Loading...
1999-11-23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN ROBERT PALING LARRY RINGER ALAN ABBOTT ROBERT VOLLARO MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LA BOMBARD TIMOTHY BREWER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 61-99 HANNAFORD BROS., CO. OWNER: MARTIN’S FOODS OF SO. BURLINGTON, INC. AGENT: D. MC PHERSON, LA GROUP ZONE: HC-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES A VEHICULAR INTERCONNECTION WITH “CONVENIENT MEDICAL CARE”. APPLICANT PROPOSES AN INTERCONNECTION WITH THE WARREN COUNTY BIKE TRAIL. THIS PROJECT IS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADJACENT SITE (SP 1-99). CROSS REFERENCE: UV 1073, SP 1-99 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-4.21 LOT SIZE: 9.41 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MRS. MOORE-The applicant has withdrawn this application. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s go right to New Business. NEW BUSINESS: DGEIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SUBMIT A GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDRESSING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION OF FACILITIES INCLUDING GROWTH RELATED IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED PATRONAGE. THE PLANNING BOARD IS REQUESTED TO ADOPT A POSITIVE DECLARATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. MR. MAC EWAN-In reference to the Great Escape Theme Park doing the DGEIS, I’m going to turn it right over to Stuart Mesinger who is our consultant with Chazen Companies, and who’s going to go over this aspect of this project for us. STUART MESINGER MR. MESINGER-Okay. Thank you. Very briefly, you folks have four things from us. You have a memo which outlines the Generic EIS process and what you need to do. Tonight you have a resolution which would name you the lead agency and declare a positive declaration for the Great Escape through the EIS. In my memo, I said to you that if you did not have sign offs from other involved agencies, you would need to go no further tonight than declaring yourselves the lead agency, but in fact we have those sign offs in hand. Mr. MacEwan has them. So you’re really free and clear here tonight to go ahead and declare yourself lead agency, to issue a positive declaration, and we’ve prepared a draft scoping document, and the thought would be to issue the scoping document as a draft and allow a 20 day public review period, during which the public interested parties agencies could provide you with input. Just a couple of words about the scope itself. What the scope attempts to do is not ask the applicant to tell you every ride, every attraction, every amusement, everything that they’re going to do over the next three to five years, because clearly that would be a very difficult if not impossible task. What the scope sets up is a process by which, if you could think of the Great Escape Park as an envelope, within that envelope activities occur, and outside of that envelope they have impacts, and those impacts might be traffic, noise, stormwater runoff, sewage 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) disposal, the use of community services and so forth, and what we’ve tried to do is try to create, ask the applicant to create a document that will define those outside of the envelope impacts as they relate to increased use of the Park. So specifically increased visitation, which will lead to traffic, stormwater runoff by increased pervious areas associated with more parking and so forth. The technical studies that accomplish that are, we understand have been well underway for quite some time, things like noise baseline studies. The GEIS asks the applicant to talk about the new attractions, only to the extent that such attractions might have characteristics that would lead to impact, and the two that especially come to mind are obviously noise and visual impacts because of height. The goal of this whole process, at the end of the day, ought to be a series of thresholds, a series of standards to which future development will be held. By standards I might mean a level of noise, for example, that’s considered acceptable. So that when a new attraction comes in, it can be shown to meet that standard. You would say this complies with your EIS, and we can go forward. We don’t need to look at that any further, and if it doesn’t, you would have some further review. So the advantage to the applicant here is that there is some level of Generic Environmental Review occurring now for future projects. The advantage for you is it’s going to create and define a set of standards applicable to new development around the Park in the future. Not that you care so much what goes in that envelope, but you care what goes around it, and you deal with that commonly every day, when you look at a site plan that has traffic components, generates a lot of traffic. It’s no different than the concept after generating X number of cars, there’s an improvement needed at the intersection. It’s the same kind of theory involved in this GEIS. So, the Draft Scoping Document we think accomplishes those objectives. It gets put out for, reviewed by the public, we would suggest to you for 20 days, see what we get back and then you would adopt it at one of your December meetings, with or without changes, depending on what you get back, and then the applicant would be really on his schedule to hand over the draft of the document for completeness review. MR. MAC EWAN-Great. Any questions from Board members? MR. PALING-Yes. I have a question. In what you just said, you used the term “future” and you used the term “new”, but we’re anxious to include the past tense, in regard to noise especially, and I don’t see anything in this document that says that’s what we can do, but I think that’s just what we intend to do, and I want it clearly understood from my standpoint at least, that we’re going to include the pending problems in whatever we’re looking at in an EIS. MR. MESINGER-Right, and the way this Scope is laid out, it does that. If you’ll look on Page Two of the Scope, under the audible noise section, which is the extent and quality of information, what we understand the applicant has done, and had they not done it we would have asked them to do it, is to take noise measurements at times in the Park, it was operating this past year at various sensitive receptors for various time periods. We met with their Environmental Consultant. We told them how we wanted the data presented, which is sort of technical stuff, L10’s and L50’s and L90’s. We can get into what that means when the time comes, but the point is that the EIS is going to give you existing information on what the Park is generating now, and you can use that as you formulate your thresholds and your findings, and what to be allowed to do in the future. MR. PALING-Okay. Then you don’t disagree with what I’m asking for? MR. MESINGER-No. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RINGER-What they’re doing now will be the base? MR. MESINGER-That’s right. This is the existing baseline. In other words, it’s my understanding, in having met with them, that they have been taking noise measurements over the course of this operational year, and that those will be presented. We’ve asked them to present it in a certain way that we can make readily, we hope, understandable to you and to the public. MR. MAC EWAN-This is really nothing more than giving us a starting point, something to work from, and we can expand upon it as we see fit. MR. MESINGER-Right. I mean, presumably, it’s going to tell you where or where not there are problems, and to what extent there are problems, and we haven’t seen it, but that’s the intent of the analysis. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Larry? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just wanted to ask a question. Quantitatively, in order to establish a noise envelope, for example, what would the level of acceptability be based on, prior data in other places, or similar circumstances, other parks? How do we determine what the acceptable size of the noise envelope is, after it’s projected out several years and developed? MR. MESINGER-That’s a really good question, and I think that’s something that we’ll have to do as part of the process, obviously. The Town, as you know, does not have a noise standard now. Presumably, this process is going to help you understand what goes into developing noise standards and what kinds of standards might be applicable to this Park, as well as perhaps other uses. There are some generally accepted guidelines for noise environments. HUD has a set of fairly well established guidelines that are used. There are others, and we’re going to have to present that kind of information to you, and you use this information to make those decisions. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce the resolution? RESOLUTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD TO SERVE AS LEAD AGENCY FOR EXPANSION OF THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for a series of actions collectively described as the expansion of the Great Escape Theme Park support facilities; and Whereas, the Planning Board has identified the series of actions to be a Type One Action for the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6NYCRR 617.4(b)(6)(I) and (iii); and Whereas, the Planning Board is the lead agency most directly responsible for approving the actions; and Whereas, the Planning Board has identified the use of a generic environmental impact statement as an appropriate mechanism for analyzing the series of related activities that collectively make up the action. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the Queensbury Planning Board proposes to serve as Lead Agency for the action and will notify other potentially involved agencies, including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Department of Transportation of such intent. Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-On this one you just do, as written. Yes? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s the first step you’ve accomplished, and that was a prepared resolution, and in fact, the other involved agency, as you know, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and DOT, Department of Transportation, have, in fact, agreed that this Board be the lead agency. The other two steps that we’re recommending you adopt at this time are to issue the actual SEQRA Positive Declaration, that’s the document that you have before you that states. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s next on the list of things to do. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and then what’s the next one on your list? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll refer it back to you. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. SCHACHNER-The next one on your list would be, we would recommend, would be to issue the Draft Scope of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and establish the public comment period on that Draft Scope. MR. MAC EWAN-A 20 day comment period. All right, thank you. MR. MESINGER-And I apologize to you for not giving that to you in this resolution, because I drew this up not anticipating we’d have letters. I thought we’d just do step one tonight. They surprised me and got the letters in. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. It’s all yours. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. RESOLUTION FOR A POSITIVE DECLARATION ON THE EXPANSION OF THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the prepared declaration that was given to us by the Chazen Corporation, by Staff. Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: rd MR. PALING-Could I ask a question before we proceed? Once again, we’re talking about only the expansion. Is that sufficient wording to comply with the request I made earlier? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Bob, I think the answer to that is what we’re talking about now is the actual, what’s called a SEQRA Positive Declaration, and what that refers to is what it is that’s proposed that may have a significant environmental impact, and therefore warrants preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. We can’t go back in time and issue a SEQRA Positive Declaration about things that already exist. So I think the short answer to your question is, yes. You’re concern is going to be reflected in the Draft Generic EIS itself, not so much in this particular document, the Positive Declaration. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Bob? MR. PALING-Yes. AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Last step. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL ISSUE THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT, DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1999, AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL START FROM NOVEMBER 24, 1999 FOR A PERIOD OF 20 DAYS, UNTIL DECEMBER 13, 1999, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It’s done, and we said the 13 on that. th MR. VOLLARO-The 13 of December. th 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re finished with that. Thank you very much. That’s it. It was that simple of a process, folks. SITE PLAN NO. 58-99 TYPE II HOWLAND CONSTRUCTION – DEAN HOWLAND OWNER: STEVE & CATHIE SCHONWETTER ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: HOLIDAY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD TWO SHED DORMERS (NO INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA), REMOVE 22’ OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ADD 30 SQ. FT. OF COVERED PORCH. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/99 CROSS REFERENCE: AV 96-1999 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-24.1 LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 DEAN HOWLAND, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 58-99, Howland Construction, Meeting Date: November 23, 1999 “Project Description: The applicant proposes construction of two dormers and a covered porch. The proposed project is located in a critical environmental area within the Waterfront One-Acre zone (WR-1A). Planning Board site plan review and approval is required for expansion of a non- conforming structure. Staff Notes: The existing structure was built in 1966 and is located at the end of Holiday Point Road. The building is two story and has approximately 2,022 square feet of living space. The building is in close proximity to the Lake George shoreline on three sides of the structure. The site situation causes any expansion of the structure to need site plan review and probably variances for setback relief. The Zoning Board of Appeals did not accept the applicant’s previous proposal for a carport. The Zoning Board requested the applicant downsize the requested expansion. This application reflects the downsizing and the ZBA’s approval. The applicant met with staff on site to discuss the proposed project. After a site visit it was determined that the construction of dormers would not increase the living space as defined in the Floor Area Ratio sheet. The proposed project does not require the upgrade of a septic system since there is no increase in living space. The construction of a 30 square feet covered porch is considerably less than the original proposal. The neighbors in the area were concerned that the original design of the carport would interfere with their view of the lake. The current proposal does not appear to interfere with any neighbor’s view. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the site plan as submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Warren County reviewed it, and a resolution of No County Impact. MR. MAC EWAN-They had a quorum that night? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. MOORE-That was approval by default. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HOWLAND-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. HOWLAND-My name’s Dean Howland. I’m the agent for the owner. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about the project, Mr. Howland? MR. HOWLAND-The project basically consists of putting on two shed dormers. One is over the ceiling area in the living room. One is in a bedroom and a bathroom that’s adjacent to it, that has like a five foot knee wall, basically facing the wall height (lost words). The third item, on the rear of the house, there’s an 11 foot high, two foot deep, four foot high storage shed that has an existing oil tank in it. We’re going to remove that tank, to the right of that shed, is called an entry porch, eight foot wide. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The entry porch is that the south elevation? MR. HOWLAND-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just have one question. I notice that the proposed project does not require the upgrade of a septic system, since there’s no increase in the living space, and I’m just wondering what the significance of the letter from the Dickinson company is concerning that. It’s in the packet, and it’s dated 28 June 1999, and it says, “coordinate soil testing, perform topographic survey of area required and prepare the plat design proposed alternate sewage disposal system”. Now, is that out now? MR. HOWLAND-No. We went through the approval application and got approval to put in a new system, if it was necessary. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to? MR. HOWLAND-Not at this time. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HOWLAND-It’s working fine. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So this letter is no longer part of this application? Is that correct? I’m just trying to find out. MR. HOWLAND-That was the old application. MRS. MOORE-It’s from the old application, but he does have approval to put a new septic system in, and I don’t necessarily want to remove it from his application. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. That was my only question as to where that letter fit. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-Do these drawings that we got originally got with this packet really depict what you’re doing? MR. HOWLAND-That’s correct. MR. PALING-These are still the same? MR. HOWLAND-Well, they’re changed. On this application they are correct. You’re seeing the two shed dormers, east and west. This is the entry porch. MR. PALING-And these are accurate? MR. HOWLAND-That’s correct. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight, and we’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have three letters. MR. MAC EWAN-Read them in. MRS. MOORE-This is, “I will be away on November 23. I have no objections to the changes rd contemplated by our nice neighbor.” And this is from Mastrianni. This is addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board, The request for two shed dormers and existing buildings. “Almost every home on Seelye Road has raised the roof lines the last several years to add dormers on the older sloped roofs. A drive by would show you this. It would be a lovely change to the existing 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) building. Certainly a covered porch would be of no objection. Being a neighbor who looks at this property every day, there is no objection.” This is from Susan Hewlett. And I have a letter addressed to Cathy LaBombard. “I am the owner of 10 Holiday Point Drive. I am writing this letter in lieu of my appearing at the Planning Board meeting on November 23. I am in favor of the rd application for a variance for my neighbors, Steve and Cathie Schonwetter. I urge the Board to consider it favorably. Thank you for your consideration”, and this is from Richard O’Keefe. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments? Anyone from the audience? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Do we have to do a SEQRA? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we don’t. It’s a Type II. Does someone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-99 HOWLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC., Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: As per resolution prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 58-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 10/27/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/drawings attached Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/23/99 - Staff Notes 2. 11/10/99 – Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution – NCI 3. 11/ /99 - ZBA resolution 4. 11/4/99 - Meeting notice 5. 11/16/99 - Notice of Public Hearing Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/23/99 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. 58-99, Howland Construction, 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 23 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 59-99 TYPE II ERROL SILVERBERG OWNER: SAME AGENT: TRACEY CLOTHIER ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DECK WITH “FLEXBOARDS” BETWEEN AN EXISTING SEAWALL AND RETAINING WALL. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 19-1992 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 5-1-29 LOT SIZE: 0.60 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 TRACEY & DALE CLOTHIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 59-99, Errol Silverberg, Meeting Date: November 23, 1999 “Project Description and Notes: The applicant proposes construction of a hard surface within fifty-feet of the shoreline. Site Plan review and approval is required for the proposed project. The hard surface will be “flexboards”, a type of decking material. There will be approximately 528 square feet of decking located between an existing seawall and retaining wall. The proposed placement of decking along the shoreline does not appear to interfere with the shoreline. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please? MRS. CLOTHIER-Yes. Mr. Chairman, I’m Tracey Clothier, and I’m representing Errol Silverberg. This is my husband Dale Clothier, who I’m going to yield to, because he’s the General Contractor involved. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about the project, please. MR. CLOTHIER-Basically, the project is to build a patio over an existing rubble surface. Number One, to provide enough mass to stabilize the seawall. Currently, there is a concrete seawall that’s approximately 68 feet long, 13 inches thick of concrete that is starting to deteriorate. We wish to put some pressure treated lumber on the outside of the seawall and use the mass of this patio to hold the seawall in place. The surface is a rubble surface, which has happened over the years, as the water hits this area with such force that it excavates out stone or anything else that’s there and throws it into the lake. So over the years, there’s been an effort to put in several different types of stone into this particular catch basin, and now I wish to fill it up with stone and cover it up with what I’d like to use some four by fours, with some five quarter by six decking over the top to protect it so that you can no longer excavate the stones out into the lake. The alternative of putting in some kind of vegetation, namely grass, that seems impractical to anyone who looked at it, because of the force of the water. We also wish to have a sidewalk along the back of the boathouse, approximately four feet wide, which is a minimum for two people to walk arm and arm down along that area. There’s a disabled daughter and an elderly grandfather in the family. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. CLOTHIER-I think the little map that you have, the seawall is shown to be about 68 feet long. We propose to cover 48 feet of it, which is just about 15 feet beyond the steps that are existing in the seawall. The rest of the area between the seawall and the retaining wall, we wish to (lost words). There’s a breakwater along that area, and when we take the rocks out of the lake, we would just pile them up there. So I’m not looking to cover the whole 68 feet, and there’s approximately I think it’s 88 to 90 feet overall that part of the (lost word) between the boathouse and the property line. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, any questions? MR. PALING-All right. Now the wall that you’re stabilizing is the seawall. MR. CLOTHIER-That’s correct. MR. PALING-Yes, okay, and you think that the lake is still going to hit against it, but you’re saying reinforcing it from the inside is going to help this? MR. CLOTHIER-My drawing shows a I’m going to put a pressure treated two by twelve along the outside of the seawall, and I’m going to brace that with four by fours. The entire mass, I believe, will hold that wall. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. PALING-Okay. When you said deteriorate, that won’t stop it from moving. MR. CLOTHIER-It’s cracked. I wish to keep the crack from opening up. MR. PALING-Stop anymore movement so it would create that. Yes. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-This decking would continue behind the boathouse down to the second set of stairs? There’s two sets of stairs that go down to the lake, basically either side of the boathouse. MR. CLOTHIER-Where you see, which is actually the northerly end of the wood dock, that’s where the boat is presently going to be docked in that area. There’s a little sidewalk that goes along the back of the boathouses. It’s an eight foot area. We wish to cover four feet of this and use landscaping and some other stone surface for the rest of it. So we just wish to provide a (lost word) predictable surface to act as (lost words). MR. ABBOTT-If you look at the map you’ve provided, the concrete patio, that would be covered? MR. CLOTHIER-Yes. That did not require a permit. They said it was existing. MR. ABBOTT-Okay, but the deck would continue out over that as well? MR. CLOTHIER-Yes. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at your drawing. I don’t have a plan view of this drawing. I just have the side view. This is the drawing that shows the eight foot four by four, with your two by twelve out front. Now, how wide is, because when I was there, you had a couple of four by fours sitting down on the rubble itself, to kind of give us an idea where this was going to be. Now, how wide is this? Because the seawall itself is fairly long. When we were there, it looked to me that the seawall was probably, what, 20 foot long? MR. CLOTHIER-The sea wall is 68 feet long from the frame boathouse. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. CLOTHIER-And we wish to cover 48 feet from the frame boathouse. MR. VOLLARO-See, this drawing without a plan view doesn’t show that, but okay. I can see what you’re doing now. MR. CLOTHIER-I had put the four by fours out, and the water hit so bad, we didn’t have a storm in the last two weeks. MR. VOLLARO-And it moved it. MR. CLOTHIER-Yes. When I went down, I found the four by fours thrown up against the 30 pound four by fours that were staked and painted red, and it was thrown against the retaining walls. MR. VOLLARO-Assuming that you’ve got, and I see how you’re going to notch it out and you’re going to put the notch over the seawall and the two by twelve is essentially going to sandwich that seawall between that structure. How are you going to anchor the back of that? Because with all that concrete and that seawall being 60 foot long, that’s a huge mass to try to stabilize with just laying a walkway over it, without it in some way being staked in the back. I mean, I don’t want to critique the design, but the question is, how do you stabilize a mass like that with nothing more than a walkway overlaid across the top of it? If that wall is going to go because of water pressure, this isn’t going to hold it. MR. CLOTHIER-I’m going to fill the stones back up. So what I want to do is keep the stones in there, and then put this cover over it, so the stones won’t be pulled out or moved anymore. So I think that there’d probably be 60 or 70 tons behind that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the pressure on the seawall is inward from the lake. There’s some hydrostatic there, I would guess, some hydrostatic pressure. How deep is that, right to the bottom? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. CLOTHIER-Presently it was, it seems the average is two feet four to maybe three feet. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So this stabilization idea that you’ve got here is just to prevent heavy weather from further pushing that seawall toward the house. MR. CLOTHIER-That and to keep the rocks behind, because they pull into the lake right now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t see any. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want 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-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-99 ERROL SILVERBERG, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: In accordance with the prepared resolution by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 59-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 10/26/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/23/99 - Staff Notes 2. 11/10/99 – Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 3. 11/4/99 - Meeting Notice 4. 11/16/99 - Notice of Public Hearing Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/23/99 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. 59-99. 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. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 60-99 TYPE II EDWARD & LYNNE COLLINS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 38 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF CRIBS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING COVERED SUNDECK. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.41 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 EDWARD COLLINS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 60-99, Edward & Lynne Collins, Meeting Date: November 23, 1999 “Project Description: The applicant proposes relocation of cribs on one side of an existing dock with a sundeck. The current dock location does not meet the required setbacks on the south side. The position of the existing dock causes it to be a nonconforming structure in the waterfront residential zone. Site Plan review and approval is required for expansion of non-conforming structures in a critical environmental area in a waterfront zone. Staff Notes: The dock and sundeck were constructed in 1978 according to assessment records. The applicant’s existing dock is 659 +/- square feet and the proposed dock will be 657 +/- square feet. The applicant proposes moving the north-side cribs and reducing the size of the north-side portion of the dock. There are no other alterations proposed to the dock or sundeck. The proposed construction would not appear to cause any environmental or neighborhood impacts. The applicant has applied to the Lake George Park Commission for review. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Would you read in the letter from the Lake George Park Commission. MRS. MOORE-This is dated October 29, 1999, it says “Dear Mr. and Mrs. Collins: Enclosed is your permit which was issued in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Park Commission’s rules and regulations (6 NYCRR 645 & 646) and Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law relating to excavation and/or placement of fill. Please review the general and special conditions included in the permit; these are intended to minimize any environmental disturbance associated with the authorized activity. The Article 15 approval was issued under a special delegation agreement with the Department of Environmental Conservation who normally issues these approvals. This eliminates the need for separate application forms and fees which would otherwise apply to this project. Please note that it is the responsibility of the permittee and the permittee’s agent to comply with all permit conditions. Further, the permit is valid only for the activity expressly authorized. Work beyond the scope of the permit shall be considered as work without a permit. The notice enclosed with the permit must be displayed in a conspicuous place near the project site during the entire period of construction and must be suitably protected from the elements. Any failure to comply with the terms of the permit may be treated as a violation of the Environmental Conservation Law. Questions regarding this permit should be directed to the undersigned. Should your plans change, you must contact this office to determine whether a modification to the permit is required prior to initiating construction. Please note the expiration date of the permit. If further time is required to complete the project, you must request renewal of the permit prior to this date. Your interest in maintaining the environmental quality of Lake George is greatly appreciated by the Commission. Sincerely, Molly Gallagher Deputy Permit Administrator” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. COLLINS-My name is Edward Collins. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your project, Mr. Collins. MR. COLLINS-I want to move the northern tier of our dock approximately 12 feet to the north, ad take out the existing one. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else that you wanted to add? MR. COLLINS-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Larry, have you got any questions? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think I do. You just stop me if I’m on the wrong tack here, but I’m looking at some photographs and a plan view of crib number two and number four. When we were out there, you talked about trying to open up that eight foot width a little bit so you could get a bigger boat in there. MR. COLLINS-That’s right. I want to move that northern crib, the eight foot crib, north. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and the movement of that crib would be approximately 12 and a half foot north. MR. COLLINS-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s to get your opening of 22 feet. MR. COLLINS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, based on those few things that we talked about, it looks like the four by fours that are supporting the upper deck are going to be hanging in space if you pull that dock out 12 and a half feet. What’s going to support the four by fours that now hold up the north side of your upper deck? MR. COLLINS-If you look on the application, I’m going to move the deck over on top of the new piers. MR. VOLLARO-See, when I looked at it, I said that’s what you’d have to do, otherwise the deck would fall in the lake, but I don’t see that here anywhere on the drawings or in the project description. The way this application reads, it talks about moving that piers 12 and a half feet over, but no place in here does it talk about and in addition, you’re going to have to extend that sundeck quite far over to get the four by fours to sit on the new pier. MR. COLLINS-I’m going to have to move it the same distance. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and that’s not in this. I see you got a Lake George Park Commission approval, and I read that, but no place in here do I get the sense, when I read the application, that we’re also making a fairly large modification to the upper deck. MRS. MOORE-I wasn’t aware of anything happening to the upper deck. MR. COLLINS-I believe when I came to the, I’m not real familiar with this process. When I came to this building to apply for the permit, I was told one of the reasons I had to come for a variance or whatever I’m applying for is because I wanted to change the deck. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You have a pre-existing situation. MR. COLLINS-Excuse me, the top part. MR. MAC EWAN-He needs to have site plan approval. MR. VOLLARO-And I just asked the Staff, asked Laura, did she have a feeling that the upper deck was going to be changed as well, and you did not? MRS. MOORE-No. I understood the dock below was to be moved, and the two cribs out. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he can do that. I understand that, but once he does that, he’s faced with a dock with four by four supports hanging in space. He’s got to extend that dock about 12 and a half feet, the upper decking, 12 and a half feet, so that he can rest on the new pier. He doesn’t have any way out of that, the way I see it. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the width in the crib right now, between the two docks? MR. VOLLARO-Eight feet. MR. COLLINS-Eight and a half feet. MR. VOLLARO-The drawing’s got eight feet, but eight and a half’s close enough. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re almost tripling that. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So therefore you’re almost at least going to double the size of that sundeck, right? MR. COLLINS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Pretty close. MR. MAC EWAN-If the issue is just to get your boat so it fits in there, why do you need to make it 22 feet wide? MR. COLLINS-I have to fit two boats in it. MR. MAC EWAN-Two boats. How many boats do you own? MR. COLLINS-Two. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you rent out dock space to anybody? MR. COLLINS-No. MR. VOLLARO-Actually, the biggest part of this project is really expanding that upper deck. You’ve got a lot of major work to bring, in other words, you’re going to elongate the deck on its north side, and just expand it. MR. COLLINS-The deck. MR. VOLLARO-The upper deck. MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-On the north side, and extend it to where you’ve got your new pier, and then put your four by fours on that for support. So you’ve got approximately a 12 foot extension on that upper deck to do. MR. COLLINS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So I see that as probably even a larger effort than just putting in the new dock itself. I think my own feeling on this is in order for the record to look straight, I think that the application has to show the extension of the deck, or the extension of the upper deck, rather. MR. COLLINS-But I thought the application showed the expansion of the upper deck when it shows that it’s going to have a 22 foot stand on it. MR. VOLLARO-No. There’s no place in this application, I mean, I could, when I looked at it, I knew what you had to do. I mean, I could understand, from a building point of view, what had to be done to do that, but no place in the application does it say that. So when this application, this site plan is acted upon, it should be acted upon as a complete plan. That’s my opinion anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments from Staff on this? MRS. MOORE-If it’s something the Board feels comfortable in mentioning within their requirements, or their conditions of review tonight, it’s something that we can. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would go along with that, but this is a rather extensive, this is not a small extension, in my view. MRS. MOORE-All right. Then obviously their other avenue is to table it until he provides an updated plan. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mr. Chairman, would that be acceptable? That’s what I would like to recommend is a tabling of this until a plan reflects the entire project. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan, any questions? MR. ABBOTT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-I agree with Bob. When you say open on your sketch, why do you say that, or is it something that I don’t see? That’s not open to boats to go in there? MR. COLLINS-No. That’s so the water can fall underneath there. MR. PALING-Okay, and there’s a difference between 37 and 38 feet in the length of this. If you add the dimensions in the lower right hand sketch, it’s 38 feet, everywhere else it’s 37. That you might correct, or explain it. Whichever. MR. COLLINS-It’s 37 feet. MR. PALING-Then you ought to correct the dimensions down below, if you’re going to re-submit it, when. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you in favor of having this plan revised to show the expansion of the sundeck area? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan, how do you feel? MR. ABBOTT-I agree with that, also. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Yes, I think we should have that, but I’m wondering if we can approve it with, well, I’d hate to have him come back, but I think we do need to have a correct plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand what the Board’s requesting, what we’re looking at? I mean, the massive size of the expansion that you’re proposing here. MR. COLLINS-You want a picture or drawing from the top down to the land, that’s it? MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we’d be looking at is an elevation and a plan view of the sundeck, and how you’re proposing to expand that out. MR. COLLINS-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-Maybe get together with Laura, with Staff, and she can help. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so that the applicant understands we don’t design decks and sundecks. Okay. We’re going to table your application. Before I do that, I am going to open up the public hearing for this application, and we’ll leave it open. Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Next item. SITE PLAN NO. 10-94A TYPE II MODIFICATION LOGGER’S EQUIPMENT SALES, INC. OWNER: SAME AGENT: PARADOX DESIGNS, CHARLES JOHNSON ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE STORY 1,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO MATCH EXISTING BUILDING. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 18-1989, AV 97-1989, SUB. 8- 1994 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 127-8-25.1 LOT SIZE: 3.92 AC. SECTION: 179-26 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) CHARLIE JOHNSON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-94 – Modification, Logger’s Equipment Sales, Inc., Meeting Date: November 23 1999 “Project Description: The applicant proposes an 1,800 square foot addition to an existing building. The addition will be utilized for a 900 square foot warehouse and a 900 square foot office. Site plan review is required for additions to existing structures in the light industrial zone. Staff Notes: The proposed addition meets the zoning requirements of an expansion of an existing structure within the light industrial zone. The addition will be consistent with the existing metal structure. The parking shown on the plans is adequate for the size of the structure and uses. The site layout of the existing and proposed addition does not appear to interfere with internal or access traffic circulation. The plans indicate the existing septic system will be relocated and stormwater will be contained on site. There are no other alterations to the building or property proposed. The site was inspected for compliance with the original site plan, and was found to be in compliance (Code Compliance Memo 11/17/99). Recommendations: Staff would recommend approval of the modification as submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Could you read in the memo from Craig Brown? MRS. MOORE-Yes. This is dated November 16, 1999, from Craig Brown. “As discussed during our preliminary review of this application, I performed a site inspection of the subject property on November 3, 1999. As a result of this inspection, I observed the site to be in substantial compliance with the previously approved site plan; SP10-94 and subsequent modification.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. JOHNSON-My name is Charlie Johnson, an architect with Paradox Designs. BILL BUCKINGHAM MR. BUCKINGHAM-I’m Bill Buckingham, owner of Logger’s Equipment Sales. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project, please? MR. JOHNSON-Sure. Logger’s Equipment has been in business for about 25 years. Back in ’94, Logger’s Equipment was granted an approval for this site to develop the buildings and site what you see there today. I think back then that Planning Board had some concerns about the type of business and its location on Corinth Road. They had a number of stipulations, in addition to the normal. One of them was the kinds of equipment that he could display. There’d only be new equipment out at the road. I think in the last five years, he has not received one complaint from a neighbor or anybody in Queensbury as to how he’s conducted his business. So I think those conditions have been well met by the applicant. We can really look at that as a testimony to the kind of property owner and businessman that Mr. Buckingham is. The success of his business has also created the need for this addition. This is an 1800 square foot single story addition. I’m going to pass out a photograph of the existing building. MR. MAC EWAN-We beat you to it. We have them. MR. JOHNSON-Great. This is a bigger one, maybe. We’re going to extend the building out roughly 30 feet, or exactly 30 feet, from the existing front. It’ll look exactly like this building, same metal siding, same type of window, same roof pitch, same everything. When you drive up, you’d never be able to tell the addition from the existing. What’s going to be contained in this addition is half of it will be used for parts storage expansion. That’s really where the growth in the business has come from, is the selling of the parts. So there’s going to be one additional staff person put on for that, and the other half of the addition will be for expansion of existing offices. We comply with all of the setbacks, lot coverages, parking, everything that’s required by zoning. We’re just simply here for a site plan approval. The new stormwater that’s going to be generated from this roof will be handled on site. We’ve got a number of existing drywells both in the paved parking and the gravel parking, that will accept this additional stormwater there. There’s an ornamental planting in the front of the building. You can see that in the photograph. We’ll be extending that down in front of the addition as well. So at this point, I’d ask the Board to grant approval for the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you. Any questions? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. PALING-I didn’t have until you said existing plantings. Where are they? MR. JOHNSON-Right in front of the red car here. There’s just ornamental shrubbery and evergreens. You really can’t see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, if you look in our photographs, the one in the lower left, see the space between the two parked cars? If you look right in there, you can see them. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-Out on the end of the existing building, there’s a driveway to the lot behind the building. Will that? MR. JOHNSON-That’s going to simply just move forward to the front of the new addition. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. It won’t move any closer to the road that, or to the front of the lot, I should say? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. There’s a drive access now in front of the existing building. So that drive access will be in the front of the new addition. So that will move forward 30 feet toward the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, 30 feet toward the neighboring property. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. So the addition will be to here, roughly, and that drive area will be roughly right about there. MR. ABBOTT-So the drive area will stay where it’s at, this entrance to the back lot? MR. JOHNSON-It’s going to have to move forward somewhat to clear the addition. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. So it’s going to have to move this way. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. ABBOTT-I’m just looking at the setbacks here. MR. JOHNSON-That’s probably a five or ten foot movement of that drive forward. MR. ABBOTT-Okay, and then from that driveway to the property line, about how far would it be at that point there? MR. JOHNSON-There will be a 50 foot building setback. So from the property line, if you were to allow for a 10 foot drive, I think that’s probably what you’ve got now, it would be 40 feet off the property line. There’s a 30 foot. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Not a thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 10-94A, LOGGER’S EQUIPMENT SALES, INC., Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: As prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 10-94A; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 10/27/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map A1 dated 10/20/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/23/99 - Staff Notes 2. 11/10/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 3. 11/4/99 - Meeting Notice 4. 11/16/99 - Notice of Public Hearing Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/23/99 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 modification to Site Plan No. 10-94A. 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 23 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck. Laura, do we have Mr. Lapper on next? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, could you announce the next item on the agenda, please, even though it’s not on the agenda. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MRS. MOORE-Under a discussion item we have proposed Mega Save/Grand Union, as an item on the agenda. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, could you identify yourself, please. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and in a second, I’ll be here with Steve Powers, Vice President of Nigro Companies. I just wanted to comment. Before coming here, I met with my client, Tim Trainer from Berkshire Acquisition, owner of the CVS Plaza next door to Hannaford, and we had anticipated, until an hour ago, that we would be making a presentation tonight. Tim wanted to give his regards and just to tell you folks that if Hannaford comes back to do a site plan approval in the future, that you will keep this issue in mind, and we’ll try and monitor it and be back. Because it would be better for everybody if it could be utilized by all parties of Quaker Road. On to the Grand Union and Nigro Companies. When we were here a month ago, you raised a number of issues, and that was early in our planning process in terms of the hard science. So we have now prepared and presented a stormwater management plan which shows that the water will leave the site slower than it does now. Traffic report is almost ready to be submitted and just be finalized right now. There are a number of traffic improvements that that’s going to require, and there could certainly be other things that this Board, or the County DPW is going to be interested in, and we’ll submit the traffic report, and the third and probably hardest to pin down of all of the issues is the architectural issue. Thank you for putting us on the agenda for discussion. We just wanted to hear from you what it was you want us to go and look at, because you indicated that you thought that this was going to need some modification. This plan that you see is different than the plan that was first presented to the Town Board when we made the proposal for the project and first rolled it out. The façade’s been changed to extend the canopy section all the way over to where Steve is standing, and we’d just like to hear what you’d like us to look at. MR. VOLLARO-Jon, is the orientation of the building on the lot the same as what you had proposed the last time? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-This would be looking from Quaker Road. MR. LAPPER-Yes. You would be looking from Quaker, and there would be substantial landscaping which usually, our landscape architect, the Sear Brown Group, had prepared this, you would see it in perspective with the distance from Quaker Road and a lot of landscaping because there’s the wetland area where our stormwater management area immediately behind the bagel shop, and again, the new Denny’s landscaping in the parking lot, but this is just an elevation prepared by the architects for Grand Union. MR. MAC EWAN-What is the gray and blue area made of? What’s the material? STEVE POWERS MR. POWERS-This area here? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. POWERS-This is a drivet, or efface material. MR. MAC EWAN-Like that architectural foam type material? MR. POWERS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the theme that would go around the entire perimeter of the building? MR. POWERS-I believe it goes just across the perimeter of the building. The rest of the building would be architectural block. MR. MAC EWAN-Architectural block. Similar to the Hannaford kind of idea, architectural block. Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing right now. I wasn’t here at the first meeting. So I’m coming in on this very slow. MR. MAC EWAN-The first meeting we had, when the initial meeting for the request for zone change, the Board identified a number of concerns we had, impact to the adjacent neighborhood, 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) architecturally, stormwater management, traffic, and it seems like there was at least one other one that escapes me at this moment. So, we asked them to go back and formulate some additional information for us, that anticipated they were going to come on the agenda I think some time in December. MR. LAPPER-That’s what, it looks that way. MR. MAC EWAN-In the meantime, they have asked if they could come and just show us this, I guess it’s this standard design, store design, so to speak. MR. LAPPER-This is the prototype for the new Grand Union/Mega Save Supermarket, but it’s already been changed once to extend this fancier façade, if you will, down the whole front, and that’s what we’re showing, and in terms of the planting, for Larry’s benefit, since he wasn’t here, and I didn’t bring a site plan because I thought the only thing we were really going to talk about was architecture, but just in terms of the site design for a second, what we’ve done, the reason why we’re asking for a re-zoning is that we’ve purchased eight lots along Homer Ave. immediately behind this lot, and we can fit the building and the parking and the stormwater management on the eight acres that are zoned commercial, but we realized that if we did that, we would have five residences on these eight lots that would be looking over their back yard, whether it’s over a fence or through trees, they’d be looking at the back of the building, and it wasn’t going to do anything for their property value, and it probably wasn’t going to make them too happy. So at great expense, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, we’ve got all those lots under option, which took us about a year to acquire the rights to this site, plus those additional parcels, which allows us to put a significant landscape berm in, which will protect the few remaining residents across the street, and those are all zoned light industrial. It’s anticipated that we’ll ultimately transition to light industrial, between Duke and Bard, that whole area, there’s a big open area owned by Kubricky Construction, I guess, that will ultimately be the master plan. It’s contemplated to be industrial. So we’re protecting the residents that are there now by anticipating that ultimately that will be a light industrial developed area. MR. RINGER-The property you bought, Jon, that was light industrial? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RINGER-And you’re looking for Highway Commercial. MR. LAPPER-And we’re looking for Highway Commercial, mostly to be used for buffer, but so this whole parcel will be a Highway Commercial parcel. We think that that’s good planning, although we realize that this is going to be a long process, and that the Boards are going to want to make changes to it. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you looking for from us? MR. LAPPER-You told us that you wanted us to make changes to the façade, and I guess, we’re not asking you to tell us how to design it, but we need to hear from you, so that Steve and I can go back to Grand Union and say, this is what it’s going to take for the Planning Board to be comfortable with this project. So we need some direction as to what you’d like to see on the architecture. MR. MAC EWAN-I think one of the comments that one of the Board members made, last week, was that we’re kind of, I think, apprehensive to, for lack of a better phrase, design your building for you, because if we get hung up on some other aspects of this petition that we don’t feel comfortable with, for one reason or another, that we wouldn’t want to make a recommendation for a zone change. I don’t want you leaving here thinking that, well, because we gave you directions on the store design, or something that was architecturally appeasing to us, that that’s in any way could be construed as, well, we’re comfortable with the rest of the application. Do you understand what I’m trying to say? MR. LAPPER-Our job is to do what we can do to make you comfortable with the application. You mentioned that architecture was one of the big issues that you were uncomfortable with, and we need to know why, and we’ll be back in December to talk about the full project again, and certainly anything you say tonight we’re not going to take as you’ve approved the project and go on. We can’t go back to the Town Board until you have reviewed this in terms of the recommendation, and if the Town Board agrees to the re-zoning, we would then be back before you for site plan review. So we certainly understand what you’re saying, but our job is to try and make project changes that will satisfy this Board, and it’s in that light that we’re here to talk to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. VOLLARO-In one of your original presentations, I don’t have it with me, but I can recollect that you had that building turned 90 degrees. So that it’s end was looking at Quaker Road, the end view would then be looking at Quaker Road. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-But that presented a much smaller building. It wouldn’t have required a zone change, either. MR. LAPPER-That was done before we acquired the rights to buy the land on Homer. So that was all the land we had to work with. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. LAPPER-And that would have been the exact size building, 65,000 square feet, which coincidentally, is the same size as Hannaford, because that’s, for a full line supermarket, that’s what retailers consider the minimum that they need these days. What that did, which is different, is that that would have required us to disturb more wetlands, more wetland area, which can be done with Army Corps approval. So another reason for buying the lots on Homer is that allowed the wetland area to be disturbed considerably less. What we’re talking about is .42 one hundredths of an acre, which is only slightly more than a third of an acre that you’re allowed to do with the Nationwide permit from the Army Corps without a specific project permit. So it’s a minor wetland project, in terms of the Army Corps requirements. MR. VOLLARO-If it was oriented 90 degrees. MR. LAPPER-If it was oriented the other way, it would be more of a disturbance, because the wetlands are located immediately behind the Denny’s. So the site would then be closer to Quaker Road. This allows that whole wetland area to be a big buffer behind the back of the Denny’s and the front of the parking lot, and that area would be landscaped. I don’t have the landscape plan, again, but that would be landscaped at the back of that wetland area, also, which would further buffer this site from Quaker Road. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the height of the building now, this rendition? You don’t have a scale on there, I don’t believe. If it’s a blow up of the picture you gave us, it’s unscaled. MR. POWERS-The height of the main entrance of the building is 40 feet high. MR. VOLLARO-The façade is 40 feet? MR. POWERS-This area here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. POWERS-I couldn’t tell you offhand, scale wise it’s probably in the thirties, obviously, and the building drains to the rear, so the back of the building is in the mid twenties. MR. VOLLARO-Now the deliveries to that building would be in the rear, I would assume? MR. POWERS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And one of the questions that was raised at the last meeting was the amount of, you know, most deliveries to supermarkets like that take place in the wee hours of the morning, and we’re just trying to get a feel, because that’s going to be reasonably close to Homer Avenue. The people across the way are really going to be looking at the back of that building, the people further south on Homer. MR. LAPPER-There are five residences there across the street that certainly are the closest proximity to that building. On the one hand, if we didn’t get the re-zoning, and this were re-developed to light industrial, which is what it’s zoned, that would. MR. VOLLARO-We’d have to take that site plan on its merits. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, but in terms of where they are in a transitional area of the Town zoned Light Industrial and Commercial, by buying those lots and taking that out, so that it’ll never be, so it’ll have a 50 foot buffer, the argument is that we’re protecting them more than where they are now with these residents that are there, that it’ll just be a big buffer area, but we know that we have to design with their interest in mind, and that’s why we’ve got a 50 foot buffer, which is significant, six 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) or seven feet high significant caliper trees, a wooden fence in the center of that. So we’re ready to address that issue. MR. VOLLARO-One of my concerns is basically the amount of, the height of the water table that’s just adjacent to Homer Avenue there. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s keep it to the architecture of the store, though, tonight. I mean, that’s all they’re really here, that’s all that we’re talking about tonight. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a box. It’s a beautiful box. It’s nothing but a box. It’s okay. I mean, I don’t have, you know, any great problems with the way that looks. It’s going to be a box, a big box no matter how you try to dress it off. You’re going to have a façade on it, but it’s going to look like this. Typically. That’s the way they build buildings today. So, I’ve got other concerns that I’ll save for site plan. MR. LAPPER-Did you receive the stormwater management plan yet? I know that copies. MR. MAC EWAN-No. That won’t go out until we get Staff Notes for next month’s meetings. Alan? MR. ABBOTT-Have you looked at the orientation of the front toward Bay, with the addition of the Homer properties? I know you said originally it was facing Bay, without the Homer properties. Have you looked at? MR. LAPPER-We have that plan, and that can be done. It can be oriented that way, and certainly with the new lots on Homer, it can be done that way. The downside of that is just that the whole site development takes place closer to Quaker Road, closer to those wetlands, but that’s something that the Board, we have that plan. We can talk about that next time. We’ll put the two plans up, and if that’s something that you prefer, we’ll talk about it. MR. POWERS-If I could just address that. One of the concerns that we have, as a developer, is, should something happen to this tenant or the tenant that we have in the future, we believe that the orientation toward Quaker Road is more commercially viable, because that’s a more commercial road. So, in the future, should something change here, the building is subdivided or another tenant comes in, we believe it’s more viable to face Quaker Road. MR. RINGER-But the main entrance is going to be on Bay Road, not on Quaker Road, as I recall. MR. LAPPER-Yes. There are two entrances, but the main entrance where you’ll be able to see the building would be on Bay. MR. MAC EWAN-On Bay or Quaker? MR. LAPPER-On Bay. MR. VOLLARO-You’ll see the end of it on Bay, end view. MR. RINGER-But it’s going to face Quaker. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RINGER-So the people coming in on Bay are going to see the. I’m getting into site plan on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-Looking at the building, the dark blue stripe above the fancy siding confuses me a little bit. Is that a vertical, is that the façade? MR. POWERS-I believe that’s a slab roof above the façade. MR. PALING-Okay, but the façade is not transparent? MR. POWERS-No. MR. PALING-Okay. How tall is the façade? MR. POWERS-Tall from a person on the sidewalk or? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. PALING-No, from the flat of the roof, the flat roof, and I’ll ask my second question. How tall is the mechanical equipment that’s going to set on the roof going to be? MR. POWERS-Well, unfortunately, we really wanted to have the tenant here to address questions like that, because this is obviously the façade. MR. PALING-All right. Well, we can cover it in the future, and I’ll tell you what the third part would be. We have people come before us and say, if it’s a façade, it’ll cover the air-conditioning equipment or the fan, all the mechanical equipment, but then you get a distance away from the building, and you can see it. So I’m going to be asking you that the relationship of the solid façade to the height of the mechanical equipment, and how far, and where, if any distance, can you see it from. Are you with me? MR. POWERS-Yes. MR. PALING-Now, I don’t mean to criticize the picture, but it looks like it’s a building on stilts, but is that glass, or what are we looking at down below? MR. LAPPER-The only area that’s glass, which is right here at the entrance. MR. PALING-Well, what am I looking at? Am I looking right through the building? MR. POWERS-These are columns out in front. There’s a sidewalk underneath this canopy. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And the black are shadows of the columns. MR. PALING-So that’s glass. You’ve got a walkway in there. MR. LAPPER-This is not glass. This is open. MR. PALING-But behind it is glass. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. POWERS-No, there’d be a solid wall back there. MR. PALING-All right, but there is a walkway. There is a solid wall. MR. LAPPER-The only glass is here. This is just a covered masonry canopy. MR. VOLLARO-The rendition looks like there’s a parking lot underneath. When I first looked at it, that’s what it looked like to me. MR. PALING-All right. Now, is the parking lot part of architecture? MR. LAPPER-The parking lot’s part of site plan. We’re here to talk about anything that you want to talk about. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re here to talk about architecture tonight. MR. PALING-From an appearance standpoint, one of the problems you get into is big boxes have big parking lots, though most of the year they’re really not utilized. Would you consider going to this honeycomb bought construction that allows grass to grow up through it, and you can mow it, but it has the appearance of grass, but you can park on it, and that would take, when you have the busy, busy days, it’s there to park on, but otherwise it looks better than the big stretch of black asphalt. MR. LAPPER-Well, to answer that, to start with, the Town now requires, unlike all of the older centers, that every 150 car spaces be separated by median with landscaping to break up the size of the parking lot, and that’s certainly part of the plan. I think that the tenant’s going to say that they’d rather have asphalt, so then it can be plowed in the winter, which is tougher than mowing in the summer, but again, if that’s the will of the Board, we’ll certainly consider it. MR. PALING-All I’m asking is if you’d consider it to see if it’s practical, and it would improve the appearance of the parking lot. MR. RINGER-Bob, I don’t understand what you’re after. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. PALING-They have concrete blocks that are honeycomb in design that are spaces in between. MR. MAC EWAN-Like a paver brick. MR. PALING-And you can make a parking lot out of these. They did it at Stewart’s and this is for parking space that isn’t used very much, and grass grows up through it. So it looks better than asphalt. MR. VOLLARO-Can you mow it? MR. PALING-You can mow right over it. You mow right over it and park right on it, and it is a way of improving the appearance of a parking lot. MR. RINGER-I think in a grocery store business that this is, or supermarket, whatever you want to call it, you don’t have highs and lows where, it’s not necessarily seasonal in traffic. The traffic is generally the same 52 weeks a year, in a grocery store. I can see in some other stores where seasonal traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-What Bob is saying is a way to meet the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance without having masses of black top. MR. RINGER-If we feel that there’s too many parking spaces, such as the K-Mart, then we can reduce the requirements. MR. PALING-I think if you look at Hannaford or Price Chopper, at least a third of the parking lot is usually vacant of cars, and probably more, and I’m trying to make that lot look a little better. MR. RINGER-I haven’t seen that at Price Chopper, but I see it at K-Mart. MR. PALING-I see it at Hannaford. MR. LAPPER-Steve was suggesting that, on the perimeter of the parking lot, those spaces that maybe would be utilized less frequently, that that’s probably something that could be done, maybe not the whole parking lot because of carts and other issues and plowing. I’m well aware that this Board has not been happy with the way K-Mart was developed, and when we did the Lowe’s, the parking standards were 4.5 per thousand, rather than 5. I think K-Mart was eight per thousand, something like that. What we’re talking about here, just to put it in perspective, is 325 spaces, which is not a small parking lot, but compared to like the 1100 at K-Mart, it’s a whole different story. Much more similar to Hannaford, and, frankly, their parking lot is pretty nice because of the landscaping. I always like when I’m there, which is pretty much every day, that they did a nice job of landscaping and the design of that parking lot, and that can be done here as well. MR. RINGER-Hannaford looks good, too. Price Chopper does not necessarily look good. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. Anything else, Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan, I stole your time. MR. ABBOTT-That’s okay. Talking about architecture for a second. The building itself, the lines are nice. What really needs to happen, in order to get a good perspective, is the elevation you talked about where the perspective from Quaker Road, where you have the other buildings, how it fits in. That, in and of itself, in some instances looks wonderful, other instances, you know, wouldn’t mix right. So I guess my comment on architecture would be we need to see it in relationship to the surrounding areas. MR. LAPPER-We’ll come back with that. That’s good. That’s something tangible that we can do. MR. POWERS-Yes. I think Sear Brown can take a photograph of what’s there now and then superimpose this on that. So you’d be able to see a completed product. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s kind of hard, at this point, to give you an honest impression, other than looking at Mega Save, mega box, big giant thing and see how it fits in. My personal opinion, I look at this, that this architectural style versus say the Grand Union style in South Glens Falls, and I like the Grand Union style much better. I think the earth tone colors are more pleasing to the eye. I think they would blend in better with their environment, than something like this. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. LAPPER-We’ll go back and mention that tangible issue. In general, I feel with Nigro Companies’, in terms of their history with the Town, what we did with that Taco Bell, that whole thing, we’re here to work with you. They are not afraid to spend the money to do it right. That’s their goal. We’re trying to just work through this process, and come up with something that works. If it takes more time, then it takes more time. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I think you all know where we’re coming from at this point, I guess. We gave you as much guidance as we dare give you. MR. LAPPER-We understand. We won’t take this as an approval. We’re just working through. Thanks for the time. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. MR. POWERS-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do we have anything else on the agenda? MRS. MOORE-You have down here, under “Other: Election of Officers”. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It’s that time of year, folks. Does someone want to make a nomination for Chairman for next year? MOTION TO NOMINATE CRAIG MAC EWAN FOR CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, guys. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll let you suffer through another term. MR. MAC EWAN-Your vote of confidence tells me a lot. It really does. Okay. How about nominations for Vice Chair. MOTION TO NOMINATE LARRY RINGER FOR VICE CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-And nominations for Secretary. MOTION TO NOMINATE CATHY LA BOMBARD FOR SECRETARY, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? MRS. MOORE-Any further business that may come before the Board. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/23/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Business for the Board? Business for the Board? No? I’ll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 25