It’s a security light? MR. SUTTON-Yes, a security type light, and if that was an issue, I’m not even sure we need a light at night. I mean, like Jim said, we stop delivering at five. I mean, right now we need lights. If a truck should come in at 4:30 in December. MR. PALING-As long as it’s directed down, I don’t see any problem with it. MR. RINGER-The lights are attached to the building? MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. RINGER-They’re not high or on poles. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. RINGER-What’s the height of the light? MR. SUTTON-Well, they’d probably be, I assume, right over the shipping door there. MR. RINGER-Twelve feet? MR. MILLER-The rear section goes from about 20 foot, and loses probably down to 18 feet. So they wouldn’t be any higher than 20 foot, if they were mounted on the building. MR. MAC EWAN-How high are the overhead doors? MR. MILLER-They would be 10 foot high. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re looking at being within a foot or fifteen inches. MR. MILLER-Yes, just so that when the truck backs up, it doesn’t hit the light. MR. SUTTON-And there’s really no need for those to be on all night. I mean, they can be on a timer. The only time you need them is like this time of year. Obviously, in the summer it’s a moot point. MR. MAC EWAN-A question regarding trees over near the Toy store, where it’s going to be basically your delivery drive. Are any of those trees coming down or going down or coming out? MR. SUTTON-There’s no plans on the site plan to take anymore trees down. We took two trees recently in order to make that drive a little better, and to bring handicap parking around the back of the Toy store. I mean, I’d like to go on record as saying that I like trees as much as the next guy, and after what I went through last fall, there was a big push from the business community wondering why I hadn’t gone in there and taken those trees down, and I’m not that type of person. I think the neighbors are lucky to have me there. We have no plans for any trees to come down. Frankly, I don’t want to look at their back yards any more than they want to look at mine, but I mean, that’s a flat piece of property. It’s low impact. The greenhouses are there. They’re no, aesthetically, compared to this building, this is going to be an asset to the Town. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. MILLER-A couple of points to answer your question more directly. We’re not cutting any trees under this proposal. We’re adding, I think, six new Sugar Maples out in front of the facility, plus a pretty extensive planting plan of shrubs and flowers around the building. So there’s a net increase in green. The other issue maybe to be spoken of, with this being down on the lower tier of the property, there’s almost a 30 foot difference in elevation between where this building is and where the property line between the Suttons and Twicwood starts in. So in essence, those people, you know, a normal person standing up will see right over the top of this building, because there’s that much difference in relief. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. SUTTON-Just in one gentleman’s comment here. It was nice when we were a little farm market, and I hate to apologize for our success, but a lot of my employees are right here, right now. We employ 80 people. We don’t employ the six that we started with. So I think that should be kept in mind, and we’ve done it responsibly, and we don’t have minimum wage jobs. We have health insurance. We have 401K’s. We’re an employer in this Town. So as far as the gentleman talking about where does it start, where does it stop? This is what business people do. They create opportunities. They create jobs, and I think we’re doing a good job at that. I feel sorry for Mrs. Sabo. She’s worrying about her property values up there, and I think we all worry about our own property values. I didn’t like some of the things I saw just this past year. I saw Skateland’s plan. I saw a lot of trees come down, and I didn’t see any go back up, but on the other hand, Mrs. Sabo and quite a few people have bought long since Suttons Marketplace has been a viable entity, and whatever value she places on her home, and whatever she paid for her home and the rest of those neighbors paid for their homes, it’s all taken into consideration. They could have gone out in the country, but they wanted to be close to the stores and the movie theaters and the Mall. I think we’re good neighbors, and I think what we’re doing has created a great thing in Queensbury, and as far as the moratorium goes, I think as Catherine, Mrs. LaBombard alluded to, judgment has to be used every day along that road, but to stop everything, because there are responsible developers. We just have to watch out for the ones that aren’t, and I would be totally against any kind of moratorium, obviously. Because I’m at my build out stage, I don’t really need a lot more, but that’s ridiculous that we can’t have faith in you to make the right judgment on each project, and I think that’s important, and that’s about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. We need to do a SEQRA. Is it a Long or a Short Form? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Short. MRS. MOORE-Short. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 56-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SUTTON’S MARKETPLACE, 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 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) 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 16 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-One quick question for you. Looking west, behind the building, where you have the storage facility butting up against the village style of the building, what is the back of that going to look like, which will be above the storage facility, the flat roofed building? If you’re standing on a hill, looking toward Route 9, what are you going to see on the back of that building? MR. MILLER-It’s a vertical plane, that makes that difference. We really haven’t gotten that far along, but it could take the form of having the same siding that’s on the front of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-It would be clapboard siding, like the front of it? MR. MILLER-Like the front of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-99 SUTTON’S MARKETPLACE, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: According to the resolution that was prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 56-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 10/26/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map S1 dated 10/26/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/16/99 - Staff Notes 2. 11/8/99 - Beautification Committee recommendation – approved as presented 3. 11/10/99 – Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution – default rec. of approval due to lack of quorum 4. 11/4/99 - Meeting Notice 5. 11/9/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 6. 11/1/99 - FOIL request – J. Bramley 7. 10/6/99 - Map A1 dated 10/6/99 8. 11/11/99 - S. Sutton re: Toy Cottage ROW 9. 11/11/99 – Rist Frost comments 10. 11/15/99 – Northfield Design response to RF comments of 11/11/99 11. 11/16/99 – Rist Frost comments Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/16/99 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. 56-99, Sutton’s Marketplace. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) 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 16th day of November 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. SUTTON-Thank you. MR. MILLER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 57-99 TYPE: UNLISTED HERITAGE CREATIONS, INC. OWNER: SLACK PROPERTIES, INC./DONNA L. DALY, INC. AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 37 HOMER AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A BRONZE CASTING/LIGHTING MANUFACTURING BUSINESS. ALL USES IN LI-1A ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 68-1993, SUB. 18-1993, UV 40-1989, SP 36-89, UV 1335, SP 2-97 TAX MAP NO. 107-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 0.65 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 57-99, Heritage Creations, Inc., Meeting Date: November 16, 1999 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a new use in the light industrial area on Homer Avenue. The business is to be a light manufacturing operation of bronze casting. Site Plan review and approval is required for business replacement and construction in Light Industrial zone. Staff Notes: Site Plan review criteria from § 179-38: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The two-story building was built in 1986 and has approximately 8,040 square feet of gross floor space. The building is located on a corner and is adjacent to other industrial commercial structures. There is no new proposed lighting or landscaping for the site. The site currently has a sign advertising the daycare facility, any new signs would have to meet the minimum zoning requirements for the location and size of the sign. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The applicant proposes to increase the paved area by 1,260 square feet to accommodate a dumpster access and a loading area. The site provides a travel lane that exceeds the minimum twenty feet required. The travel lane appears to assist the traffic circulation on the site that does not have a defined vehicular entrance. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The applicant proposes 12 parking spaces to be utilized by the business. This exceeds the minimum requirements of one space for each two employees. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The proposed business use does not appear to generate pedestrian traffic and there is adequate space for vehicular traffic through the site. Adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The plans show an increased paved area that is to be graded to drain on to the existing site’s green area. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The plans identify the sewer line connection, a hydrant location, and underground electric connections. The final plans should identify the water supply connection. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant’s and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The plans demonstrate the existing plantings on the site. The agent’s letter does indicate there will be improvements to the landscaping on the site. The plans were not seen by the Beautification Committee because no new landscaping is being proposed. The 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The plans identify one hydrant that is located at the corner of Homer and Everts Avenue. The applicant has indicated that the proposed use will require some interior alterations for venting, no hazards are anticipated. Staff would request the final plans clearly identify all entrances for deliveries, employees and other accesses. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The proposed site will not be significantly altered to cause changes to areas susceptible to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the following conditions: the final plans identify the water supply connection, all accesses, and an interior layout of the building.” MR. MAC EWAN-The letter. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me read a letter to Chris? MR. MAC EWAN-From Jon Lapper, yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is dated November 5, 1999. It says, “Dear Chris: You have asked me to respond to the question of whether the proposed bronze art casting industrial use is a permitted use within the Light Industrial-one acre zone. Initially, I will describe the process which is involved. The bronze castings are made one at a time inside of a computer operated induction-heated casting machine. Wax is injected into the machine by a wax injector machine. A photo of each of these two machines (model J-15 and 55-C, respectively) is enclosed. The bronze is heated within the casting machine and injected into the mold. The wax is then burned off and the bronze casting is ground, polished and mounted on a wooden base. It is estimated this facility could produce up to fifty pieces per day. It will have twelve employees. It is anticipated that there will be one delivery by common carrier per day and one pick up by United Parcel Service. Section 179-26 D(3)(b)[5] of the Queensbury Zoning Code provides that “any light manufacturing, assembly or other industrial research operation meeting the requirements of this chapter” is a type II site plan use in the light industrial – one acre zone. Moreover, it is my understanding that C.R. Bard, Angio Dynamics, Albany Engineering Systems and Valcour, which are each located in a light industrial zone in the Town of Queensbury, utilize their facilities for plastic or metal injection, extrusion or molding. Thus, the proposed use is a traditional light industrial use within the Town of Queensbury. Of course, the Heritage Creations facility will be much smaller in scale than those other industrial uses. I trust that this information is responsive to your inquiry. Please call me with any further questions or comments. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” MR. MAC EWAN-And the Zoning Administrator’s determination. MRS. MOORE-This is dated November 10, 1999. It says “Project Description: Applicant proposes locating/operating a bronze “art” casting facility consisting of a computer operated induction-heated wax mold casting process in an existing structure. All uses, including replacement uses, require site plan approval in the LI-1A zone. Minor modification consisting of loading area pavement/addition is proposed. Background Information: The LI purpose: “Light Industrial Zones provide opportunities for the expansion of light industry without competition with other use types. Highway oriented and research businesses need opportunities appropriately located near major highways from which they receive their materials and receive their products.” LI Site Plan Review uses include any light manufacturing, assembly or other industrial or research operation meeting the requirements of this chapter, warehouse, laboratory, etc. Heavy Industrial Zones (HI- 3A) allow “Large Scale” manufacturing and other high impact (cement plant, batch plant, power generation facility) industrial use. Definition for “Industrial Use” includes similar uses to those described, but excludes sand and gravel extraction, sawmills and other external type process facilities that generate significant noise/visual impacts. There are also definitions for large scale manufacturing and light manufacturing. It is my opinion these definitions do little to further distinguish heavy vs. light industrial uses. Site Plan approvals have been issued for similar manufacturing process based facilities. Astro Valcour (SP 51-93), Angio Dynamics (SP 25-92), C.R. Bard (SP 4-91) for example, are all much larger scale facilities operating in the LI-1A zone. Determination: The proposed use is an allowed use in the LI-1A zone based on description of process, anticipated impact, historical precedent, review of applicant submittals to date, and review of the appropriate sections of zoning ordinance.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. LAPPER-I’d like to take note first that it’s always appreciated when the concerned residents vacate the room before my client’s project comes up. That’s a good sign. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper. I’m with Jerry Zackowski, on my right, who is the Vice President of Operations for 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) Heritage Creations, and Tom Nace, from Nace Engineering. To give you a little background on the company and this project, this is a company that was started by Phil Morse, who everyone probably knows as the founder of NAMIC, a homegrown business that he built up very large and was able to sell to Pfiser, which was very positive for the community. Phil has taken some of the proceeds from the sale of his stock and has decided to invest those locally. He started the business Devonshire Capital, which is a venture capital firm, and this company, Heritage Creations, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Devonshire Capital. He also surrounded himself with some of the former senior management, which includes Jerry, the senior management of NAMIC, and what he’s doing is trying to create, here, a cottage industry, a small manufacturing business that he hopes to grow and ultimately move to the NAMIC facility on Pryuns Island, after NAMIC builds their facility that’s under construction in the Glens Falls Technical Park. So this is a short lived use of this facility. They were looking for an existing zoned light industrial building in the Town, and this building, while it hasn’t been vacant, it’s been underutilized for a while. It was previously a gym for kids, and it’s been used for various light industrial uses over the years. It’s currently not in great shape. It needs to be cleaned up, and that’s part of what this project will entail. They’ll probably only be in there for a year, but they’re going to immediately come in and clean the place up and mow it and weed it. It’s just kind of gone to weed, which is not a good thing. The building next door is a daycare which I’m very familiar with because my infant Julia is there. My older 10 year old was there for five years. I know the owner, Michelle Sheffer, and we went and sat down with her before we submitted to the Town, to make sure that she didn’t have any concerns. Both buildings were originally, I guess they’re still owned by the same people, but there is a subdivision, and the sites have to sort of work independently but together because they’re, the parking lot is connected. We asked her if she wanted us to separate the parking, if that would be an improvement, and she pointed out, which I’m aware of, that parents drive through one to get to the other, and because of the light impact use of this, with only 12 employees, we don’t, and also basically two trucks a day maximum, we don’t anticipate that there’s going to be any conflict, nor did she, but we just wanted to handle it that way, go sit down with her, show her the plans and see if she wanted us to make any changes. Jerry’s here to answer any questions about the operations and Tom’s here to answer any questions about the minor site changes that we’re proposing. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’d be interested in hearing about the operations themselves and how they’re going to work, and materials and such like that, byproducts and so on and so forth. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. JERRY ZACKOWSKI MR. ZACKOWSKI-Sure. Basically, what we’re going to be doing, my background is engineering. I’m a chemical engineer. I have actually been in the medical device industry for most of my career, until this recent change into the art casting business. What we’re going to be doing is operating a small business to produce bronze sculptures, basically, on a very small scale, in terms of the size of the sculptures. The target markets will be colleges and universities, corporate awards, trophies, that sort of thing, and I think it’s important to note, also, because I know the traditional view of what a founder is, or at least what mine was up until a few months ago, is a room with open flames and pouring metal and all that sort of thing, and what we’re doing is using pretty high tech equipment, computerized casting equipment, which is completely enclosed, and also which gives us a size limitation where these pieces can only be approximately nine inches high by five inches in diameter. It has to fit within a cylinder of those dimensions. So it limits what we can do, but that fits in with what our marketing strategy is. In terms of what the processes are, in order to create this, it’s basically an investment casting process. What that means is that an order starts with a clay sculpture. This is kind of outside the realm of this facility, but that clay has to be turned into bronze, and that’s done through a series of molds that have to be made, until the ultimate investment mold that the bronze is poured into is created. That’s done by creating a wax image of the bronze, and that’s kind of where our facility picks up. We will have a mold made by an outside mold maker. Where we start the process is injecting wax into this mold, through an injection molding machine, very similar to what NAMIC uses and what the other medical device companies and probably others in the area use as well, plastic injection molding. After the wax is done, we vacuum invest, again, a small machine, probably about half the size of this table, which uses basically a fiberglass type material mixed with water and injects it around the wax. What happens at that point is you need to remove the wax, in order to use that fiberglass mold. You have to get the wax out so that you can pour the bronze in. The wax is burned out in a gas furnace, which we’re purchasing. You then take that mold into this computerized casting equipment that I mentioned, and under pressure and under vacuum from the bottom side, it’s injected into that mold, and then allowed to harden as it cools, and at that point, it’s a matter of performing finishing operations, some welding, some polishing of the bronze. We’ll be mounting it onto a wooden base, which we’ll be creating as well, and then you have a finished product. Our expectation is that the maximum volume we would get up to, and I think this is probably pushing it a little bit, during the time that we expect to be in this facility, is 50 a day of these units. I think that’s a quick summary of what we’re doing. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. MAC EWAN-Are the products, like the wax and the fiberglass mixture you’re talking about, are they reusable things or are they a by-product that you discharge and get rid of? MR. ZACKOWSKI-We will be discharging it. The wax, the gas furnace that I mentioned, we have designed with an integral afterburner unit, which is gas fired, and what that does is it basically burns the wax at extremely high temperatures to the point where there’s minimal emissions coming out of the stack, and I’ve spoke with DEC about that, and we’ve determined, verbally at this point, that that would be a site registration, I don’t know if my terminology is correct, but a registration only, not a State facility permit, I believe it is, because the emissions are very minimal after that afterburner process. MR. MAC EWAN-And when you say that you’d be doing welding at this facility, like tid welding, that kind of welding? MR. ZACKOWSKI-Tid welding. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’ll be a small part of the process? MR. ZACKOWSKI-Yes. It’s dependent on the design of the particular piece that we’re making. Most of them I don’t believe are going to require welding, but some of them may require that the piece be cast in separate pieces for design reasons, design of the mold, and if that’s the case, we would have to then, after they’re cast in bronze, weld the pieces together. So some percent of them may require that, but not all of them. MR. MAC EWAN-And then obviously small woodworking facility to make the wooden base? MR. ZACKOWSKI-The wooden bases, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. PALING-Well, the only question I have Staff had asked, and I think those have been adequately covered. Now there is no waste other than what goes up the stack? How about solid or liquid waste? MR. ZACKOWSKI-Actually, yes. The other half of that is, the fiberglass molds themselves, what happens is after the piece is cast, it’s basically in a cylinder at that point, goes into a quench tank, which is basically just a room temperature water bath. When it goes into the quench tank, that mold breaks apart into pieces. We will be collecting the water from that process into a storage tank, and we’ll have that pumped similar, at least this is our plan at this point, have that pumped similar to a septic system, on some frequency which has yet to be determined until we start running it to see. So it won’t be discharged into the drain system. MR. PALING-But it’ll be discharged into the earth. MR. ZACKOWSKI-No, it’ll be into a storage tank, actually, an above-ground storage tank. MR. PALING-Does it evaporate or what happens? MR. ZACKOWSKI-No, it will be, I’m sorry, it will be pumped from that tank into a truck, and we have not yet determined where that will be disposed of at this point. MR. NACE-It would simply be like pumping a septic tank. It would probably be disposed of at the municipal treatment plant, where it’s further treated there. MR. MAC EWAN-Someone like Safety Kleen or somebody like that would come and pick it up, that kind of thing? MR. ZACKOWSKI-Exactly, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-How much heat is generated by the gas burner? In other words, is the furnace going to be in a separate room? Are you going to have that shielded in some way from the rest of the facility, or is it going to be standing free? MR. ZACKOWSKI-The furnace will be in a room with, I’ve got to remember my layout, but there will be other equipment in that room, but the furnace is a very well insulated, kiln type furnace. The outside surfaces won’t get hot. MR. VOLLARO-Radiation is not a factor, that’s what you’re saying? MR. ZACKOWSKI-No. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one other question. Since this is a short term proposition for you, and hopefully it works out well for you, do you have any role to play, do you think, in trying to find a follow on tenant for that building? MR. LAPPER-The best role that they’re going to do is by cleaning up the site, the site improvements to add the driveway and the area for delivery, and to move the trash bin, which for some reason is sitting in the middle of the parking lot now, into the back of the site. So they’re spending some money. I mean, just that driveway is about $7,000 with asphalt and some drainage work that they’re doing. So they’re cleaning it up, and that will make it better for a tenant or a purchaser. We know that the site is available for sale. It’s listed for sale, but that’s the owner of the property, and we’re the tenants. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I was just wondering, seeing that it was going to be a short term thing, trying to look into what’s the next step for that building. MR. LAPPER-Well, as we keep hearing, Bob, there’s limited light industrial space in the Town, so by cleaning this up, I mean, hopefully somebody else will want it. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Okay. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Jon, in your letter, you said that one common carrier delivery a day and one UPS. Is that common carrier a diesel 18-wheeler, or is that, what size truck is going to be up and down Homer? MR. LAPPER-Up to a diesel 18-wheeler. That certainly could be. MR. RINGER-He’s going to be able to get in there and turn around and do what he has to do? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Tom’s designed it that way. MR. NACE-Obviously, he’ll have to back into the site, okay. MR. RINGER-He’s going to come down Homer and back in? MR. NACE-He’ll come down Homer, stop, and back, jack knife it into the site. We’ve left a fairly wide space to access that driveway. So he shouldn’t have problems doing that, okay. I certainly wouldn’t do it from the middle of Bay Street, but from Homer Avenue, I think it’s fairly common. MR. RINGER-He’s going to back in, where, Tom? MR. NACE-Whichever direction he’s coming on Homer, okay, he’ll stop on Homer and back into this driveway on the side. Okay. The overhead door is right here, and this will be a large loading pad where the truck can be unloaded. MR. RINGER-And that’s one a day, that’s going to be the max? MR. ZACKOWSKI-We’re estimating on average one a day. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. If anyone wants to come up and comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. 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. 57-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HERITAGE CREATIONS, INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-99 HERITAGE CREATIONS, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff. That the final plans identify the water supply connection. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 57-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 10/27/99, consists of the following: 1. Application with map SP-1 dated 10/27/99 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/16/99 - Staff Notes 2. 11/10/99 – Zoning Administrator determination 3. 11/9/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 4. 11/5/99 - J. Lapper to C. Round 5. 11/4/99 - Meeting Notice Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/16/99 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. 57-99, Heritage Creations, Inc. 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 16 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-The motion also includes that the final plans identify the water supply connection, all accesses and interior layout of the building. MR. LAPPER-Do you need the interior layout on the site plan? MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what the recommendations are. MR. LAPPER-That’ll be in the building permit. MR. VOLLARO-An interior layout of the building. Is there a reason that Staff asked for that? MRS. MOORE-It’s helpful in site plan review. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we don’t have an interior layout now. It means that after this approval, this site plan goes, when he submits his final drawing, he would like to have the. MRS. MOORE-It’s something that he has to submit for the building permit anyway. MR. NACE-That would be a separate drawing for the building permit that would identify that. Normally on the site plan we don’t get into that. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s just have on the site plan that he delineates the water supply that the Town’s looking for. MR. VOLLARO-Right. That’s all I think should be in there myself. Okay. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 45-99 TYPE II MICHAEL WILLIG d/b/a ADIRONDACK SEAFOOD OWNER: SAME AGENT: THOMAS JARRETT ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 115 RIVER STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 975 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT CROSS REFERENCE: SP 22-95, AV 80- 1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/8/99 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-60 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-79, 179-60 MIKE WILLIG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-99, Michael Willig d/b/a Adirondack Seafood, Meeting Date: November 16, 1999 “Project Description: The application was tabled at the September 23, 1999 Planning Board meeting. The Board requested the applicant supply additional stormwater information for the proposed project. Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to construct a 975 square foot addition with a porch and ramp connection. There will also be an increase in the paved surface to accommodate additional parking. The applicant has received an Area Variance (AV 80- 1999) for setback relief for the construction. The applicant has supplied a letter from an engineer in regards to the site’s adequacy in handling stormwater on site. The letter indicates the site is able to accommodate the new stormwater generation with some minor site modifications. The suggested modifications include grading improvements to include berms for infiltration and directing flow. The proposed project does not require the placement of a drywell on the site. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the final plans removing the drywell and including all of the engineer’s recommendations in regards to stormwater.” MRS. MOORE-I’ll read Rist-Frost’s comment first. It’s dated November 9. “We have reviewed a th draft copy of the November 1, 1999 letter to the Planning Board from H. Thomas Jarrett, P.E. and attached sketch and have the following comments: 1. The conclusions and recommendations are based on the Warren County Soil Survey regarding groundwater and soil characteristics. We recommend that these be verified during construction. 2. The recommendations made regarding storm drainage measures are very general in nature and may be difficult for a contractor to implement correctly without more definitive information regarding elevations and extent of berms. On-site instructions from the engineer could be utilized instead of more definitive drawings. 3. We would also recommend that the stormwater control measures leave adequate room for future expansion/replacement of the existing sewage system if that becomes necessary. On-site presence of the engineer could assist in this regard.” I’ll read Tom Jarrett’s letter dated November 8, 1999, “Dear Planning Board Members, At the request of Mike Willig, owner of Adirondack Seafood, we have reviewed stormwater management issues related to the proposed expanded parking lot serving the restaurant on River St. in the Town. Our review included the sketch of the “Proposed Parking Lot Expansion” prepared by John Taylor and dated July 19, 1999, a site visit to observe existing stormwater conditions, and reference to the Warren County Soil Survey prepared by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation District. Current site conditions suggest that stormwater flows are divided along an axis parallel to River St. Stormwater on the front 15’ +/- of the property appears to flow generally toward River St. whereas stormwater on the remainder of the property appears to generally flow southerly (away from River St.). A culverted stream flows west to east under the site near the rear third of the property. A portion of stormwater likely enters the stream at each end of the culvert while the remainder likely flows into the vegetation at the rear of the property and gradually reaches the stream as subsurface flow. The Warren County Soil Survey categorizes the soils in this area of the Town as Elmridge Fine Sandy Loam. This soil series is characteristically loamy sand to a depth of nearly 2 feet with silty clay below that depth. Permeability is moderately rapid to rapid in the upper layers and slow in lower layers. Seasonal high groundwater is perched above the silty clay layer, with the highest level within 1½ feet of the surface. In our opinion, based on the soil survey and on visual observations, the shallow soils at the rear of the property would be able to assimilate the additional stormwater generated as a result of the expanded parking area. During seasonally high groundwater periods, stormwater will likely pond above the silty clay layer. We recommend that the proposed parking lot expansion be graded to drain all runoff to the vegetated area at the rear of the property. In addition, we recommend that shallow berms of permeable soil be graded along the east and west edges of the property to trap stormwater on the property for infiltration. The berms should be low enough to allow overflow to the stream prior to flooding the parking lot in case of extreme precipitation or flooding due to high groundwater. During periods of seasonally high groundwater or heavy rainfall, stormwater will pond until it can infiltrate through the native soils or the proposed berms. In no case should the berms be constructed at an elevation or in 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) a location that would cause flooding or damage to adjoining properties, including the railroad. If you have any questions, please call us. Sincerely, H. Thomas Jarrett, P.E., Partner” MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Good evening. MR. WILLIG-Hi. Mike Willig, owner of Adirondack Seafood. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think we got our questions answered, I think. MR. WILLIG-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll start with Larry this time. Any questions, Larry? MR. RINGER-No, nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-The only question I have is a question that Rist-Frost brought up, which I thought was a good one. It’s, most of this was the mitigation of the problems that we presented at the last meeting, are stated in words as opposed to any kind of a drawing, and I notice that Rist-Frost makes the comments that we recommend that these be verified during construction, and then again, recommendations regarding stormwater drainage measures are very general in nature and may be difficult for a contractor to implement correctly without more definitive information regarding elevations and extent of berms. On-site instructions from the engineer could be utilized instead of more definitive drawings. It sounds like the mitigation to the site is proposed in words, but there’s no drawings to indicate levels or anything of this nature, and that might be a little bit difficult for the contractor involved to take these words from Mr. Jarrett and try to convert those to an actual build. That’s just the feeling I have in looking at this, right now, and I would like to see a little more definitive drawing. I noticed that Mr. Willig presented us with something here tonight, but that doesn’t come anywhere near close to what I’m thinking of. It’s not a manufacturing drawing or a build drawing. Has Staff seen this? MR. ROUND-Yes. I spoke directly with Mr. Jarrett and Tom Center and Bill Levandowski in review of the project, and they thought it would be reasonable to request an engineer to either observe and certify that the instructions of this letter were completed in accordance with both Rist-Frost’s comments and Mr. Jarrett’s comments. MR. MAC EWAN-And how do we go about doing that? MR. ROUND-As simply as part of your resolution include that Tom Jarrett or another engineer will certify that the construction was completed in accordance with the directions as indicated in the November 8 letter. I don’t know, Mr. Willig, did Mr. Jarrett talk to you in that regard? th MR. WILLIG-Yes. He’s going to advise me on how it should be, the berms where and how high. He said no higher than 12 inches above permeable soil. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I have right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Type II. We don’t have to do a SEQRA. So if someone wants to introduce a motion, go for it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-99 MICHAEL WILLIG D/B/A ADIRONDACK SEAFOOD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the addition that Mr. Willig make arrangements with either Mr. Jarrett or another qualified engineer to confirm that the building is in accordance with Mr. Jarrett’s November 8 memorandum. th Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 45-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/4/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/drawings Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/16/99 - Staff Notes 2. 11/9/99 - Rist Frost comments 3. 11/8/99 - Jarrett-Martin, LLP re: stormwater management issues 4. 9/23/99 - Staff Notes 5. 9/16/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 6. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice 7. 9/1/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution – NCI 8. 10/25/99 - L. Moore to M. Willig 9. 10/7/99 - Meeting Notice 10. 11/4/99 - Meeting Notice Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/23/99 and 11/16/99 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. 45-99, Michael Willig/Adirondack Seafood. 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 16 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Finally, Mr. Willig, you’re all set. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. WILLIG-Yes, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 41-99 TYPE II DONNA HURLEY/CHARLES WILKISON OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL O’CONNOR ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 54 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION AND ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BD. VAR. 10/19/99 AV 76-1999 TAX MAP NO. 45-3-10 LOT SIZE: 12,862 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16, 179-60, 179-79 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-99, Donna Hurley/Charles Wilkison, Meeting Date: November 16, 1999 “Project Description: The applicant was tabled at the previous meeting pending additional site information be supplied. Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing dwelling, this will also include the construction of a garage, porches and decks. The site is 12,862 +/- square feet on a parcel of land that slopes towards the lake. The home is bordered by three homes in close proximity on the northeast side of the existing home. The proposed project does not appear to cause any additional visual interference to the lake from neighboring properties. The applicant has received a septic variance and an area variance for setback relief. The area variance was granted conditioned upon the deck closest to the lake lowered three feet and the area beneath the deck be screened by vegetation. The proposed construction will have an effect on the stormwater generated on site. Staff has reviewed the proposed stormwater management controls consistency with the Town’s ordinance for the Lake George Basin and found the proposal adequate. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the condition that the final plans submitted are updated with the AV 76-1999 conditions.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor. I’m representing the applicants, Donna Hurley and Charles Wilkison, and with me is Tom Nace. This is an application to expand a single family home on Glen Lake. We had a couple of questions that required us to get variances. We have pursued those variances and obtained them from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and from the Town Board, and it has been tabled on your agenda from time to time, because when it was initially filed, we had somewhat a different plan. I don’t think we ever made a presentation to your Board in the past, but as this was a work in progress, we kept tabling it to the point that we had the application complete, and we had the variances that we needed. One of the major changes that we did is that we changed the type of septic system that was proposed to improve the septic system from what was initially proposed on the application, based upon recommendations in part from the Town Staff as the to the septic system. Tom, when we went through the ZBA, they had a couple of questions, and one question had to do with stormwater drainage and management, and we asked Tom Nace to do a study of that, and he has a report that’s in your packet, I believe, and probably at this point I would let Tom answer any questions you have, if you have any on that, or he can make a presentation as to how we’re going to do it. MR. NACE-Well, in view of trying to keep this as short and sweet and simple, what we’ve done is provided infiltration trenches, stone filled trenches, to accept drainage from all the new impervious areas, those being the new garage roof, the sidewalk between the garage and the house. Even though there is an existing sidewalk there, it’s going to be re-done, and also along the new house addition, and we’ve continued that one along the new house addition down along some of the existing house. So, in fact, it’ll even pick up some of the drainage from the existing impervious surfaces, but there’s a stormwater report that shows that the infiltration trench design more than adequately handles a 50 year design period storm. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve also answered one of the questions that the ZBA had by showing the deck, the new deck along the front being at a lower level than the prior plans that we had submitted, and also showing some screening vegetation or plantings that we will put in the front of the deck on the plan that you have. One other question that has come up in discussions of this application with neighbors, is whether or not we would interfere with rights of way that they have for access to their property, and we did go to the County Clerk’s Office, and we did get copies of their deeds, and we have copies of their deeds here, and I’ll submit them to the Board if you want. Basically, each of the neighbors have the right to use five foot of our property in conjunction with five foot of their property for driveways down through to their property. In the past, maybe by practice, they certainly have been allowed to use more than that, and if you actually take a real look at our plan, you will see that probably the only part of the plan that’s in question is one corner of the garage. If you look at the new garage, and you see the square of the new garage, you will see that the actual pavement is marked out with the line that goes at an angle across the front of what will be the new garage and toward the side of the garage. The garage as proposed on here will encroach upon what has been commonly used by many people as driving area. It’s well outside the five foot easement area that they have the right to use, and we are, perhaps, willing to compromise a little bit on that. If you take a look at the location of the garage, immediately behind the garage, there are two large trees that are there, and we are trying to save them, as well as the vegetation that’s around the trees. Beyond that, if you’ll notice the sidewalk that connects the garage to the house, there’s a difference here in what will be the finished grade of the garage floor and the first floor of the house of about six feet, and what we’ve tried to do is develop a ramp/sidewalk, if you will, so that we can have handicapped accessibility for a wheelchair, and that’s about the minimum sloping or maximum sloping that we think is reasonable to allow us to do that. There’s a little bit of shift available. What we would propose is that the front of the garage, if you will, toward Reardon Road, in actual construction, would be no closer to Reardon Road than the front of the house that’s immediately to the north of the property. That’s the house that’s owned by Mr. Seelye, and that probably, in final construction, would clear the new garage, even from that little bit of area that’s been shown as pavement in the past. MR. MAC EWAN-Which house are you referring to that’s Mr. Seelye’s? Is it the one to the hill, the middle house? MR. O'CONNOR-The middle house. MR. MAC EWAN-And if you pull the front of your garage back even with that, how does that work with your sidewalk that you need to have that minimum grade? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s going to make it a little bit tougher, but it’s something we can live with. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-Actually, it would start here, and come around and back around to a door over here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Those are the questions that we’re aware of. We also looked at other locations on the property for a two car garage, and there really just isn’t a location that we found satisfactory or usable or practical. There was a question as to what would we do with snowplowing, although that is not necessarily just my client’s problem, and we have contacted the person who has been doing the snowplowing for the last few years, and we have a letter here from him saying that he will still be able to maintain the properties in the same manner that he maintained it in the past. We can submit that letter to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And I have those deeds if you want to look at them, although I think that’s really a private issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, it sounds to me like you’ve put an awful lot of effort into this project. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got a procedural question, and I guess we want to talk about it. The revision on this drawing is November 11, 1999, this new drawing, and, Tom, the old drawing that I saw, there was a seepage pit being proposed there instead of these new devices that are now very much en vogue and work very well, I understand. MR. NACE-Okay. The seepage pit was quite a ways back. That was back in August or so. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now, when I look at the resolution approving your sewage disposal variance, the resolution itself was dated October 18, which was before the date of this drawing of th November 11, and I assume that this approval was based on utilization of that seepage pit as th opposed to these new devices. MR. NACE-No, it was not. The previous revision of the drawing was September 27. th MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see that. MR. NACE-That is the drawing that was approved, and it did have the sewage as it shows here on that drawing. MR. VOLLARO-It did? Okay. I just wanted to make sure that the resolution lined up with the kind of septic system being proposed. MR. NACE-Absolutely. The only changes that were made on the November 11 revision were to th add the planting around the porch. They were the changes asked for in the zoning variances. The changes, the planting around the porch. The deck was pulled back to meet, that front deck was pulled back to meet the actual setback of 12 feet. The steps were shown between the two decks. The infiltration trenches, the drainage system was added, and I think that’s about it. The garage, I think that we had moved the garage toward the lake maybe three or four feet from where it had been previously, but no changes were made to the septic system. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this resolution reflects this November 11 latest revision. th MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now the second question I have has got to do with lowering of the stairs. I know that that was a requirement of the ZBA. When I look at those drawings, I notice that when you drop that stairs down three feet, on the old drawing there was a set of windows there that don’t appear on the new drawing. When you look at the elevation from the lake, there were two windows sitting right there on the old drawing. Now this deck goes right through the middle of those windows. Are they going to be, are those windows going to be removed? Are they going to stay there and if they stay there, is there any sort of a fire code, and I’d have to revert to Staff that that new deck lowered three feet covers those windows? MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not living area. That’s basement. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not living area. It’s basement. Okay. All right. MR. O'CONNOR-And the intention was to remove those windows. MR. VOLLARO-It is the intent to remove the windows? Fine. I don’t have any further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got one. Please tell me, when you do these renovations, the corner of the existing deck is not going to use the big white pine tree anymore for a corner post? CHARLES WILKISON MR. WILKISON-Whatever you want. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not what I want. The building codes I’m sure are going to tell you different. I looked at that, and that was the thing I thought of. Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Come on up to the Board, and if you have any questions, you can address them to us. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have a letter. MR. MAC EWAN-You have a letter. Go. MRS. MOORE-This is dated November 16, 1999, it says “Dear Sirs: In regard to the above mentioned site plan review, being a neighbor bordering the Wilkison/Hurley property, we have some major concerns in the building of an oversized two car garage. 1) The plan on building up the front of this garage will create a dam effect to stop the water runoff going toward and through their property. This dam effect will now divert the water with faster flow towards bordering property on both sides of them, now making it the neighbors problem to deal with. This could also increase the rate of flow into Glen Lake there by increasing erosion and runoff into the lake. 2) The proximity of this garage will encumber mobility for the three property owners that have used this parking area for over 17 years. The snow has built up over the winter, it is difficult to negotiate around the driveway and the steep incline becomes a liability issue as to not having enough room to get up the hill and having to back down directly aimed at the corner of the proposed garage. Also, the steep incline and close proximity may make it difficult, especially in winter, for emergency vehicles to access the properties. 3) Snow placement would now become a major problem due to the fact that we are already losing one major area. (Mr. Heinzelmans driveway) Mr. Heinzelman wants to keep his driveway clear year-round. If the garage is built we will be losing another large area that snow has been placed in the past. This leaves one good sized area left to place snow, that would be over the top of the new septic tank and leach field area. 4) And lastly, there is another building on the property which is 13 1/12’ x 17 ½’ in size and has a garage door on it. Why is this not considered a garage? Does the zoning ordinance permit two garages on this property at the same time? Thank you, Pat & Chris Seelye” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. PAT SEELYE MR. SEELYE-My name is Pat Seelye. Basically, I’m the one that sent the letter. As you’ll see the pictures there, I’m not sure what constitutes a garage, but that’s a picture of what they are considering a shed. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you referring to that one? MR. SEELYE-Yes. MR. RINGER-Which one, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s the one in the upper left hand corner. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s got the blue barrel right next to it. MR. RINGER-That’s the Wilkison’s property? MR. SEELYE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SEELYE-This driveway that we’ve all used for 17, 18 years, I’m the one that’s basically maintained it. I’ve sanded it. I’ve filled the holes in, for a long time, and in regard to the legal issue, as far as us traveling over it, well, that may have to be settled down the road, but in regards to this property and driving down the driveway, as you can see where the corner of this garage is, it’s a very steep grade. I have major problems with, when talking to Mr. Wilkison, I took him out there and I said, why don’t we do this. I’m not trying to stop you from building this garage, but you’ve never lived here year round. I’ve been here 17 years. You have no idea what the snow’s like, what the driveway’s like. I said, why don’t we just put some posts up, put some fences up, and see what happens in the winter, see if we can get around this garage in the wintertime. He didn’t really see it that way. He decided he wanted to go forward with this, and even though he’s not planning to build until spring time. So, here we are in front of the Town trying to figure out what we’re going to do 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) with this. The snow placement is a real problem down there. The runoff is just absolutely incredible, where it runs down to the lake, it actually erodes the ground. You can see pictures of her steps, where it’s eroded her steps over the years. It places over her land and the neighboring land, and it makes a large puddle in this whole parking area. It comes pouring off the neighbor’s property up on top of the hill down, right down our driveway. MR. MAC EWAN-Which house is your house? MR. SEELYE-Mine is the blue house, the light blue house, the middle house. MR. MAC EWAN-The middle house. Okay. MR. SEELYE-So basically creating this two car garage is going to dam it up even worse, and disperse, and also trying to put this ramp out the back to the garage. He’s going to build up the land there. So everything is going to go heading this way at the neighboring properties. Now it becomes our problem to deal with this, at even a faster rate than what it’s doing now. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my first response to that would be, what’s there existing now is no stormwater management plan whatsoever. What’s going to be afterwards is something that’s going to infiltrate the stormwater before it even gets to the lake. MR. SEELYE-Just the runoff from the roofs? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. He’s got it all laid out here all around the buildings. MR. SEELYE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s got them laying around the proposed garage, the sidewalk, and also around the house, and that doesn’t exist now. So it’s going to be a vast improvement. MR. SEELYE-Even with the runoff being as fast as it is? It’s going to collect this water? I mean, you can literally go trout streaming in this runoff. MR. MAC EWAN-If it doesn’t, then he’ll be forced to rectify it immediately, but he’s got it right here, and it’s worked out that it will. MR. SEELYE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-He makes a statement in here that the infiltration trenches will be designed to accommodate 100% of the runoff from a 50 year design period storm. That’s a pretty strong statement in terms of mitigating that site. MR. SEELYE-Okay. What about the snow removal, and placement? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask that of them. Okay. We’ll re-address that issue and ask that of them, how that’s going to be handled. MR. SEELYE-I mean, I’ve been down there, there isn’t a whole lot, and what happens is this whole parking lot shrinks, it becomes a very tight area to move the cars around. You can’t get up the driveway. You need a running start to get up the driveway. Now it becomes an issue. The neighbor down below me one year went up the driveway, got the nose of his car cleaned off because you have to speed up the driveway. It just is very tough. What happens is if you don’t make it up, you slide all the way back down to the bottom. You’re sliding back down to the bottom, look what you’re aimed at, right at the corner of his garage. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the path of egress now? MR. SEELYE-This driveway has been there since Day One, as far as I know. MR. VOLLARO-Does the house closest to the lake use that driveway to get out? MR. SEELYE-There’s four of us that use that driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Including the applicant’s house? MR. SEELYE-Yes. MR. RINGER-So you’ve got two yellow houses, the grey house and your house? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. SEELYE-There’s a yellow, my house. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The grey house, the yellow house, the blue house with the red shutters. MR. SEELYE-You’re basically looking at all four houses up in the left hand corner. MR. MAC EWAN-And all of your share that common easement to get in and out? MR. SEELYE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just kind of curious as to, the house that’s closest to the lake, where do they park their cars? MR. SEELYE-They park in their parking lot, and on the easement itself. MR. MAC EWAN-In their parking lot, okay. What is their parking lot, in your opinion, right where their proposed garage is going to be? Is that the common parking area? MR. SEELYE-No, they park, one of their cars is parked in the easement itself, directly on the easement, that goes down to their. MR. MAC EWAN-One of who’s cars? MR. SEELYE-The neighbor down below. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. He parks right in the easement? MR. SEELYE-He parks one car right in the easement. MR. MAC EWAN-Where, down by his property or up more where? MR. SEELYE-Right next to my house. MR. MAC EWAN-Right next to your house. Okay. MR. SEELYE-Because of plowing problems, he can’t get down there year round. Okay. So he’s gotten a custom over the years, been there longer than I have, of parking one car there and one car in the back part of the parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Where do you park? MR. SEELYE-On my land. One on the side of the house and one in the front of the house. MR. MAC EWAN-You pull off the right of way right actually onto your property. MR. SEELYE-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-And the house that’s closest to Reardon Road? Where do they park, do you know, off hand? MR. SEELYE-On their property. MR. MAC EWAN-They pull off the right of way as well onto their property. MR. SEELYE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. SEELYE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll try to get the snow removal answered for you. Anyone else? ROGER BOOR MR. BOOR-My name’s Roger Boor. I’m a friend of Pat’s. I’ve had many an occasion to go to his house. He’s pretty much covered, I think, the scenario, although I would strongly urge and recommend each and every one of you to go to this location. MR. MAC EWAN-Been there, done that. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’ve been there many times. MR. BOOR-Okay. Then when they say they’re going to accommodate the runoff, runoff from what? And you can come up and address. Is this runoff from Reardon Road that comes down the driveway? MR. MAC EWAN-Runoff on their buildings that they’re putting up, or modifying. MR. BOOR-Okay. So they are not going to accommodate the current runoff that comes off from their property from above? They’re only going to accommodate the runoff from what they’re going to do new? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that clarified. MR. BOOR-They own all the property to the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Roger, we’ll get that clarified. MR. BOOR-Okay. That needs to be addressed, I think. Have you been there at night? Have any of you driven over there at night? MR. MAC EWAN-Roger, our site visits require us to go through during the day. That’s when we go. We’ve been going on Saturday mornings, but the time when we went and did this site visit was on a Thursday after work at four o’clock. MR. BOOR-Were there any cars in the driveway? MR. MAC EWAN-There were cars up there, but I can’t honestly tell you who was parked where. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What’s going on at night? MR. BOOR-Well, that’s when everybody comes home from work, and that place is full, and when you imagine it in the winter, and somebody has to accelerate when they really don’t want to, but they have to because it’s the only way they’re going to get up that hill, and they don’t make it, now they’re going backwards on ice. You’ve got a garage right there. I would not want to be State Farm or the insurer of any of these people. MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m starting to hear, though, here, is an issue over a right of way issue which isn’t this Planning Board’s, not under our approval and not under our concern. MR. BOOR-I believe safety concerns are. MR. MAC EWAN-But if your deeds, if the deeds do indeed say that they have five foot of access on their property, and they use five foot of their own property for access to their land, that’s all that they’re required to do. MR. BOOR-Correct, but I don’t see where that addresses my concerns, and that’s the concern that you are creating a hazardous condition by placing a garage in an area where more than likely it will be hit by, if not the Wilkison’s car, one of these other neighbors’ cars. I don’t think it makes any difference who owns the property. When you allow something to be built in an inherently dangerous area, you are asking for trouble. I don’t know if insurers will even insure cars if they were to go over there and see the situation. Maybe they will, but I think it’s something that needs to be looked at. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll ask for clarification on that. MR. BOOR-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? TOM HEINZELMAN MR. HEINZELMAN-Good evening. Tom Heinzelman. I live next door on the southern side, and I have some similar complaints. First of all, if you have all made a site visitation, you know that there currently is a garage there, which has, in the past, housed a car. This is a 50 foot lot that we’re trying to put an additional oversized two car garage on, in addition to the existing garage that’s already there. We’ve been through the Planning Board and variances on septic system. We’ve been through the Board which dealt with variances on the building aspect of this house, and now we’re looking to put an additional garage where there already is a garage on the small piece of property. One of the 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) issues that continually seems to present itself is the fact that, this snow removal issue. Very conveniently my property was used as the place where the majority of snow has been placed over the years, and I now, for two reasons, want to keep that area clear. One is so that I can use that property during the wintertime, and have my family have access to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Use what property? MR. HEINZELMAN-My property. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HEINZELMAN-My property, and I have a separate driveway, and therefore I want to keep that area clear, but the second thing is, when all this snow from that area is piled up on my property the runoff I get from the snow melt ends up in my front porch and in my kitchen. MR. MAC EWAN-Again, which house are you now? MR. HEINZELMAN-I’m on the southern side, the red house. I’m on the other side. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HEINZELMAN-So that’s the reason that I want to keep my area clear, is so that I can have access and to prevent that snow build up, throughout the course of the wintertime. So that when the runoff does occur, it doesn’t end up in my kitchen, as it has in the past, that and my concern about having not only a single car garage, but now an oversized two car garage. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Folks, come on back up. Could we address some of the questions? The runoff on the site, stormwater management for the site. Is it improving the entire site, or are the improvements, as indicated on the site plan map, just for the house and the garage? MR. NACE-The stormwater management facilities are designed to accommodate the new impervious surfaces, the garage, the addition to the house, the sidewalk. We’ve extended them so that they will also take runoff from a portion, the rear portion of the existing house, but that’s what they’re designed, that’s what they’re required to be designed to cover and that’s what they cover. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess this one’s for you you, Mr. O’Connor. The storage building you label, which appears to be a one car garage? MR. O'CONNOR-I think at one time or another it has been used as a one car garage. The issue came up before the Zoning Board of Appeals, did we need to do a variance for two garages on one property, and my indication to them was that that was going to be used as a storage building only, not for automobiles. It can be used for boat storage. It can be used for yard storage. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you prevent putting a car in there, if a car fits in there? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a matter of enforcement. If that’s an issue with the ZBA, we will address it, but I think we’re entitled to have that. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so I understand it. If you had told the ZBA that you parked cars in there, would they not ask for a variance? MR. O'CONNOR-They would have asked for a variance. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could you clarify the right-of-way. That seems to be the major concern here. MR. O'CONNOR-The right-of-way is a problem, at least everybody has been very accommodating to each other, and maybe they won’t be in the future, but the three deeds that I’ve reviewed have said that the three parties to the north of the property, one of whom Mr. Seelye is, have a right-of-way on our property, five feet in width, and it coincides a, or is to be used with a right-of-way of five feet on those three lots. So that there was a 10 foot driveway envisioned on the common boundary line, the center line of which would be the property line. Now, physically, it looks like up near the road, that never has been followed or intended, because the full driveway is on the Wilkison property, and that’s something that’s just been there. Now down below, it’s kind of loose and undefined, as to how it’s used. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. MAC EWAN-So over the years, people have been basically using the Wilkison’s property, until they get to about where the new garage is proposed, and then they cut back onto the right-of-way, like the right-of-way that I’m looking at on this map goes through a stone wall, and a concrete retaining wall. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It was drawn on there for illustration purposes, and the Wilkison’s have been more than generous with the use of their property, and maybe necessarily won’t be in the future, but the garage itself, as you’ve seen, is what we’ve talked about, is only a small portion of that. There’s no right, deeded right, to back on to the Wilkison property and get a running start up the hill. There’s no right, by the fellow on the other side of the property, as I was there on Sunday, to come down his driveway, back into the Wilkison property, head back out and then back into his property. I mean, there’s been a tradeoff, if you will, maybe by them putting snow over on his property by allowing him to use their driveway to whatever degree they want from time to time. I think the intent would be to put some type of barrier up. We’ve already talked to the snow plow people. He does not want snow on his property any longer in the future. They won’t put snow on his property. That’s a civil matter, but it’s not a Planning Board issue. I don’t think we’re asking this Planning Board for permission to tell us that we have the right to put snow over onto his property. We’ve talked to the snow plow people. If you look alongside of the septic system, and not on the septic system, he’s looked at that area. There’s enough area there to clear what we need to clear for the driveway and for the parking area, and deposit snow there. Part of the snow goes over onto Mr. Seelye’s property. If you look at that little, just beyond that stone wall, by custom, they’ve plowed over into there. Now, he has a boat that he stores in the back piece of that, but that’s used for snow collection also. There is adequate room. We’ve asked the guy who’s been doing the snow plowing, is there adequate room for snow? And he tells us that there is. I would address just a little bit the runoff. What we have doesn’t take care of the entire site, as Tom said, but it improves, because there has been no stormwater management for even the existing houses that are there now, and we now have included that floor area in the drainage that we propose. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, any questions? MR. PALING-No, not right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-No, just one comment, that if you’re forced to the letter of the law, in terms of what the deeds are saying, the right of way, that the driveway should probably be straightened up and taking out that stone fence, and I think it’s something that might have to be done in the future, if this continues to be an issue, but the way it’s been configured now, and in the last few years, is definitely encroaching on your property more than it needs to. That’s all I have. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I concur with Alan, and I feel that if an applicant goes to all the trouble of hiring a professional engineer and having everything done right to Code, I’d like to see anything that’s around Mr. Wilkison’s property, those places could be improved too, I’m sure, but they’re not coming up to us for site plan review. So we’re not discussing them, but I think that what Mr. Wilkison and Donna here are proposing is certainly an enhancement to what’s already there, and I can see maybe you have a little concern about the garage, but change of four wheel drives in the wintertime, but I don’t think it’s going to be much of a problem, or that big of a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I see this from another angle. I see this as a safety issue. I’m trying to take a look at the grade there. Does anybody have any idea what that approximate grade is, percent grade? Where are we? MR. NACE-I’ve been out to the site a couple of times, but it’s been a month or two since I’ve been there. I would guess that there’s maybe, from Reardon Road down to the garage area, I don’t know, maybe 12 to 15 feet of drop. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think it’s that much of a drop. MR. VOLLARO-Because a couple of people have asked the question about getting up that drive and not making it, and I’ve been in that situation where I’ve lost traction on a hill going up, and you’re at the mercy, no matter what you do, boy, you’re sliding backwards, there’s just nothing you can do, almost. MR. O'CONNOR-From the front of the new proposed garage to about the area where the pavement is shown going into where the distribution box is, is a flat area. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. NACE-Yes, it’s fairly level there. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s level on that bottom part. MR. NACE-So there’s about 45 feet or almost 50 feet that’s relatively level. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’s no way to tell, on this drawing, what the slope is. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, anything else? MR. RINGER-No, nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. There’s no SEQRA required. So does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-99 DONNA HURLEY/CHARLES WILKISON, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 41-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/28/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map 49042 revised 7/28/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/16/99 - Staff Notes 2. 11/10/99 – New Info – Drawings, Stormwater Man. report dated 11/99, Map 49042 revised 11/11/99 3. 11/4/99 - Meeting Notice 4. 10/26/99 - Staff Notes 5. 10/20/99 - ZBA resolution 6. 10/19/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 7. 10/18/99 - Town Bd. Board of Health resolution – 55.99 w/map (approval) 8. 10/7/99 - Meeting Notice 9. 10/4/99 - Town Bd. Board of Health resolution – 53.1999 (setting p.h.) 10. 9/23/99 - Staff Notes 11. 9/16/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 12. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice 13. 11/1/99 - L. Moore to C. Wilkison 14. 11/1/99 - New Info Whereas, a public hearing was held on 10/26/99 and 11/16/99 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. 41-99, Donna Hurley/Charles Wilkison. 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. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, folks. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else in front of the Board? Did you want to see us? If I could get you right on the mic, please, Jon. Mr. Lapper, the floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Very quickly, in light of the time, when I was here with the Nigro Companies for your recommendation on the re-zoning, requesting your recommendation, you sent us home to go do some homework and supply a stormwater management report, a traffic study, and architectural drawings. I’ve just reviewed the stormwater management report today. It will be submitted to Chris tomorrow. The traffic counts were done at the end of last week, and that’ll be submitted next week, as you had requested, and in terms of architectural, this is an issue where I have a client who is willing to go to great lengths to make the Board happy, but we have a tenant who’s going to have to hear it from you as to what it is that you have in mind, in terms of changing the architectural appearance of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-I knew this was coming. MR. LAPPER-No. I submitted that and requested that we have a short workshop meeting on the 23, so that I can have the Grand Union Vice President of Development here to talk about what rd changes you want to make, because they look at the building and think it’s an attractive building, because it’s their building, and that’s not what I heard from this Board, but I submitted, we didn’t show you the plan, but what I submitted, they’ve changed it somewhat. What you have now, the overhang masonry façade used to only encompass about three quarters of the building, and now they’ve brought it all the way to the end, which may or may not be seen as an improvement, but what you said last time was that you don’t want it to look like a big box, and I wouldn’t sit here and tell you that it doesn’t look like a big box. MR. MAC EWAN-I see that Mega Save, and I see mega headaches. MR. LAPPER-Well, it may need some mega re-design, but in order to accomplish that, I need to bring my client and the tenant here and have you tell the tenant what you have in mind, in terms of design in Queensbury for a 65,000 square foot building, and then we will come back at the December meeting with plans. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, Jon, do you know how that sounds? It sounds like we tell you what you want, so then therefore you do it, and so we have to okay it. MR. LAPPER-Well, I hope that that’s how the process works, but. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But we’re not architects. MR. LAPPER-And I’m not asking you to say that you’d like to have this type of soffit or that type of façade, but just in terms of the concept of, you need to tell them that you don’t want it to look like a big box. I don’t want to tell you what to tell them, but whatever it is that you’re feeling in terms of what you think would be more appropriate, or just tell them that it’s not appropriate in Queensbury, and let them go figure it out, but I need to bring the tenant here to hear it right from you guys, so that I can then come back with a new drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-One person speaking, I’d say that’s not appropriate. Come up with something else. MR. LAPPER-Okay, but that’s okay. They just need to hear what you were telling us, so it’s an exercise, but it’ll get a better product. MR. MAC EWAN-It may be a long night, a long wait next Tuesday. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. LAPPER-I understand. I’m not interested in sitting and listening to that. It’s not the way I think projects should be handled, but hey, that’s a process too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Help me on this one. How do you drive by, and you look at that, and you go in, and you look and you walk on that nice property in there, and I kind of look at these projects in Town as really a proactive, I feel like I’m proactive up to a point. MR. LAPPER-Well, we can make it a nice project, together. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just, you’ve got to do more to sell me on this, Jon. I’m telling you, it is, I keep saying it’s scary, because I go in there, and I’m like this is awesome land, and then I think of, not even the box as much as I think of just all that blacktop, and all those trees gone. MR. LAPPER-Well, my job is to work out a compromise to get the client to understand what the Town wants, to make it a good project, so that we can get it approved, so we’re just working through a process, that’s going to take some time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What are you selling here? MR. LAPPER-A supermarket. MR. MAC EWAN-If you give us, give the Board these few days to look this thing over, digest it, and if you come back in next Tuesday, the Board will probably be able to tell you they like the idea or they don’t like the idea. You’re asking the Board to tell you go do brick siding and that sort of thing, I don’t think we’re in the position to do that. MR. LAPPER-No, I understand that, and I’m not asking you to design it. You’re just going to tell us to go home and do our homework and come back with something different, but I need to have the Grand Union tenant hear that from you. MR. MAC EWAN-We can do that. Can we do that as a Board? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I won’t be here. MR. VOLLARO-We will, though. We’ll carry the torch for you, Cathy. MR. RINGER-We’ve got a public hearing open on this thing. Can we bring this to the next meeting with the public hearing? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good point. MR. LAPPER-This is only a workshop discussion. The public hearing will still be open. MR. MAC EWAN-We did leave the public hearing open. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not closed, is it? MR. MAC EWAN-But if we just add this to the agenda and it’s not been advertised, will it be in the paper for them? MR. SCHACHNER-To put them on for next Tuesday? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Why is this on next Tuesday? MR. LAPPER-Just as a workshop. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s asking to be on. MR. ROUND-They’re not taking action on it. MR. LAPPER-It will still be open as a public hearing in December, when we come back to talk about it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but really if the public hearing has been left open, you’re supposed to have the meeting at whatever date you left it open until, or re-notice it. MR. LAPPER-Can you re-notice it? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. MAC EWAN-When will the ad go in the paper for next Tuesday’s Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Wasn’t it in today? MR. MAC EWAN-Five days in advance. MR. LAPPER-We can pay for an additional notice. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, what would be the procedure if they’re willing to go take an ad out and put it in the paper? MR. LAPPER-Well, you’ll put it in. We’ll pay for it. MR. SCHACHNER-You mean a legal ad? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-There’s no issue. I mean, that’s fine that they’ll pay for it. I don’t think you’re going to be able to get it in. MR. MAC EWAN-For the five day notice. We’d be better off, if you need to do something, looking after Thanksgiving to do it, so that we could get the advertising. I don’t feel comfortable, I think Larry brought up a very good point. I don’t feel comfortable having a workshop on this or discussion on this when we left the public hearing open, and we’re going to discuss something that’s going to really impact that neighborhood and all up and down Bay Street, when a lot of people came out and spoke their feelings on it, and to talk about it without their knowledge, and having their input into it, being able to participate, I don’t think is the right way to go about it. MR. LAPPER-Certainly that’s not my goal, as you know. MR. SCHACHNER-We’re just trying to refresh our memories as to what the current procedural status of this is. I was thinking we were talking about a site plan review public hearing that’s been opened. Is that not the case? MR. LAPPER-Not the case. MR. SCHACHNER-What is the case? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a zoning recommendation. MR. SCHACHNER-This is a referral to this Board for a recommendation on a re-zoning request. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That’s a different story, in that under the law, there’s no requirement of a public hearing for that. You have a practice of scheduling public hearings for that, but there’s no requirement for a public hearing for that. So I don’t care, from the legal standpoint, I don’t care if you put it on next Tuesday or not. MR. MAC EWAN-My concern is just circumventing the neighborhood. MR. SCHACHNER-Your concern is that people that were here, that were concerned, won’t have a way of knowing that it’s on for next week. MR. LAPPER-But you’re not giving us an approval. You’re just telling us why you don’t like what you’ve already told us you don’t like, and we’ll be back in December to try and come with a different plan. MR. SCHACHNER-And there’d be no action taken, obviously. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’d still like to see an ad in the paper, so that people are aware of it, and if they want to come, they can come. MR. LAPPER-Can we do it on four days notice, then? MR. RINGER-Well, there’s no legal. MR. MAC EWAN-Promise me you’ll put an ad in the paper. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/16/1999) MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ll pay. They’ll put it in. MR. MAC EWAN-Put an ad in the paper. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. The truth of the matter is, that’s actually more effective than a legal notice. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, will you do that, please, a little display. Okay. We’ll do that. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. PALING-I’ve just got one comment. I hope we’re not giving you the impression that the only issue is architecture. There’s a lot of other things. MR. MAC EWAN-No. He said he’s working on those. MR. ROUND-Yes, but that’s the most time intensive site modification, is architecture, that relates to the site. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. RINGER-Do they have a prototype for this? MR. LAPPER-They’re building one in Albany now, and they have approvals pending in Vermont and some other places. MR. PALING-Is the picture we’re looking at facing Bay or Quaker? MR. LAPPER-It faces Quaker, but you can’t see it from Quaker, necessarily because, well, you can, but it’s behind the Denny’s and the bagel place. MR. PALING-Do you have a sign on Bay? MR. LAPPER-Yes, just like at Hannaford. Bay is the main entrance. The guy that will be here with me, Bruce McVee, from Grand Union, can answer all sorts of questions. He needs to hear from you guys. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Consider it done. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 44