Loading...
2000-08-24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 24, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LARRY RINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN/ACTING CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MAC EWAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. RINGER-The first thing, we’ve got a couple of items that are going to be tabled. The first one is Site Plan No. 60-2000 Independent Wireless One Leased Realty Corp., and that’s being tabled until 9/26. SITE PLAN NO. 60-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE REALTY CORP. OWNER: CITY OF GLENS FALLS AGENT: MARGARET SMITH, PYRAMID SITE ACQUISITION SERVICES ZONE: PR-42A LOCATION: COLE’S WOODS, SOUTH SIDE OF AVIATION MALL APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CO- LOCATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ON EXISTING WATER TANK. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 179-73.1 MR. RINGER- We have a public hearing scheduled for that, which we’ll open now, and leave open until the 26. th PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. RINGER-The next item that’s being tabled it PUD Site Plan No. 44-2000 Michaels Group/Waverly Place PUD SITE PLAN 44-2000 FEIS: 7/2/87, RES. 201 MICHAELS GROUP (WAVERLY PLACE) OWNER: SAME ZONE: PUD LOCATION: SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF HAVILAND ROAD AND MEADOWBROOK ROAD PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION FOR IMMEDIATE AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING 56 TWIN TOWNHOUSE UNITS, 35,000 SQ. FT. OF OFFICE SPACE AND 48 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND 12 +/- ACRES FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE DEVELOPMENT IS PART OF THE HILAND PARK PUD THAT OFFERS GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS AND RECREATIONAL AND OFFICE SPACE FOR CONVENIENCE TO RESIDENTS. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/12/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-1-2 LOT SIZE: 74.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-58 MR. RINGER-And that application is being tabled until September 19, and again, the public th hearing had been opened on that, and left open, and it will be held open for the meeting of the 19. th PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. RINGER-And I need a resolution to table the Waverly Place. MOTION TO TABLE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 44-2000 MICHAELS GROUP/WAVERLY PLACE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Until September 19. The reason for tabling is we’re awaiting the C.T. Male response to the th applicant’s response. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-Laura, do I need to table? MRS. MOORE-You should make a resolution for the Independent Wireless. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2000 INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE LEASED REALTY CORP., Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Until the 26 of September, and the reason for that is they still need some contractual negotiations th going on with the City of Glens Falls for putting the towers on top of their water towers. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STROUGH-Is that going to be the 19, too? th MR. RINGER-That is scheduled for the 26. I’m tabling that until the 26, John. thth AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE MR. RINGER-And then the other change to the agenda tonight is we’ve moving Subdivision No. 10-73, 1-76 Northwest Village, Section I & II to the first item on the agenda tonight. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 10-73, 1-76 NORTHWEST VILLAGE, SECTION I & II OWNER: WEST MT. LIQUIDATING PARTNERSHIP AGENT: MICHAEL BRANDT MODIFICATION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY SECTIONS I & II OF THE NORTHWEST VILLAGE SUBDIVISION. SECTION I INVOLVES LOTS 1, 2, & 3 AND SECTION II INVOLVES LOTS 26, 27, 28, AND 29, ETC. ANY MODIFICATION TO PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. MIKE BRANDT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-73, 1-76, Northwest Village, Section I & II, Meeting Date: August 24, 2000 “Project Description Applicant proposes boundary line adjustments to two sections of the Northwest Village subdivision. Modifications to Planning Board approved subdivisions require review and approval. Northwest Village Section One The modification is to the deed that will be prepared for Lot #2. The deed will include a provision that gives the owner of Lot #2 access to Birchfield. The existing deed for lots on Birchfield allows access from Lot#1 and Lot#3 not Lot #2. Northwest Village Section Two A lot line adjustment to lots numbered 29, 28, 27, and 26 as shown on subdivision map dated July 30, 1976. The modification combines lots 29 and 28 into one lot, adjusts the square footage of an area labeled as “vehicular & pedestrian access”, and relabeled the “vehicular & pedestrian access” to “common” to lots numbered 26, 27, 28 for purpose of vehicular access. A revised drawing dated August 14, 2000 shows the lot line adjustments. A deed will be made indicating the two owners will maintain the “to be deeded in common…” area. The proposed modifications meet the original intent of the subdivision to maintain a cluster-like subdivision and to use the natural setting around the lots to enhance the subdivision.” MR. RINGER-Thank you. Would you introduce yourself. MR. BRANDT-Hi. I’m Mike Brandt, and I’m here to represent West Mountain Liquidating Partnership in this matter, and I’ll gladly answer any questions. MR. RINGER-Mike, why don’t you tell us what you want to do, take the mic with you to the map, if you want to go to the map. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. BRANDT-I’m not sure how all this happened, except that the rules changed as we went along. This is an old subdivision, and as we built it, Northwest Road goes up through here. Stonebridge Road across here, and we had set up a piece of land called Birchfield, so it could be made into a road. However, the first two people that built in here, on Lot One and Lot Three, asked that it not be deeded to the Town and be kept as a private road, now the last lot in here was sold recently, and that gentleman said, well, why don’t you deed me that, and I’ll honor the right of ways for the other people, and then there’ll be clean ownership on a private road, which we thought made sense, but it isn’t legal. So it requires your approval to do that. Everybody’s happy with the solution, except that it has to be approved by the Planning Board. MR. RINGER-Okay. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m glad you made that clear to me, because I wasn’t quite sure what was going on, but now I see what’s going on. Now is that the same thing that’s going on up above, by Dr. Hendricks? MR. BRANDT-Let’s look at that one. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have a question on that first one. MR. BRANDT-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-What are the curb cuts on the Lot One and Three now? How do people get out of Lot One and Three onto Birchfield? MR. BRANDT-They go out, as the driveway is shown, Lot One also intersects with Birchfield, the driveway goes out into that, and those driveways have been in existence for 20 some years, and these two homes have been sold and re-sold, and the title companies are happy with what’s there. It’s just a technicality. It doesn’t comply with the law. So I really need your approval, so that everything’s clean and finished. That’s the last lot in this subdivision, and it will be all sold out. MR. STROUGH-Are you going to share the snow plowing expenses? MR. BRANDT-They take care of that themselves, and the fellow that really bought this last lot said he’ll open it. He’s a contractor, and they don’t have any problem between any of them. MR. RINGER-John had a previous question that you didn’t get your answer to. MR. BRANDT-On the upper ones? MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if the Board’s done with this map, before we go to the other? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. BRANDT-The other one, I think, is kind of an error, when the map was made, in that this is the original map, and it shows a dotted line along here, and it says, vehicular and pedestrian access. Well, we want to combine Lot 28 and 29, and so the Town asked us to make a new map, which we did, and in the new map, you’ll see a very defined course here that can be surveyed, and it basically then shows, with survey points, where the road, which is proposed to be jointly owned, one jointly owns, Dr. Hendricks, owns Lot 26 and 27, and his house is on the combination of those two lots, and on this new map, 28 and 29 have been combined to be just Lot 28. What’s really the point here is that the driveway access for Lot 28 is only 25 feet wide, but that’s all you can make there because it’s on a pretty steep hill, and there’s a 25 foot path that’s flat, which is the driveway, and so to have more frontage on the road doesn’t serve any purpose. I don’t know what else to tell you. I think that, originally, that was well understood, but it wasn’t clearly defined on the map. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Brandt, I noticed that the utility easements have changed as well. MR. BRANDT-The utility easement had been shown to come up along a lot line. However, Niagara Mohawk, when they went to build it, was having trouble with it. So I suggested to them that they just come over and go up the side of the ski trail, which they did, and so we’re just reflecting that on the map to make it accurate. Again, this would be the last lot in this subdivision, and it would be all sold out. MR. STROUGH-You just have two lots available at this time? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. BRANDT-Yes. There was one which I’ve basically sold, and then one up here, and that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-You have a buyer for the upper lot as well? MR. BRANDT-Yes, I do. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Brandt, does the new deed that’s going to be drawn up now will reflect the new right of way? In other words, in the deed it will talk to the Niagara Mohawk change in right of way? MR. BRANDT-Yes, it will, and it’ll also show this to be owned in common by Dr. Hendrickson, the new owner. MR. RINGER-Did you have anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I didn’t have anything. MR. RINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m fine now. MR. RINGER-Okay. We don’t have a public hearing on this because it’s a modification. So if we don’t have anything else, I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 10-73, 1-76 NORTHWEST VILLAGE, SECTION I & II, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: We’re going to modify the deed which will include a provision to give the owner of Lot Two access to Birchfield Drive, and then we’ll have a lot line adjustment, which will essentially remove Lot 29 and Lot 28, and it will become 26, 27, and 28 only, and the deeds for Lots 26, 27, and 28, after the change, the deed will reflect Niagara Mohawk right of way change. I see no need for further SEQRA review since it had been done previously for both Section I and Section II. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STROUGH-Can I get a clarification on the first part of that? Bob, you discussed that you wanted to see the deed, I don’t know if you have the numbers straight on that. The owner of Birchfield is going to be the owner of Lot Number Two, the way I understand it, Mike, and those who receive the right of way will be the owners of Lot One and Three, will receive the right of way to use Birchfield? MR. BRANDT-Yes, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think that’s what I said, didn’t I? MR. RINGER-I don’t know what difference it would make who owns it, as long as the lots are defined clearly, because the owners can change over time. So, probably the way did his motion would be okay, I would think. Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I agree. In other words, you don’t need to specify which parties are which. I think the motion is to approve the subdivision modification as proposed, if I understand it correctly. MR. RINGER-Right. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. RINGER-You’re all set, Mr. Brandt. MR. BRANDT-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION JOSEPH LEUCI/MOUNTAIN SIDE AUTO OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE A 3,360 SQ. FT. ADDITION FOR AUTO REPAIR FOR OFF STREET VEHICLES (PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR REPAIR OF ON SITE VEHICLES ONLY); OTHER MODIFICATIONS WILL ADDRESS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SITE LIGHTING, AND LOCATION OF BUILDING ISSUES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PREVIOUS APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-97, SP 55-98 TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1.3 LOT SIZE: 5.83 ACRES SECTION 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE LEUCI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-98 Modification, Joseph Leuci/Mountainside Auto, Meeting Date: June 29, 2000 “Staff Notes: The application for modification to Mountain Side Auto was tabled at the August 24, 2000 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board requested Craig Brown visit the site and provide recommendation to the Board about plantings in the buffer. Landscaping, Erosion Control As per request of the Planning Board via their 8/15/00 resolution, Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer for the Town of Queensbury, visited the site with Thomas W. Nace, P.E. (the applicant's representative), Joseph Leuci, applicant, and Marilyn Ryba, Senior Planner for the Town of Queensbury. The applicant agreed to produce a planting plan based on suggestions from staff and the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District. See attached memo from Craig Brown and Planting Plan for details. The applicant has provided a revised drawings according to discussion with staff. Septic As per J. O'Brien, Building Inspector for the Building Dept., traffic covers have been installed over the seepage pit located in the parking area. Lighting During the 8/15/00 Planning Board meeting the applicant stated that the 2 lower mounted 400 watt flood light fixtures on each of 5 poles will be used after hours for security purposes only. The 3 upper mounted 1,000 watt fixtures on each of 5 poles will be used during business hours only. The Planning Board may wish to make this a condition to assure that the property is not overly lit.” MR. RINGER-That’s it, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. Would you identify yourself for the record? MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace. With me is Joe Leuci, the owner, or the applicant. MR. RINGER-You want to tell us a little bit about what you did since your last meeting, Tom? MR. NACE-What we’ve done to address, we’ve met with Craig Brown and Marilyn Ryba, out at the site. We delineated approximately where the 50 foot buffer line and approximately where the property line is here, and approximately where that buffer line goes down the bank, the steep bank in back. We looked at this area and decided that that did need to be filled in with trees. We all looked at the area down the bank and decided that it was really impractical to plant trees, but we did need, at least in a portion of that area where it was still bare, we needed some ground cover, for stabilization and erosion control. The bank, in this area over here, has already re-vegetated itself with brush and weeds, and is pretty well protected against any further erosion, but there is an area here that is bare, that any major erosion here is stopped with the construction of the berm, but there’s still some minor erosion from the rain that falls on the bank itself. I came up with a planting plan here that shows, I believe, 21 evergreen trees with a fairly dense row of evergreens along the front, and then filled in around the back, and then five deciduous trees sprinkled in in order to get a little bit of variety. I also talked to John, at any rate, the representative of the Warren/Washington County Soil Conservation District, and he sent me some recommendations on seeding of this bank. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. VOLLARO-John Peck. MR. NACE-Peck, yes, thank you. He’s recommended that this fall we put down grass seed on that and allow the grass to get established in the fall planting season, and then next spring, when they dig their crown vetch sprigs that we plant, get some crown vetch sprigs from them and plant crown vetch in that area. So that’s what I’ve shown on the plan. MR. RINGER-Do we have questions from the Board? Bob, you weren’t here last week for this, but I understand you’ve read the minutes of the meeting. So it’s brought you up to date on it, but I’ll start with you for questions, if you’d like. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the drawing itself, in looking at the drawing, I can’t find, and maybe somebody could direct me to where the handicap parking is for the 113 spaces? I don’t see them on the drawing. There should be five spaces of handicap on there, and I don’t see them. MR. NACE-Okay. That’s display parking, and it falls outside of the New York State Code, as far as customer parking. Customer parking is what requires the handicap spaces. MR. VOLLARO-But I have existing display and customer parking. MR. NACE-Okay. I think at one point we gave a break down to Staff of how many of those were display places and how many of them were parking for cars to be serviced, how many of them were actual customers. I don’t have that in front of me, but I believe the numbers were under 50, and it requires one handicap. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the 113 spaces do not apply, you’re saying, to customer parking? There’s a limited amount of? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no way to tell from here what’s customer parking and what’s existing display parking. MR. STROUGH-Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you have a sign that says handicap parking, obviously where number seven is, right in front of the building? MR. VOLLARO-I see seven. MR. STROUGH-Just to the right of that, and just to the right of the concrete platform is a sign that says handicap parking. MR. NACE-Correct, and that’s the. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s on the site now, it’s on their site now, as you’ve seen it? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not on the drawing which we’re approving, that’s my, I know where the sign is up there, but it’s not on here. MR. NACE-I will show the required handicap parking on the final, you know, permitted or approved plan. MR. VOLLARO-We can sort of put that down in the resolution. Now, when we did the resolution for Site Plan No. 55-98, it called for an elevation view of the building, and that was never supplied, at least I don’t have it in my packet. That was on the prior motion, for 55-98, and that was done back on the 26 day of January of 1999. I think an elevation ought to be really supplied for this new th building, the proposed addition as well, shouldn’t it? Shouldn’t we have an elevation in here? MRS. MOORE-We did receive an elevation drawing for the original submission? MR. VOLLARO-You did? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s not in our packet, though. We didn’t get that. I didn’t see it. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MRS. MOORE-There is no elevation, but it’s supposed to be consistent with the previous elevation drawing. MR. NACE-Yes. There was a comment from Staff, previously, and we had responded verbally, in one of the response letters, that it would match what is there. MR. VOLLARO-What is there now. Okay, and, Laura, you say you have a copy of that in Staff file? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just had a comment on the evergreens, not on the disbursement of the deciduous trees or the evergreens themselves, but the evergreens are specified on the drawing to be three and a half feet high. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Kind of short for what we’re trying to do here. I know they grow fast. I know evergreens grow quickly, but I’m just wondering if we ought to think a little bit about having, because we are trying to, you know, buffer that space off from the residential area. I wonder if they ought to be any higher than that? MR. NACE-If you look at it, if you take a close look in the field, that’s all bank there, and it goes up and there’s dense tree cover behind it. MR. VOLLARO-I went up there today to look. MR. NACE-If you went from above and tried to look down, these trees aren’t really going to, until they’re 100 years old and 80 feet high, aren’t going to add significant buffer from the residential area above. What they’re going to do is simply give some form to that open bank, eventually, to create, you know, more than just an open bank of grass. So I really don’t think that height is that important, and I’ve been here before. I grew up on a tree farm, and know from experience that the bigger you get with the tree that you’re transplanting, the more likely that the tree is not going to survive, plus the longer it’s going to take it to establish and start growing again. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Have we ever fully resolved the gravel retention from the last meeting? I read in the notes that we were concerned a little bit about gravel retention around the space itself. There’s a dotted line that shows limits of proposed gravel surface. Now was that ever put to bed at the last meeting? I wasn’t here on that. MR. RINGER-Tom did make mention of some of the things they were going to try to do, and I’m not exactly sure, remember what they were, Tom, but if you want to. MR. NACE-Okay. Sure, and we discussed that a little bit with Staff, out in the field last week, and that is simply that once the gravel is down and that area is established, we will seed everything else that is not presently grass, okay, so that the grass will establish that edge. MR. VOLLARO-So there won’t be any sort of a man made barrier in there, two by six in the ground, or anything of that nature to separate the two? MR. NACE-Yes. There’s nothing that really doesn’t look tacky or get plowed up when you plow it. If you get good grass cover, that’s the best delineation we can make. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when you go to plow this lot, though, some of that stone’s going to move onto the grassy area, I’m sure, unless the guy plows really, really, really good. MR. NACE-It’s easier to rake the stone out of the grass than it is to try to re-establish some edging that you’ve ripped out of the ground. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I know we’ve got a fairly small proposed addition, but I would like the Building Department to, I’d like to make sure that the Building Department approves the septic system before we get into the building permit on that addition. I just wanted to make that comment. There is an addition that’s going to be on, it’s going to be on the same system, I guess? MR. NACE-Correct. There will be no new facilities. Okay. It’s just extra repair bays, and storage, bringing storage inside. MR. VOLLARO-Well, those are the only questions I have. I don’t have anything else. MR. RINGER-Tony? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. METIVIER-I have nothing further. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I kind of felt bad we didn’t approve this last week, and I think the plan that’s been presented, I’m really pleased with it. So, I’m all set. MR. RINGER-John? MR. STROUGH-Just a clarification. I was just reading my notes from the previous meeting, and Mr. Leuci agreed that there would be no exterior PA or sound systems. So I would like to make that a condition, as well, and I see that, in the conditions of approval, in the motion prepared by Staff, that the landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained, and I mean, we’re going to stick with that language? MRS. MOORE-That’s up to the Board. These are proposed conditions. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I just, I know that we’ve discussed that word in the past, “professional”. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, my own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that’s a pretty vague condition. I’m not exactly sure what it’s goal is, other than to make sure that there’s s a good job done, but I would encourage the Board, if that’s an area of concern, to clarify that in some manner that’s more specific than that language. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s why I brought it up. Those are the two things that I thought. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, when we get to a resolution tonight, we can address those. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. RINGER-We’ve got a public hearing. Anymore questions from the Board? We’ve got a public hearing that was opened, and continued. So if there’s anyone from the public? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON SIPP MR. SIPP-Don Sipp, Courthouse Drive. Joanne Bramley could not attend tonight’s meeting. She asked me if I would read this letter to you. “Morningside Auto was originally given approval by this Board to service only automobiles that it sold. To date, they continue to be in violation of this site plan requirement. Has any determination been made regarding Craig Brown’s site visit? I have repeatedly requested that the proposed addition is not an appropriate location for a full service car dealership. When initial approval was give for this location, the current Comprehensive Land Use Plan did not exist. However, since then, we have had the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that specifically states that any auto repair usage is not recommended on the east side of Route 9. I again request the Board to follow these guidelines in determining the outcome of this applicant. If the Board is inclined to approve the addition of another building for this location, I request that the same restriction, to service only vehicles that have been sold by Mountainside Auto, to apply to this new site plan. Thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns.” MR. RINGER-Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-If there’s nothing else from the Board, I’m ready to entertain a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we ask the applicant about the comments? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that was a well presented position, and I think it ought to be at least explored. I agree with you, Chris. MR. RINGER-Well, the application was for the repair, but, go ahead, you can answer the comments, if you feel. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the specific question is related to servicing only vehicles that are sold. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. NACE-Regarding off site vehicle service? I think it’s been part of this current application, or modification application, that the applicant be allowed to service off site vehicles. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what her point was, Tom, was that the previous motion of 55-98 stated specifically, and I’ll read from it, it said that “This motion states that this is not a repair station for off the street vehicles”. That was in the motion that came before us on the 26 day of January of th 1999. MR. LEUCI-Okay. I initiated that because I wasn’t, at that time, going to do off street repairs, okay. So I had said at this time this is what I’d like to do. I put up a building, a lot nicer than I originally proposed, okay. I was approved to put up just a steel building, but I went a lot further, as you all know, put up a very nice block building. Obviously, when you put up a nice building like this, my expenses have increased. The building has increased, everything like that. It’s just a necessary part of business, to start doing outside repairs. It’s not going to make any difference, as far as traffic flow or anything like that, on the outside. It’s not a big impact, if you talk about an extra few cars per day coming in and out of the lot that we’re discussing. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. I agree with what you’re saying. The problem is I know you went through an expense to do that, and I know you put up a new building, but I think that the gentleman who read the last statement also makes a good point on the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan, stating that automobile repair shouldn’t be done on the east side of Route 9, and I find it rather difficult, for me, to go ahead and approve this, or even put a motion up for approval, based on that. That’s just my feel on it. I think that Mrs. Bramley presented, through the gentleman, a good point, and I have to seriously think that over. MR. HUNSINGER-Would we have to rescind that prior resolution? MR. RINGER-No. Because the application is for the repair of vehicles, and the addition is for the repair of vehicles. The reason this came before us, again, is the addition and the fact that he was doing some repairs that he shouldn’t have been doing. So he had to submit the application. He has been in violation, and that’s something that is being handled by the Code Enforcement Department, which we have no control over. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we don’t have any control over that, and I can understand how somebody could make that mistake. I can understand how Mr. Leuci could have gotten into this position of kind of, you know, repairing cars other than the warranty repairs that he does. However, when I look at what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has to say, that’s something that is within our purview, and it’s something that we have to think about. I think that I have a concern, if that Use Plan was, what she’s really saying, and I think she’s saying, let’s go ahead, if the proposed addition is going to go in the back, but she’s trying to, there’s a trade off that she’s proposing here. The trade off is that we don’t do off the road repairs. We continue with the original motion that said repairs would only be done for warranty repairs on vehicles sold from that property. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wonder how enforceable that would be? I mean, if we’re getting complaints now, and the inspector’s going out there now. He can’t watch his operation every day. MR. RINGER-If this were a new building going up, we probably wouldn’t allow that usage in this area. It’s there. The repairs are really incidental to the business of selling cars and repair of the vehicles that he has under warranty. I don’t feel that this is a significant change in what’s being done there right now. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not a significant change, but it’s not in agreement with our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That’s my problem. MR. RINGER-I guess you have to weigh the balance, and it’s a modification and not a new building, and it’s certainly your opinion, Bob. Any other comments? MR. STROUGH-I don’t see, you’ve got the trash bin in the southeast corner right now. I don’t see it demarcated on the plans, do I? MR. NACE-Good question. No, that is my mistake. At one time it was on the plan, and it’s no longer there, but it would be out back, directly out back. MR. LEUCI-It’s already been dealt with. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I see that, but it just wasn’t on the plans, and I don’t know. MR. NACE-I will certainly add it to the final plan. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. STROUGH-You’ll add it to the plan, but this is not a very big addition, and certainly, given the small size of the building, the numbers of cars you’re going to be able to repair, along with the cars that you have to repair, which would be, you know, your warranty work on cars that you sell, is not going to be any greater significant number. I’ve been up there several times, as I said, at night, and the lighting is not obtrusive. Your hours seem reasonable. Maybe it’s not the most ideal location, in terms of community planning, for a used car lot, but you seem to be doing well there, and I think there are things that could be on this lot that would have worse impacts on the nearby residential neighborhood. So I, in all, don’t have a serious problem with this project, just as a commentary. MR. RINGER-I’m still looking for a motion, if no one has any other comments. We’ve got a prepared motion, and you might want to make some changes to it. MRS. MOORE-May I interrupt and list the conditions that are proposed, so you can hear them and maybe discuss them before we, before you make your motion? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a good idea. Do you want me to list mine first, the ones that I have written down? MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. Maybe the Board has more than I do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think these would be in addition to the conditions that are listed in the draft resolution. The first additional condition would be that the hours of operation not exceed 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Sunday, with Sunday hours consisting of sales only, that the handicapped parking be delineated on the final site plan, that no exterior PA system will be installed, and also that the location of the trash bin be added to the final site plan, at the rear of the proposed addition. Did you have anything else? MRS. MOORE-No, I did not. MR. VOLLARO-One more thing, I think, in there is that I think Mark’s position is valid. Landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained, I’d like to ask the applicant, would he agree to hire, in other words, what, this is a little tough, professionally. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, let me just elaborate on my thought on that. I’m not, my opinion is that you should identify the goal that you seek, by way of landscaping, and articulate a condition that leads you to that goal. What my reading, and maybe this is just my opinion, and this is my opinion from the standpoint of evaluating the legal enforcement of the condition, I’m not sure what it means to say professionally installed and maintained. I suppose that means that the person who installs and maintains the landscaping has to be paid for it, and to my way of thinking, whether the person who installs and maintains the landscaping is paid or not paid, doesn’t really impact the success of that landscaping. I’m not sure what the goal is, but whatever the goal is should be focused on, not whether the installer is paid or volunteer, in my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we just want to make sure that they’ve installed the landscaping as outlined on the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-And maintained. MR. RINGER-So if we said landscaping must be installed and maintained, period, that would. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, in accordance with something, the planting plan or the site plan or something. I think you have to say something to that effect. Sometimes this Board, I think in the past, I know other Boards, get into the maintenance issue in a little more detail, about what exactly means, in terms of survival time and rate and all that, and I’m not suggesting you have to do that, but whoever said it just now is correct, that my concern was what exactly does professionally mean. That’s correct, and that was my concern. MR. NACE-As far as the maintenance, I think if you look at what he’s been maintaining, recently, it looks nice. MR. RINGER-Chris, if you just wanted to amend your motion on. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t make it yet. MR. RINGER-All right. I thought you were making it and getting ready. All right. I was just going to say that, on condition one, change that to landscaping must be installed and maintained in accordance with site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that makes it good. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. RINGER-That’s just a thought. I’m not telling you. MRS. MOORE-Yes, that is acceptable. MR. RINGER-And any other things that anyone would like to see Chris add to the motion? MRS. MOORE-I do have one other item, that under condition number two in the prepared draft, it says to be planted in the spring. I would just insert Spring of 2001. MR. RINGER-Good idea. MR. METIVIER-I’m curious about the lighting, as stated in the Town notes, of the three upper mounted 1,000 watt light fixtures, watt fixtures, can only be used during business hours? MR. RINGER-Yes, that’s item number three. MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the resolution. MR. METIVIER-I just read it that this Board may wish to make this a condition to assure the property is not overly lit. MR. RINGER-It’s in the prepared resolution. MR. VOLLARO-It’s written in the prepared resolution. MR. RINGER-Did you have anything else, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, I do not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 JOSEPH LEUCI/MOUNTAINSIDE AUTO, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: According to the resolution that has been prepared. WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 55-98 Joseph Leuci/Mountainside Auto. Modifications include a 3,360 sq. ft. addition for auto repair for off street vehicles (previous approval was for repair of on site vehicles only); other modifications will address stormwater management, site lighting, and location of building issues for non-compliance with previous approval, Tax Map No. 67-2-1.3. Cross Reference SP 14-97, and 55-98 ; and WHEREAS, the above mentioned application, received 5/31/00, consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in Official File Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 8/15/00 - Staff Notes 2. 8/14/00 - Nace Eng. response to Staff’s request for additional info.: a. Transmittal of site lighting diagrams, copies of Warren Co. Sheriff’s reports for break-ins, breakdown of bldg. sq. footage dedicated to repair, sales and offices. 3. 8/11/00 – PB from Marilyn Ryba 4. 8/3/00 - RF engineering comments – info acceptable 5. 8/1/00 - RFA from C. Round – transmittal of information for review 6. 7/26/00 – Nace Eng. – revised site plan and lighting illumination report 7. 6/30/00 – FOIL request – J. Bramley 8. 6/29/00 - PB resolution – table 9. 6/29/00 - Staff Notes 10. 6/27/00 - RFA engineering comments 11. 6/27/00 - Fax to Nace Eng. – staff notes 12. 6/26/00 - New Info rec’d – ITE – Land Use; 840, Auto Care Cntr. 13. 6/26/00 - New Info rec’d. – ITE – Auto Care Cntr. 14. 6/23/00 - Nace Eng. – response to 6/13 RFA comments 15. 6/22/00 - Notice of Public Hearing 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) 16. 6/13/00 - RFA comments 17. 6/12/00 - RFA from C. Round – transmittal of info for review 18. 6/8/00 - Meeting Notice 19. 6/7/00 - Nace Eng. to L. Moore – Revised application form and site dev. Sheet 20. 6/7/00 - Nace Eng. to L. Moore – Regarding request for additional info. 21. 6/2/00 - Staff comments WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 6/29/00, 8/15/00, and 8/24/00 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, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning Administrator’s signature. A note shall be added to the approved maps stating the conditions of approval in the following manner: “Conditions of Approval as per Planning Board Meeting August 24, 2000 1. Landscaping must be installed and maintained in accordance with the final accepted site plan. 2. Condition Two should read, in the Spring of 2001. 3. Condition Four would read that the hours of operation not exceed 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Sunday, with Sunday’s hours consisting of sales only. 4. That handicap parking be delineated on the final site plan. 5. That no exterior PA system will be installed. 6. That the location of the trash bin be added to the final site plan, at the rear of the proposed addition. 7. On the documentation, to add the letter from Craig Brown to Craig MacEwan dated August 16, 2000. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STROUGH-I would just like to make a small amendment to the first amendment. When you said that landscaping must be installed and maintained as per site plan revised August 22, 2000. MRS. MOORE-Just as a comment, he is going to revise that plan again, to have a new revision date on it. MR. STROUGH-Well, I just wanted to make sure that it at least included this. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-How should I word that, then, Laura? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you could make it, it’s Site Plan C-1, presented by Nace Engineering. It’s a modified site plan C-1. MR. STROUGH-The revised site plan that was last revised? MR. VOLLARO-Last revised August 22, 2000. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. SCHACHNER-You could say, and as subsequently revised. I take it what Staff is saying is that it’s going to be revised again. MR. VOLLARO-He’s just trying to identify this piece of paper. MR. SCHACHNER-But the point is, if you say, in accordance with the site plan, if I’m understanding Staff’s concern, if you say in accordance with the site plan dated August 22, 2000, that’s not going to be the right result, because it’s going to be subsequently revised. MR. VOLLARO-If we use the word “previously” revised August 22, 2000, that may cover it, when you have the next one to be August X 2000. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. NACE-Or you could say the final accepted site plan, as there will be a site plan, a final plan filed with the Town. MR. RINGER-Are you comfortable with that, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Either way, that’s fine. MR. RINGER-One other thing, on the documentation, to add the letter from Craig Brown to Craig MacEwan, dated August 16, 2000, as part of the documentation. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. LEUCI-Thank you. MR. RINGER-You’re all set. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 64-2000 TYPE: PAUL & JUDY CUSHING OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: 280 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITION TO SOUTEAST CORNER OF EXISTING TWO CAR GARAGE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 70-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 13-3-23 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 PAUL CUSHING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 64-2000, Paul & Judy Cushing, Meeting Date: August 24, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes an expansion of a non-conforming garage in the waterfront residential area. The addition will be approximately 215 square feet and about 13 feet in height. The addition will be consistent with the existing garage in siding and appearance. The entrance will be on the west side of the structure being the same side as the garage doors. The applicant has applied for a variance, and received that, for relief from the zoning requirements. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed expansion is allowed use in waterfront residential zone. Site Overview The addition as proposed is consistent with the existing structures on the site in regards to design, size, arrangement, and location. There are no additional lights proposed. The addition is residential and no signs are needed. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) Traffic, Circulation, Parking The addition does not alter the parking or residential traffic flow. The addition is located within an area that consisted of plantings. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The existing green area around the addition will handle the stormwater from the new addition. The water supply does not change with the proposal. The proposal is not subject to up-grading the septic system since the existing garage is not serviced by the existing sanitary facilities, 179-16G. The proposal does not identify any new plantings. The proposal will not impact existing emergency services. Areas of Concern or Importance There are many structures along Cleverdale that are close to the road causing the road to look congested. The location of the addition towards the rear of the garage is therefore appropriate.” MR. RINGER-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. RINGER-Okay, and we’ve got the ZBA resolution approving the variance, and nothing from the County? MRS. MOORE-They were approved at Warren County, or No County Impact. MR. RINGER-Okay. The applicant? MR. CUSHING-Good evening, Paul Cushing from 280 Cleverdale Road. MR. RINGER-Would you tell us a little bit about what your plans are, Mr. Cushing, please. MR. CUSHING-I’m an architect, and have been practicing in the Town of Queensbury as a business since early 1970, with prior experience working for other firms in the area. I’m now approaching 72 years old, and my practice has, by design, been diminished. I have no employees, do not intend to have any employees. I’m looking for a small, modest place to do things that I love to do, which is draw and design buildings, and that’s why I’m here today, to, hopefully, secure your approval of what we’re trying to do, with our little modest addition. MR. RINGER-Can you tell us a little bit about your addition, if you would, please. MR. CUSHING-It’s basically a 15 by 13 foot addition attached to our existing garage. It will replace approximately 215 square feet of my wife’s garden, which she dearly loves, and was a real chore getting her to agree to this situation. The lot is the 60 foot lot that was historically set up probably around the Turn of the Century. We have something, at the present time, with 80% of the lot being permeable. The addition would not impact anything relative to added stormwater. It would still go in the garden or on the lawn, which is right adjacent to that. The setback requirements that we proposed were as modest as we could fit in, and we talked with the Zoning Board last night and received their approval. They had some questions about a possible location, and I had showed them the little exercise on the drawing that we propose that would satisfy the setbacks, but it would place this addition right in the middle of the lot, and, frankly, being an architect, that doesn’t set well with my aesthetic capabilities. The idea of just extending from the existing garage roof to cover this proposed addition, would certainly be more modest, and would make this a very unobtrusive addition to the site. Granted that the area up there is quite extensively developed, but one thing that I would point out, please remember that that’s only true for four months, and with the re-location of the existing post office from the heart of Cleverdale to down off of 9L in the old firehouse location, the road population has been reduced even further. So, any questions, I’d be happy to try to answer to the best of my abilities. MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only real question I had was, when I looked at the drawings for the addition, it showed three delineated work stations, and I just heard you say that you weren’t planning to hire anybody and have anybody work there, and I just wanted to get that clarified. MR. CUSHING-That is absolutely correct. The way I do work is that I have projects that are in various stages. This would allow me to have Project A here, Project B here, Project C there, and as the time required to pass them down the road to completion, I could leave them all set out. It’s just a matter of efficiency, as far as my operation would be concerned, and basically I’m kind lazy and I like to leave things out. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. HUNSINGER-That was it. MR. RINGER-Okay. John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I know you’re not going to have any type of expanded operation up there. There’s no parking. MR. CUSHING-The only parking we have is what is required by the residential regulations, yes. MR. STROUGH-When your friends come visit you, this has nothing to do with the project, and I don’t have anything, other than it’s a very cramped area. MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And when I went there to try and find parking, just to look at the site, I found it very difficult for me to find a spot to park, and it wasn’t like there was anybody there. There wasn’t anybody there. So, I don’t think, just to answer Chris’s concern, is that I didn’t think, the operation up there certainly wouldn’t be able to expand. MR. CUSHING-No, it would be most modest, and at this stage, with telephones, faxes, e-mail, internet type of thing, it’s much better, and I find it’s better for the projects that I’m involved with, going to you, as the client, to see what your needs really are, what your piece of property might require, and talk about what you’re trying to do with, on that particular piece of property, rather than have you come in and show a piece of paper. It’s very difficult for people that aren’t trained to look at drawings, to understand really what the intent is and what’s really going on. MR. STROUGH-Thank you. MR. RINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to make a recommendation to you. In looking at where your distribution box is and the fact that that box is under pressure from the pump, when the pump cycles off, you’re only 19 inches from your building, that D box is very close. MR. CUSHING-I understand that. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the pitch on the building itself? In other words, the new construction, is any water going to shed toward your laterals, toward your tile field? MR. CUSHING-No. It’s going, actually, to the south. If you look at the second drawing. MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to the south. So this is a shed roof, in a sense? MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Yes. I just wanted to make sure that you weren’t shedding any water off onto the tile field, just for your own benefit. MR. CUSHING-Yes, agreed. MR. VOLLARO-And that 19 inches, of course, the fact that this is not considered a dwelling, we’ve been through that in definition around the horn, that apparently this is not a dwelling, but just to, a distribution box shall be set 20 feet from a dwelling, if it was a dwelling. MR. CUSHING-Yes, I know that, and one of the building questions that came up from Staff was, what is construction going to be, and I said it was going to be a slab on grade, because that’s the only way the Building Inspector will allow us to do it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s the Building Inspector’s position, right. I don’t have any further questions, Larry. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve got a public hearing scheduled. So if there’s anyone here from the public? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-Have we got to do a SEQRA on this? MRS. MOORE-No, this is a Type II. MR. RINGER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. Then I’m open for motions. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2000 PAUL & JUDY CUSHING, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: At Cleverdale, in accordance with the submitted plan dated 4/23/78, and 7/26/00. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-You’re all set, sir. MR. CUSHING-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED ALBANY TELEPHONE CO. OWNER: O.A. BOYCHUK AGENT: GARY WEISS ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 63 QUAKER ROAD - MARK PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ON A LOT WITH AN EXISTING TALL STRUCTURE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER/FACILITIES. IN ACCORDANCE WITH § 179-73.1 TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 63-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-73.1 BOB ISGRO & MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 59-2000, Albany Telephone Co., Meeting Date: August 24, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes installation of three “whip-cell” antennas on a building that currently contains other communication equipment. There will be improvements to the east side of the building including rebuilding of the “loading dock” with an enclosure and installation of new stairs for the microcell cabinet. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code and Section 179-73.1 Telecommunications towers regulations. The proposed use is an allowed use within the Highway commercial zone. The three whip antennas are to be 4.3 feet mounted 15 feet above the roof. The antennas are adjacent to an existing 50 foot tower and satellite dishes. The microcell cabinet will be 64 square feet and located on the rebuilt loading dock. Site Overview The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The applicant has provided existing and proposed coverage area. Currently, there is little to no-reception within the project area. The addition of the three antennas will provide better reception within the project area and other areas that were not covered previously. These new areas include Country Club Road and Exit 19 North. The equipment cabinet will be located in area that is labeled as a loading dock. The applicant should confirm the “loading dock” is not longer used as a load dock. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) Traffic, Circulation, Parking There does not appear to be a need to improve the existing parking area or access to the project site. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The application has been forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. The antennas and equipment cabinet are located in an area that does not appear to be an aesthetic issue. For that reason the project area does not need new landscaping. The photo-simulations indicate the whip antennas may be a white in color. The applicant should confirm the color of the antenna and the roof-mount. Suggestions The applicant should confirm color of the antennas and base mounts, and confirm the loading dock is no longer used.” MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. RINGER-Okay. Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. ISGRO-Good evening. My name is Bob Isgro. I’m from Albany Telephone Company, doing business as Cellular One. Mike Schwedatschenko is our RF Engineer. We’re attempting to fill a hole that we have in the Quaker Road/Route 9 area, by putting a micro cell, very low power micro cell, in the Quaker Road, 63 Quaker Road, and in doing so, we would have to put these three whip antennas, and have a little cellular cabinet on that one side that Laura was just talking about. I did bring one picture of the loading dock, to show that it is not being used, and you can tell just by looking at it that we’re going to have to knock it down and repair it, and actually not repair it, but re- build it. I guess that it’s for me, unless you have any questions, I’ll be glad to answer any questions that you have. Do you want to see these pictures? Shall I pass them around? MR. RINGER-Well, you can bring them up and the Board members can look at them. MR. ISGRO-Sure. MR. RINGER-We’ll have comments from the Board. Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing. I think this is fine. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d like to ask the gentleman a question here. Your ERP, Effective Radiated Power, from antenna is 95 watts. Is that correct? MR. SCHWEDATSCHENKO-No, not 95 watts. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m looking at here is something that was submitted. Is that not for this? You’ve got ERP at 0 degrees, 45 degrees. This is an Omni System? MR. SCHWEDATSCHENKO-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s listed at 95 and 95, 97, at 90 degrees, it’s 95.5, at 135, at 180, at 226, at 270, and at 315. MR. RINGER-Are you looking at something they don’t have, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. I’m looking at something that came in my packet, and it’s called Exhibit A, Page One, Albany Telephone Company, Cellular One, oh, this is Dallas, Texas, Preston Road, Dallas. MR. SCHWEDATSCHENKO-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Is this just to, a facsimile? Is that what you’ve got here? MR. ISGRO-What you have there is showing our site information for across the Country. It’s part of our license. That came from Dallas, and that allows us, it shows us that we are. MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-That’s a company of our radio station authorization. MR. VOLLARO-Can you give me the Effective Radiated Power from the antennas that you’re proposing to install? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-I don’t have that in front of me, but it’s very low power. MR. VOLLARO-In about what range? MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-In about 10 watts. MR. VOLLARO-About 10 watts, okay, so that at 100 feet, you’re probably talking one and a half micro watts at 100 feet, roughly? MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-It’s going to be above the height of the microwave dishes. MR. ISGRO-Yes, it’s going to be about 19 feet. MR. VOLLARO-The reason for this line of questioning, so you understand, I just want to try to set the stage for how effective this micro wave transmission may be toward human beings, in terms of exposure. My personal opinion, there is none, having been in this field for some 40 years myself. MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-Yes, that’s correct. Being that the antennas are going to be above the height of the satellite dishes. The vertical separation there itself is going to create a lot of dissipation of power, and by the time it gets down to the street level, it’s in the micro watt range already. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and you don’t have an effective side lobes on this antenna? MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-Well, it’s an Omni pattern, so it’s, there wouldn’t be a side lobe. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I just wanted you to be able to say that. MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-Yes, it’s the same power in all directions. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I don’t see any visual pollution here, in terms of the difference between what’s on the building now and what’s being proposed to go on the building. I think there’s a photograph in here that shows that, a before and after photo, but anyway, having seen what’s on Mr. Boychuk’s building, compared to what’s being proposed to go on, I don’t see any visual pollution there. If you look at the before and after’s, they seem pretty benign to me. MR. RINGER-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I have. I’ve read the C.T. Male comments. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is, maybe it was already answered, is the color of the antennas? MR. ISGRO-The base itself will be like a gun metal, not a gun metal, I should say like a steel color, galvanized steel, not shiny like this, but, you know, it would be a grayish color, and the antennas themselves are white. MR. HUNSINGER-Just like, you can’t really tell from these photos. MR. ISGRO-No. As a matter of fact, that’s a rendering to show exactly what it would look like. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the only question I had. MR. RINGER-John? MR. STROUGH-I just, well, you know, I’m concerned about micro wave contamination, not for this particular project. I know that some day Bob and I are going to sit down and talk about this, but the rest of the world seems to disagree with the FCC standards, which are just based on a thermal reaction. This particular project, however, this particular cell, is not near any residential area, and the people that would have any kind of exposure would be the people working in Mark Plaza, and I also understand that you wouldn’t necessarily receive any kind of microwave readings near the antenna. You’re, am I correct, more likely to receive some kind of micro wave impact at some distance from the antenna? MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-Yes. I’d like to, actually, correct you. You keep saying microwave. That’s actually a hire range of frequency. We’re in a radio frequency range. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. STROUGH-So this is a radio range? MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-That’s right. Actually, those channels that we’ve been allocated by the FCC came from UHF, it’s like Channel 89. MR. STROUGH-That’s the 800 to 900 megahertz range. MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-Right, and microwave typically starts about 1900 megahertz, much higher, and being a smaller wavelength tends to potentially be more ionizing, more harmful to the human body, that’s why when you have a microwave oven, it has interlocks on it. You have the door closed. You can’t turn it on while the door is open. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m going to disagree with you. The literature does address 800 to 900 megahertz frequencies, but I’m not going to get into a debate, as a microwave range, and there’s non ionized, which is okay, as opposed to an x-ray, which is an ionized, but I’m not going to get into a debate. I don’t have a problem with this particular project, but there are, I’m kind of speaking out loud here, and I don’t have a problem with this project because there’s no residential areas next to it, and those people that work under, near the base of the antenna, it seems like, the literature I read, would be the least likely to be effected by it, if there was any negative, so I don’t have a problem with this project. MR. RINGER-No more questions? MR. STROUGH-No more questions. MR. RINGER-We’ve got a public hearing scheduled? Is there anyone that wants to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-And we have to do a SEQRA on this, a Short Form. MRS. MOORE-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 59-2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ALBANY TELEPHONE CO., 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 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-There was an attachment of a Visual EAF Addendum to this, as part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. It’s 617.20 Appendix B. MR. RINGER-Where are you reading from, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Right from here, the Visual EAF that was attached to the Short Form. MR. RINGER-Okay. Go ahead. I didn’t mean to interrupt you. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was on the same page as you were. MR. VOLLARO-It says they’re to be completed by the Lead Agency, and I suspect that’s us at this point. Is it not? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Generally, as you notice at the top, I’m assuming your form says this, it says, “This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part II of the Full EAF”. My point being that, generally, this form is not used in completing the Short EAF. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s nice that the applicant submitted that, and you can go through it, if you like, but it would generally speaking, be deemed to be relevant to Question C. Well, actually, most people would consider it relevant to Question C2 on the Short Form EAF. You’ve already answered no, that the action won’t result in any adverse effects associated with aesthetic resources or community or neighborhood character. So you’ve essentially already answered the punchline question that the Visual EAF Addendum helps you get to when you review a Long Form EAF. MR. VOLLARO-So the short answer is we don’t need to do this? MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that. I didn’t know why it was here. MR. RINGER-Then I need a motion for a Negative Declaration. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-No, I think that’s it. MR. RINGER-All right. Anybody for a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2000 ALBANY TELEPHONE CO., Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As presented with Site Plan application and the map of 6/5/2000. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. VOLLARO-On the chart, is the signal in dbm, is that receiver sensitivity you’re looking at, minus 70 db, in the red? MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-It’s field strength, yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. VOLLARO-Field strength? Okay, which could be translated into, in other words, if I was designing a receiver, I’d have to know what your field strength was at that spot? MIKE SCHWEDATSCHENKO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got it. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 63-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY L. KELLEY OWNER: SAME AGENT: CHARLES SCUDDER, PE ZONE: LOCATION: 87 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A BAGEL SHOP AND RESTAURANT. NEW USES IN CR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 72-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/7/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 129-1-15 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES SECTION: 179- 24 CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. RINGER-Before we get into this, we got the comments from C.T. Male just tonight, and C.T. Male has signed off on it. However, our Board hasn’t really had a chance to read them. I want to take like a five minute recess, just to give our Board members a chance to read the comments from C.T. Male. MR. SCUDDER-That would be fine. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Okay, now, Laura, Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 63-2000, Jeffrey L. Kelley, Meeting Date: August 24, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes a Bagel Shop and restaurant to be located on Main Street. The building will be about 4,900 square foot with 41 parking spaces, and a one-way traffic circulation. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed use is an allowed use within the Commercial Residential zone. The proposed structure is one story with the main entrance to the east and north side. The applicant has received an area variance. See attached AV72-2000 for Jeffrey Kelley. Site Overview The applicant met with staff to review the location of the structure on Main Street. The proposed zoning ordinance encourages parking to the rear with buildings toward the front as proposed. The site will be cleared and graded to accommodate the new structure. The new building will be placed in about the same location as the existing dwelling unit. The Main Street road improvement will not interfere with the proposed location of the building. There is enough space between the building front and the road to accommodate an eight-foot green area, a five foot sidewalk, an eight foot green area, then the travel lane; as proposed in the design guidelines in the draft zoning ordinance, with an additional fourteen feet remaining. The proposed building is located an additional fourteen feet away from the road. Please see the attached memo in regards to the meeting staff had with the applicant. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The applicant proposes a one-way traffic route. The entrance would be on the east side of the building and exit would be on the west side of the building. The applicant has indicated the traffic flow will manage the onsite circulation, and deliveries. The applicant received a variance for the amount of parking required. The building square footage or number of seats for the proposal required 49, the applicant proposed 41 spaces. The location of the building in relation to the sidewalks will promote pedestrian access and reduce vehicular conflicts. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The application has been forwarded to CT Male for comment and review. The Beautification Committee requested the applicant to provide a revised landscape plan that shows additional detail. The current landscaping does not identify type or quantity. The fence that is proposed for the perimeter of the property does not indicate type or height. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) Areas of Concern or Importance The proposed site plan is compatible with design guidelines envisioned for the Exit 18 Main Street area. Conclusions (Section 179-39) The proposal does not have a significant adverse environmental impact because traffic conflicts will be reduced and pedestrian movement will be enhanced, among other positive impacts. Suggestions The applicant should provide additional site-plan detail that includes landscaping, fencing, planter boxes, and lighting.” MRS. MOORE-The Board may want to further discuss lighting. My understanding is that there will be no night business. There’s only proposed security lighting. So, the Board may wish to discuss that further. MR. RINGER-That’s it? Anything else, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. RINGER-Okay. County approved? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know, No County Impact. MR. RINGER-Okay. Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. SCUDDER-Charlie Scudder, for the applicant, and Jeff Kelley, the applicant. MR. RINGER-Okay. Tell us a little bit about your project, if you would. JEFF KELLEY MR. KELLEY-Okay. Basically, I’m going to do a whole new business, in addition to an existing business that I have. If any of you are familiar with Lox of Bagels and Moor, that’s my current business. Some unique things about it, I lease the building where I am. I own the business, but I lease the building, and it’s time for me to move on and build my own structure, this being what’s before the Board. This particular piece of property probably have looked at it, but it’s basically next door to the Bagel store, also adjacent to the Hess Gasoline Station. I say next door. You shouldn’t get confused, if you stood in the road and looked at the Bagel store, there is a house just to the right, that’s kind of a cream colored house. That’s also owned by the person that owns the building that I’m in, that’s Lox of Bagels. His name’s Norm Benack, and his property, basically, is the parking lot, the Bagel store, and that cream colored house. Where this is going to be located is the gray and white house, which is just to the right of that. That’s just kind of a clarification there. The business has changed. People’s eating habits have changed. They want to basically go to a restaurant and sit down and eat. We’re proposing an upscale Victorian Garden café. We’ll also have a gift shop attached, or, I shouldn’t say attached, but as a part of it, and also the Lox of Bagels and Moor business will come over to this new building, where we’ll still have pretty much the same thing we have now. It’s just that if people wanted to sit down and eat, we’ll actually have a dining room, waitresses, rather than standing at a counter and kind of waiting to see the product and then going to sit. What I envision is, well, the pages are kind of curled here, but it’s going to be a Victorian building with Victorian colors, which is a little hard to do with kind of a sprawled out building, but we’re working at it, and I think we’re going to succeed. The sign over the window is not what will ultimately be there. That was one of my drafting buddy’s ways of putting a name on the building. I think we’re going to design something much prettier than that for the sign. Basically, the property was an acre of land, and I think we’ve done a fairly good job of situating the building on it, addressing traffic flow, parking. We have a variance for that, but it seems to be adequate. I’m in the process of working with Jim Girard on a landscape plan. We went to the Beautification Committee, and I told them I wanted to do shrubs and plantings and so forth, but they wanted more specifics. So Jim’s going to come up with a, I think hopefully a real nice plan, would work generally as good. In terms of the lighting, there was some questions about that. I have an actual fellow that I know, well he worked with the Duro Test Light Bulb manufacturing company, and they’ve had some changes, but anyway, he’s a lighting expert, so to speak. He’s sending me some information on outside lighting, in terms of pole type lighting, and some options that we might have to light the sidewalks and the ingress and egress without creating an abundance of light. I believe the plan called for like two foot candles per square foot, and we’re going to come up with a plan to meet that, which I think it was mentioned that we’re not open at night. Our hours are six in the morning until four in the afternoon. We plan on continuing with that. Although I do want to have some lights at night, I think for security, one, and also I have employees that go to work at midnight sometimes, women, a woman in particular that works for me, and I think it’s kind of vital that it be lit, at least enough so 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) that she can feel comfortable to pull in and park her car, and in the winter time, it’s dark a lot of times when we’re even open. So we will need some lighting, but it won’t be a Hess type thing. I guess my thoughts and my plan are that it be in keeping with what people would expect. I don’t have any wild ideas to do anything, you know, out of the ordinary or obtrusive or obnoxious to anybody, and I guess with that, I’ll let you have at me. MR. RINGER-Okay. The letter from C.T. Male, you’ve got that. Would you go down the items of C.T. Male, and what you’re doing, please? Do it item by item. MR. SCUDDER-You’re talking about the letter of? MR. RINGER-August 22, of C.T. Male. You’ve answered most of his. We didn’t copy of your nd answers or anything. We just want to hear how you’ve answered all those questions that he had. He had one through, comments one through fourteen. They got a copy of this, didn’t they, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they did. Do you want a copy of C.T. Male’s comments, so you can correspond your comments to it? MR. SCUDDER-I have it, thank you. Okay. The first comment was the existing lot is said to contain a house and paved driveway, this information is not shown on the plans, however, and my response was that the small paved driveway and the house are to be removed from the existing lot before construction of the new bagel shop and restaurant is begun. So the lot’s going to be cleared. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-The second question was, or the second comment was that the entrance and exit drive consist of a 12 foot wide paved road, with 20 foot radii at Corinth Road, since the application explains that a tractor trailer is used for deliveries, the engineer should confirm that this vehicle can be accommodated by the proposed ingress/egress geometry, and my response was that the minimum turning radius of the inside rear wheel of a semi-trail rig, per ASHTO design vehicle WB50 is 19.2 feet. We had drawn a radius of 20 feet, which, in theory, should work. However, Mr. Edwards makes a good point. We can increase the driveway radii at Main Street to 24 feet. Now, in case you don’t know this, ASHTO is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and they publish standards and specifications for highway design and so on and so forth, and the criterion that I applied was for a WB50 design vehicle, which is a theoretical vehicle, but it’s a semi-tractor trailer, 55 feet long. The third point was that the applicant describes the use of lighting at various locations which will meet the minimum foot candle parameters, a lighting plan should be provided which indicates lighting coverage and spill over, and my response was that Mr. Kelley has engaged a lighting consultant. He just made reference to that. We say, again, that the bagel shop and restaurant will not be open for evening meals. However, security lighting is needed, and some light is necessary for Staff members arriving or leaving during hours of darkness. As to the concept of spill over, consider that Mr. Kelley’s parcel is well within the Hess station, and I, in italics, used the word penumbra. In other words, there’s a lot of light in the neighborhood from the Hess station. The fourth point Mr. Edwards made was that the site grading plan is somewhat lacking in that none of the existing grading, both at the subject parcel and the adjacent parcels, is shown, in addition, elevations at Corinth Road are not shown nor is the finished floor of the building, the high point in the driveway(s) should also be shown. Well, in my original report, engineering report, which is among your papers, I think, I said that the lot is basically flat. Since I got Mr. Edwards’ comments, we have surveyed it, topographically, and I have plotted contour, and indeed, the maximum difference in elevation across the site and on the adjacent sites is about a foot, maybe, in one little place in your front yard it’s more than a foot. It’s more like two feet in that little depression, but basically it’s a flat site. MR. VOLLARO-Was that your response to that question to C.T. Male, that the site is essentially flat? MR. SCUDDER-No. Because we did survey it and we did draw contours, and we have established the finished floor elevation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s in your letter? In other words, your response to C.T. Male said that. MR. SCUDDER-Excuse me. This letter was written yesterday, but we’ve had further communication today about this. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-Before he wrote what the latest thing that you have in front of you, which came in some time. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. VOLLARO-The August 24 letter you said. th MR. SCUDDER-Yes, that came in some time later this afternoon. I spoke to Mr. Edwards twice today, once in the morning and once in the earlier afternoon, and it was subsequent to that that he wrote his other one page commentary of today. Anyway, I said that we would take additional survey elevations and put the information on the site plan that he felt was lacking. Now, his fifth point was, according to the proposed grading, a portion of the runoff could spill over onto the adjoining parcel to the east, how will this be controlled? Well, I don’t think so. The parcel to the east is actually at a higher elevation, at least in the front, and what we’re talking about is the driveways, because all the other water is going to be picked up, and with the fine grading, it’ll either be diverted into the green areas or picked up in the drop inlets and absorbed in the sub surface system, and I did address that in my comments. I said, we will prevent runoff to either of the adjoining parcels by careful finished grading. The bordering green areas, that is bordering all the way down both sides of the parcel, between the driveway and the property line, will absorb driveway runoff, if necessary, in other words, if there is any to speak of. We’re talking about a 12 foot wide driveway, and if they’re cambered a little bit, you know, maybe six feet of the water will go off to one side and six feet to the other side. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m having a hard time understanding his question number five. According to the proposed grading, a portion of the runoff could spill over onto the adjoining parcel to the east. If you had no grading information on your drawing, how could he arrive at that question? MR. SCUDDER-Well, I did. He just wanted more. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. SCUDDER-He wanted me to flesh it out a bit more, which we have done. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-And I guess I don’t really think that’s a significant item, but he seemed to think it is, so, I addressed it. Then he said, item six, the parking lot grading plan shows a rather steep drop into the first drainage inlet, the grade at that location is approximately 10% and may create a noticeable dip for vehicles travelling across it. Well, I said we’ll raise the grade elevation on the inlet to reduce surface slope to about five percent. If you’re looking at the grading plan, you’ll notice that there are two drop inlets back in the parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have that. I’ve been struggling here, because I don’t have a drawing with any contours on it. So, I can’t. Okay. This drawing has contours I don’t. MR. SCUDDER-Well, one’s a site plan, and one’s a grading and drainage plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-I can understand why you’re confused if you don’t have any contours. MR. RINGER-Laura, have you got this one? MRS. MOORE-Has this been revised since you talked to Jim Edwards, or has this? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, I revised it today. MRS. MOORE-That’s a revised one. I don’t have a revised one, no. MR. RINGER-Then we’ll make sure you have it, then. MR. SCUDDER-No, but that does address the point he’s concerned about there. If you’ll see that sort of an oval contour around that first drop inlet, nearest the building? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see it. MR. SCUDDER-Well, he’s concerned about the grade elevation in relation to the elevation of that contour. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. MR. SCUDDER-And he feels that the slope into that drop inlet is too steep. It’s going to be a deep depression. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. VOLLARO-Is that where he talks about the 10% slope? MR. SCUDDER-Right. So I said, we’ll raise the grade elevation so that it’s five percent, and in my commentary, I said that a steeper slope is preferable to a bird bath that could occur when a localized surface slope is too flat. Local inlet depressions are usually finished with small equipment instead of a paving machine that has a screed. In other words, there’s handwork to be done there, and they use a little roller, and the work is not as precise as it is when you use a paver that has a thing called a screed that levels everything off. That was my point there. Trying to avoid any little puddles that’ll freeze, but his point’s well taken, and so five percent is still decent. “A subsurface absorption system is proposed for collection and disposal of stormwater runoff. However, the inverts of the piping system are not indicated on the plan. In addition, the application does not show any test pit data related to seasonal high groundwater or confirming soil type.” Well, my response to that was the region of Queensbury where the Bagel shop is sited is sandy. The Hess station next door was recently closed for replacement of its fuel storage tanks. We observed that the deep excavation showed the substructure is composed of relatively course sands. We also have a test hole record and soil log in which the design of the wastewater system for the existing Bagel shop was based. The log shows the existence of dry sand to a depth of 11 feet. The log shows, also, that sands get courser as depth increases and there is no mottling. The bottom’s of the existing seepage pits are down some 10 feet or more. The percolation rate was measured at one inch drop in less than one minute, and that was done in March of 1988, and that plan was approved by the State Health Department at that time, and that’s what the existing Bagel shop has been living on. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Edwards says, in his closing paragraph, he says Mr. Scudder is providing our office with perc tests results for the existing Bagel shop from 1988 to support this statement. MR. SCUDDER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re still to provide that. He, apparently, having written this on August 24, th he still doesn’t have that. MR. SCUDDER-This afternoon, I tried to fax that stuff to him and I couldn’t. I couldn’t get his fax machine to accept it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this is, essentially, this turns out to be somewhat of an open item yet, in terms of his closure on it. MR. SCUDDER-I suppose, technically, that’s true, except that he’s generally satisfied, but he wants to have the documents. We have the documents, and I tried to fax them to him three or four times. I called him and told him I can’t make it go. He said, well, they’ve been having trouble with one of the fax machines. Maybe it’s out of paper, this and that. They have a couple of fax machines, but I only have one number. So, it’ll have to go until tomorrow. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Larry, I guess you want him to continue on. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-Let’s see. That was number seven. Number Eight, the stormwater system contains six inch piping, we believe that a larger pipe size (at least eight inches) should be considered since a smaller diameter could easily plug with leaves, sedimentation, etc. Well, I would put fabric around the pipe to prevent the intrusion of sediment. Still, his point is well taken, and we’ve agreed to increase the diameter to eight inches, which is not a big deal. Number Nine, the absorption system contains a 90 degree bend where it discharges at the north end of the property, for the purpose of maintaining the system, a manhole or clean out structure should be provided, and I said a clean out structure or manhole will be provided for maintaining the absorption system. Number Ten, the site plan shows that the first 90 feet +/- of entry/egress pavement will drain towards Corinth Road, the applicant should confirm that the County road can handle the runoff without ponding. Well, we’re talking about a piece of driveway that slopes up before it hits the high point and begins to slope downward toward the back of the property, that is to the north. We’re talking about two 12 foot driveways. Most of the water is going to spill off onto the grass on either side, but, admittedly, some will go out into the County road, into the gutter there. So, yesterday, we located four drop inlets that are down in front of the Hess station and, parenthetically, all of the water from the Hess station drains out into the road. They have no retention of any kind on their property. We’re going to contain almost all of our water on site, except for that little bit that dribbles off the end of the driveway nearest the road. That’s what he was. MR. RINGER-So how did you answer him? MR. SCUDDER-That way. I told him about the drop inlets and I also made the case that the amount of water that’s going to run off is going to be inconsequential. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-The incremental runoff from those driveways is not going to be noticed, but he’s right to raise the issue, I’ll grant you. MR. VOLLARO-I think he probably raises that based on the fact that when properties are developed, their surface water should be retained on the property. I guess that was his basic thought. MR. SCUDDER-Sure, but if you contained every single drop, that would mean that every driveway has to slope in towards the. MR. VOLLARO-If you get 98% of it, you’re doing pretty good. MR. SCUDDER-We’re going to do that, but his point is well taken. MR. KELLEY-I’d only make the comment, having been in the construction business 25 years before this, you never build below the road. It’s kind of like, you don’t do that. MR. VOLLARO-Water still runs downhill. You’ve got a point. MR. SCUDDER-I also said that Main Street is a County way. So we’ve got to get a driveway permit from Warren County to do anything, and if they’re not happy about the drainage situation, they’ll certainly let us know, but I don’t anticipate they’re going to have a problem with it. Then he raised the point that, it is not clear whether the entrance and exit drives will contain curbing to better define the access points. Well, we don’t want curbing. I think curbing would be counter productive, because then it would force all the water in the driveways to run out into the road, and we don’t want curbing anyway. I just said there will be no curbing on the driveways. MR. VOLLARO-The radius of 20 feet is just a cut. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, it’s a curb cut, and it’s going to be planter on, you know, green areas on both sides. I envision a planter, mulched, elevated a bit so that water doesn’t spill anywhere, but still able to absorb what comes off the driveway, and the twelfth point was, the wastewater disposal system is shown using “In Flow” absorption beds. The plans do not include area calculations for this system or an expansion area. Actually, in my engineering report, I gave a detailed design of this system as a proprietary treatment and absorption system. It’s really In Drain, a system accepted by the Town of Queensbury and the New York State Department of Health. It’s being used extensively, particularly around Lake George because you get more water into the ground in a small area, and we’re going to use that system here because we don’t have a lot of space to spare, and further, the system, if things eventuate the way the planners seem to think they will, there’ll be a sewer out there on Main Street in a year or two or three, or something like that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what they told me in Baybridge 15 years ago, Mr. Scudder. MR. SCUDDER-And when they have that sewer, you’re going to connect. MR. VOLLARO-And I still don’t have sewers. MR. SCUDDER-I wrote the description of the common property for your offering plan. MR. VOLLARO-And I’ve read it about 12 times. MR. SCUDDER-Its says you have to connect, doesn’t it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but we don’t have them up there yet. Just saying that we’re planning to have sewers on, off of Exit 18 doesn’t mean they’ll ever be there. MR. SCUDDER-That’s true. It’s not my projection, but even if not, we’re not designing on that assumption. I said the principal advantages to be gained in the use of In Drains lies in the size and credit of seven square feet per linear foot of trench length, and the biological treatment occurring within the units before wastewater flows into the soil, which is a claim elaborated in the Elgin literature. The system we propose for the new bagel shop and restaurant is designed to absorb a daily discharge of some 1300 gallons a day, which is equivalent to the design discharge from two five bedroom homes. At the percolation test rate of one to five minutes per inch, the required In Drain trench length is rounded up to 156 lineal feet. We’ve provided 160 lineal feet, which is to say four lengths of forty feet, which shows up on your drawing there. With regard to the question of an expansion area, we believe none is needed. First, the wastewater will receive good grease and septic tank pre-treatment. Second, the Elgin company asserts that the In Drain systems are designed to 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) operate indefinitely, not for a useful life of 15 or 30 years, which is what conventional septic systems, if you get 15 years out of it, it may be time to do it again. Right? Third, the expectation expressed both by the Queensbury Planning Department and the Warren County Planning Office is that a municipal sewer will be constructed along Main Street in a year or two or three. At worst, if the projections were to turn out wrong, the system could be rebuilt in a day or two. We could provide a 50% expansion by invading the planter. To provide a 100% expansion area, we’d have to move the building away from the road. We don’t want to move it away from the road, and I don’t think the Planners want us to move it away from the road. Thirteen, percolation results or test pit locations are not shown on the plans, also, the recommended building separation for the disposal system is 20 feet compared to the 14 feet shown. Well, you’ve already made reference to the horizontal separation requirements with an earlier project. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking at this and I get the same 14 feet that Mr. Edwards does, and I look at, as long as we’re on this, we might as well exchange some information here. Looking at the Department of Health required separation distances from wastewater system components, they talk about absorption fields and also evapo transpiration absorption systems as well. In both cases, this is to be 20 feet from the dwelling. Now, I understand that the Building Inspector says that because this is a slab on grade, which I guess you agree that it is, by the way, a slab on grade construction, that that particular portion of the Code does not apply. MR. SCUDDER-That isn’t my argument, though. I’m not, what I’m going to do is ask the Code Enforcement Officer to give us a waiver on that. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think he can pass the magic wand over that. That’s my problem. I think that that has to go to the Town Board, when the Town Board convenes themselves as the Town Board of Health, and grant a variance against the Code 136, in the Town of Queensbury. I don’t think that the building now, this is one knot hole, Mr. Scudder, right here. So I’m not sure what, I’d like to just talk to my Counsel for a minute on that subject. There’s a Department of Health regulation that talks about a 20 foot separation from a dwelling to an absorption field of any kind. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-We have a 14 foot separation on this application, and I think the Building Inspector has said, well, because it’s a slab on grade, that this does not apply, this DOH required separation distances for wastewater system components. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m under the impression that the Building Inspector said that this doesn’t apply because it’s not a residence. Correct? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Not because of the manner of construction. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it says a dwelling. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry. I’m under the impression that the Building Inspector thinks this doesn’t apply because the proposal is not for a dwelling. In other words, not the nature of the construction, but the nature of the use, is my understanding. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I would probably argue against that. I feel that a restaurant of this type fits the definition of a dwelling, maybe not a residence, but a dwelling, and this doesn’t say residence. It says a dwelling. MR. SCHACHNER-What definition of dwelling are you looking at that you think restaurant fits? MR. VOLLARO-What definition of a dwelling? MR. SCHACHNER-I’m only asking you that, Bob, because you said you think that the restaurant fits the definition of dwelling, and I’m wondering, are you looking at a particular definition, or just in your mind? MR. VOLLARO-What’s in my mind. People inside residing at tables and sitting and dwelling within that unit for the period of time of having lunch, breakfast, dinner or whatever. The DOH thing seems pretty clear to me, and I think this requires a variance from the Town Board of Health. That’s my opinion. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I can only give you my off the cuff reaction, because I wasn’t aware of this issue before this moment. My off the cuff reaction is two fold. I think the person you’re referring to is our Building Inspector. His name is Dave Hatin. I think he’s pretty familiar with 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) these provisions. If I understand it correctly, his determination is that the regulation you’re referring to is not applicable, not because of the manner of construction, but because this is not a dwelling. I will say from my standpoint, although we can investigate this if the Board wants us to, your interpretation of the word “dwelling” does not comport with our general legal interpretation of the word “dwelling”. Dwelling is usually legally construed to mean residence, as opposed to a commercial business, which would not be a dwelling, and again, I’m just telling you my off the cuff reaction. I, like you, cannot point to a definition, as we sit here today, that says that, although I think I probably can do that. I just can’t do it now without advanced warning, but generally speaking, I think there are a number of places that the word “dwelling” is defined to mean residential, and the way you use people dwelling at a table in a restaurant, I think is probably not the way that it’s typically used in regulations, but, just like you, I’m sort of speaking out of the top of my head, without having researched it. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, when I see design standards, I find them hard to deviate from design standards like that. MR. SCHACHNER-As well you should. MR. VOLLARO-And I just have a problem with that area. I’m trying to resolve that in my mind, and I have a problem with it, and until it gets resolved by somebody smarter than me, I’ll have a problem with it, I suppose, on this application. MR. KELLEY-Can I comment? MR. RINGER-Go ahead, Jeff. MR. KELLEY-I guess only as a matter of point, or whatever, you’ve, obviously, read all of the information that was here, and the variances that we’ve received and all that sort of thing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. KELLEY-It was the Town’s, the Town Planners, let’s say, vision that this building be brought forward from the current 75 foot setback to a 35 foot, and they recommended that we bring this building forward to put parking in the rear. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. KELLEY-When they did that, that caused some of this problem that you see, and the other thing that we’ve kind of thought about and addressed in the plan, also, I think if you look at that, the one with the contours on it, there was a sidewalk. There was, I believe, a five foot space and then an eight foot planter, two foot space and then there’s a planter. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s going down to Corinth Road. MR. KELLEY-Right. Okay. We kind of left the little fudge factor error area there, I guess you’d call it. Back, you know, a year or so ago, I happened to live there, they flagged both sides of the road with little orange flags, to represent where this three lane highway was going to go, and those little flags are about, well, right along the inside property line of the sidewalk, okay, but just because they say, here are the flags, when they come to build the road, they say, well, maybe we need another couple of feet, okay. So we’ve left the little area there so if they needed to take a couple, three feet, I still wouldn’t have a problem, in terms of, you know, the building being terribly close to the property, or the road being now into that planter or septic system. MR. VOLLARO-I can see how you got into this situation. MR. KELLEY-I’m just kind of giving you a little overview. It doesn’t answer your question, but it’s kind of like food for thought, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you were squashed in two ways. You were squashed against the 20 foot spec, and you also just made the 10 foot spec with your septic tank. It’s just 10 feet. So, having brought the building forward gave you this problem. MR. SCUDDER-We understand that, I guess I could say, thoroughly. I’m familiar with that 20 foot requirement. I used to enforce that requirement when I worked for the State Health Department years ago, but the mitigating situation here is that we’re trying to satisfy criteria that are not on the books yet. MR. VOLLARO-That criteria meaning the new zoning law that’s been proposed. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. SCUDDER-Yes, and the other thing that is in mitigation here is the notion that the road is going to be re-done and that there will be a public sewer there, and this wastewater system will be abandoned, and converted into a green space or a garden space, or al fresco dining or something. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, Mr. Scudder. I fully appreciate where you’re coming from. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It’s the same problem Mr. Valente was in when he built the design that you put out in back of our, he had the same problem. The sewers were going to come in, so, he put a septic field instead. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, but we didn’t think they were going to come in in two years MR. VOLLARO-You said in a couple of years. MR. RINGER-Let’s stay on this issue. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll stay on this issue, but I’m just trying to say, we shouldn’t be designing on the proposition that something is coming in at a later date. That’s not a good design premise, in my opinion. MR. RINGER-And I would agree with you normally. MR. SCHACHNER-Maybe before we leave that item, I just wanted to ask Mr. Scudder, because maybe I’m confused, but in your last comment, are you saying that your belief is that the 20 foot separation requirement would apply, and that you’re saying you don’t need to meet it because of your mitigative measures? MR. SCUDDER-No, I’m not saying that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Because you said something about (lost words). MR. SCUDDER-I agree with your earlier remarks, and I’m not saying that, but I’m just trying to offer some further mitigation. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. Thank you. MR. SCUDDER-Fourteen, we agree that a clean out should be installed as suggested, and the suggestion is, the six inch lateral from the east side of the building should contain a clean out at the 90 degree bend, and there’s a little circle there, we’re talking about where the pipe comes out of the building up by the entrance, on the easterly side of the building, up by the entrance, there’s a little vestibule, or porch, or entrance. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a little jog in the building. MR. SCUDDER-A little jog in the building, and you can see that the building drain comes out near that, and it’s at that point, because that is unsettled wastewater, there should be a clean out, in case that pipe needs treatment. We agree with that, and we will do that. MR. RINGER-Have you got anything else? MR. SCUDDER-Well, if you have any further questions. MR. RINGER-The Board will be asking questions. I just wanted to make sure we covered this stuff from C.T. Male and your comments. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. Are there any questions about the C.T. Male matter? MR. RINGER-I’m sure several members of the Board are going to have questions of you, perhaps in regard to C.T. Male and other things that they have concerns about, and that’s what we’ll handle now. MR. SCUDDER-Well, then I’ll rest right here. MR. RINGER-John, we’ll start up at your end. MR. STROUGH-Well, first of all, I commend you for trying to make this project fit in with what’s not on the books yet, in the sense that parking’s in the rear. That’s a concept we’d like to pursue. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) You’ve shown interconnecting ability with adjacent lots, which is something that we would really like, and I see sometimes we’ve got to fight for it. You’ve already allocated for it. That’s nice. The setback from the road, and even after my discussions with Laura, I’m convinced that are satisfactory, and meeting just about every future need I could think of. So that’s good, and I commend you on that. Is there a residence to the rear of you? MR. KELLEY-Actually, there’s a residential lot and a house, but the house is on Pine Street. So you’d have to come like in their back yard, that total distance of whatever Hess is, before you get to my property, and then it goes beyond. You have to kind of walk way out in back and then look over to see the house. If you could walk right straight behind my property, the woods end, and it becomes mowed, where their back yard is, and their back yard’s got to be 300 feet deep, probably. MR. STROUGH-Well, the reason why I asked was I just wondered, I do see two light poles back there, and so I don’t know anything about the lamps. I don’t know how high they are. I don’t know the intensity of the lighting. I mean, and so I was concerned that there might be some wash or some impact on that residential area, and I see there’s plantings, but I don’t know how well developed that’s going to be. MR. KELLEY-Well, the one thing I mentioned before, I was working with the lighting design guy, an engineer two provide two foot candles per square foot, which is what the Town, or the Beautification, or somebody. MR. SCUDDER-I think that’s proposed by the Town, isn’t it, Laura, two foot candles? MRS. MOORE-There’s a four to one ratio. MR. KELLEY-Well, anyway, to meet this, I’ve been told by my lighting man that that is not bright lighting. I mean, it’s lit, but it’s more of a subdued, if you could look at two foot candles per square foot. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I know, but usually, we have an idea because of size, we’re given some idea of what kind of poles we’re dealing with. We’re given the kind of lighting, as well as the lighting plan where we can see it doesn’t wash, it has cut offs so no light will be, you know, towards the rear. It’ll all be shown toward the parking lot. I mean, usually, I don’t have any of that. MR. KELLEY-I don’t have that, either. I’m in the process of coming up with this lighting plan. The thing that we first envisioned, and me not being a light expert either, was that it would be a, I mean, I didn’t want a 25 or a 30 foot pole. I mean, I envisioned something 13 feet or in that realm, and the original thought was to have the type that was covered on the top and it would direct the light down, and apparently there is something available that will provide the lighting that’s needed that looks like that, but the fellow also mentioned to me that it’s possible to get proper lighting in a Victorian lamppost, which they used, I believe, on the main street of Saratoga, on Broadway, they have the lighting and they come out on a thing with an acorn shape frosted glass or white glass type glow, which looks more like a street light kind of thing, and that may be a possibility, because I kind of like the sound of what it looked like, in terms of the décor we’re trying to do with the building. So anyway, I don’t have this plan, but I’ll answer a little more, if I can. To the rear, we have a 50 foot buffer zone that you can see on that plan. Right now, I mean, it’s thick. My intention is basically to clean it up, not go in and just clear cut everything and then plant some new trees. I mean, if I can leave, you know, some good timber that’s already there, I have a couple of maple trees on one side of the property that are huge that I want to try to leave, and I think I can. I mean, if I did anything, it would probably be more like to kind of trim it and be able to rake it, and see what it looks like, and maybe at some point, if there wasn’t much of anything that was any good there, I’d probably get into mowing it and whatever, but I’m going to try to keep something, when you think of a buffer, I mean, to me, it’s not just a space with nothing on it. I mean, it’s a protective thing to kind of cut down the visual impact, let’s say, from the property behind or whatever. I guess all I can say is I’m going to try, and when my lighting man gets the plan, I’m sure somebody will have to go approve it or sign off that, yes, this meets our criteria or whatever. MR. STROUGH-I’m sure you’d do a good job. I’m convinced of that, but usually there’s something here that we can go by. MR. RINGER-I would think that before you get an approval that you’re going to need another meeting, with a site plan that’s going to show the lighting and all the things that Male has required. That’s my guess tonight, that we’re going to require that you come back again with a site plan with all of these things, a lighting plan and a beautification plan and so forth. I’m sorry, John, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. STROUGH-That’s okay. That’s fine. Okay. It’s a great project. The design doesn’t quite fit in with the proposed, and it’s only a proposed, you know, suggested design standards of the area, although the building was quite nice, I like the one that you’ve got better than the one I’ve got. MR. KELLEY-Yes, well, that was back a while ago. That was more of a, just a basic. MR. STROUGH-It looks a lot nicer, that’s nicer than what I have. Okay, and it’s a very attractive building. It looks very nice, and I’m sure it’s going to add to the general area. Why is it you have, I see you have the one way traffic flow, but why do you have it like you do? I mean, as you approach your place from the east, is the exit, and then you have the entrance to the west. Do you know where I’m coming from? MR. KELLEY-I think what you’ve got, on the right, does it say that that’s the exit? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. That’s been changed. That’s the entrance. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s why it didn’t make sense. MR.. KELLEY-Well, Charlie will fend for himself. MR. SCUDDER-I can explain that. MR. KELLEY-There’s a reason. MR. STROUGH-As long it was reversed. MR. SCUDDER-It was reversed. Is that wrong? MR. RINGER-It would be wrong if you were marketing your plan. Most of your traffic’s going to come up, versus coming down. MR. STROUGH-If it’s reversed, I have no problem with it. MR. SCUDDER-It is reversed. I was fixated on the idea of getting the trucks in there to those loading areas, and we thought about that some more and realized that it’s unconventional to do it that way, and it’s unintuitive. So we changed it. MR. STROUGH-I can understand your original thinking, too. Okay. That’s all I have for now. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess a lot of my thoughts would sort of echo John’s. I like the proposed drawing on the board better than what we had before. I guess there was one thing, specifically, I did want to get clarified, though, and that is, I think it’s in our Staff notes that it talks about a condition that would require the applicant to allow shared access to your drive. I guess that might be out the window now anyway. MR. KELLEY-No, there was somewhere, I think it was the idea dependent upon what happened on either side of us. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KELLEY-Well, obviously, Hess, I mean, that’s a wide open thing. So that, I don’t think, applies to what you’re saying. The other side, I’m trying to think how big that piece of property is. It’s basically three lots. It’s a pretty good sized parcel. I mean, I don’t have a clue what’s ever going to go there down the road, but, I mean, I guess I don’t really have a problem if somewhere down the road there’s a design that they want it to come out on mine or use mine as half and they do another one and make a double thing. I don’t know. If it works, it doesn’t bother me. I kind of understood where they were coming from. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just trying to avoid curb cuts and make traffic work better. MR. VOLLARO-I think that was a recommendation that Marilyn Ryba made. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RINGER-Wherever we can to get shared driveways and connecting access. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. HUNSINGER-And I had similar comments and thoughts about the lighting and would like to see more detail as well. That’s about it. MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-My only concern, I think it should go in front of Beautification. It’s important here to have a plan, but I, too, I like the design, but I think both Beautification and a lighting plan would be important for us to see. That’s all. MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Other than what I’ve said, I’m just wondering about the height of this fence, because that’s, was that specified anywhere? I notice there’s a fence surrounding the property. Is that there now? MR. KELLEY-The fence, I’m trying to remember, do we have that actually on the thing originally? No, it was the Beautification Committee, I think, that originally brought up about a fence, and I guess they had a couple of reasons why they talked about a fence. One was headlights. We’re not open at night. MR. SCUDDER-Well, one was headlights, because when we went in front of the Beautification Committee, we were thinking about entering on the westerly side, and there’s a house there, and so the concept of a fence was raised by the Beautification Committee. They haven’t seen the revised plan. I’m not sure the headlights will bother the Hess station. MR. STROUGH-That property on the west side, isn’t that for sale? MR. KELLEY-Well, that’s the bagel store where I am, and then there’s a house that’s right next to it. Norm Benack owns it, and he’s kind of got it for sale, but I don’t think he’s really actively marketed it. I mean, you know, I talked to him numerous times about purchasing it, but he wants an exorbitant amount of money, and I can’t do that. I can do this whole thing for less than he wants. It’s crazy. MR. VOLLARO-Are you planning to take the fence off the drawing? Is that what I’m hearing? MR. KELLEY-You know, I don’t know. I guess I’ve got mixed emotions. I think a fence is okay. I mean, I’ve got one in front of my house. The other thing that would possibly make me, yes, want to go with the fence the way they suggested is, on that west side of the building, you don’t have a floor plan that’s behind that, but there’s also an outside eating area that would have some tables with the umbrella type things, and this sort of thing. I think they were also concerned about, I don’t know, whether the people sitting there would look at the house or whether the people at the house would be looking at these people dining. MR. VOLLARO-Is this in the patio area? Is that what you’re talking about? MR. SCUDDER-Right. MR. KELLEY-I guess from that standpoint, I probably would want the fence, just because it might be prettier to look at if you’re sitting there dining than a house. MR. VOLLARO-Kind of your call. MR. KELLEY-Well, you know, what we had talked about, okay, was basically something starting at the sidewalk that would be low, so that it wouldn’t obstruct vision, and then on a taper to, you know, like a four foot height, and the thing that I had talked to them about was a picket type fence, but closed with no spaces in it. It would be painted. MR. VOLLARO-Like a stockade fence? MR. KELLEY-Yes, only cut down, you know, it would be more like a four foot high things, with some plantings along in front of it. MR. SCUDDER-Stockade fences are nice when they’re first put up, but they get ugly in a hurry, in my opinion. MR. VOLLARO-I was just wondering what Mr. Kelley had in mind, that’s all. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. STROUGH-I was also worried, too, it could make you feel real closed in. I don’t know if I like that appearance. I mean, I’m looking from Main Street. I like the idea of a taper. That’s better, but you’re right about those stockade fences. MR. KELLEY-The other things that they talked about was that I only go back on the west side where the house is, what is it, 75 feet, I think it was. There was a limitation as to how far back. In other words, yes, so that it would get beyond where the house is. MR. SCUDDER-The Beautification Committee’s concern was headlights splashing into that house. That was their focus, on the west side. MR. RINGER-You’re going back to Beautification Committee with the idea of changing that driveway around and maybe they would make some other recommendations, and you can make a decision on. MR. SCUDDER-Right. We’re going to show them a planting schedule anyway, and we have conditional approval, or preliminary approval, but they want to see particulars. MR. RINGER-Did you have anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-None other than the stuff I’ve already talked about. MR. RINGER-Laura, did you have anything? I think we’re going to table this, Laura. I just wanted to know, if we were going to table this, if you had anything else that you would like, reasons or things you would like them to look at or? MRS. MOORE-My understanding is the following, that the application will most likely go back to the Beautification Committee for acceptance? A revised site plan that should be submitted to Staff should show survey elevations, the revised entrance and exits, and then I have something in regards to a plan should also be submitted in regards to lighting that includes lighting of the parking area and lighting of the building, indicating pole heights and light fixtures. MR. RINGER-Those were the notations I had down, too. MRS. MOORE-Okay, and then with the fence, I’m not certain where the discussion went, but some type of information should be described on the material of the fence, and the height of the fence, if that is proposed. MR. RINGER-Okay. Does everyone agree that we should table this? Okay. In tabling to get more information on the lighting plan, a new site plan to show a lighting plan, elevation, plantings, showing the fence and what the fence is to be made of, height, anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Well, how did we leave Marilyn Ryba’s recommendation for shared access? MR. STROUGH-What do you mean? MR. RINGER-Marilyn had made a recommendation. MR. VOLLARO-For shared access. MR. STROUGH-It shows right on the plan. MRS. MOORE-That’s considered interconnected access. Shared access, she meant in regards to the actual entrance area, which is interconnection. So it is still up to the Board, if you think that interconnection is acceptable, that’s up to you, versus. MR. RINGER-I find it difficult to tell an applicant you’ve got to have a shared driveway when we don’t have the other property owner next to him agreeing that he, you know, I have a problem with that. I making any sense? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes, if that’s your sort of philosophical opinion that you don’t like or want to consider that, but legally you do have the ability, if you wish, to require that of an applicant, from the standpoint of assuming that this would be the reason, from the standpoint of safety of traffic flow, and not having too many curb cuts or too many points of ingress and egress over a particular corridor, and actually, I think this Board’s done that in the past, and in fact, I think in at least one instance, when the neighbor wasn’t so thrilled about it, meaning the next property owner. I’m not saying you should do that in this case. That’s obviously your decision, but I think the basis for the recommendation, at least typically, is Staff’s concerns that there not be too many curb cuts, too many separate points of ingress and egress on some of our, you know, corridor roads. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. RINGER-And I agree with that. I just have difficulty, you know, with property that we don’t know what’s going to be there. We don’t know the size of it. We just don’t have any information on the property next door. MR. SCHACHNER-All true, and I’m not saying you should do it. I’m just saying I think my role is to just indicate that you have the legal authority to require that that option be preserved, if you wish to do that, and one of the ways that I think that’s been done in the past is language like making sure that the plan and that the development of the site physically allows for a possibility of shared access if the future use, as you say you don’t know, on the adjacent lot, is something that you end up requiring utilizing that shared access. MR. RINGER-We can decide that when it comes time to make a motion to approve, if we want that, so that isn’t something, we’re going to table it because of that. I mean, one of the reasons for tabling it. I think we’ve got enough reasons for tabling it now. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, that’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-My feeling on that issue is I asked the applicant and he said he had no problem with it. I mean, speaking in hypothetical. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but I think part of where Larry’s coming from, Chris, is the other property owner, I think, is where he’s coming from, right? MR. RINGER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-In other words, the applicant may have no trouble with that, but in theory, you’re also leading the way toward having some unknown project on some unknown property from some unknown next door neighbor owner maybe tie into that, and what I’m saying is my role is only to say to you, you have the legal authority to do that, to preserve that option, if you wish. MR. RINGER-All right. Then I need a motion to table. MR. VOLLARO-To what date? MR. RINGER-Okay. Our next meeting is the 19 of September, I believe. Do you think you can th have all the information we’ve asked by then? MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got a lot tabled on that date. MR. RINGER-We’ve got two things tabled, well, one thing tabled. Waverly is the only thing tabled for that. Do you think you could make the 19 of September? th MR. SCUDDER-Yes. I just want to be very clear on what it is you’re looking for. MR. RINGER-We’re looking for a new site plan showing the lighting plan, the detailed lighting plan, with survey elevations, plantings, and the fence, what you’re going to do and how it’s going to be, and also you’ll be back to the Beautification Committee by then, with some of their recommendations? Are you going to be able to do that by the 19? th MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Can I interrupt? You already have several items tabled to the 19. th MR. RINGER-Waverly. What else do we have besides Waverly? MRS. MOORE-You have SBA. MR. RINGER-I thought we changed them to the 26? th MRS. MOORE-No, at your last Planning Board meeting, at your first Planning Board meeting in the month of August you tabled SBA to a September 19 meeting, and then your Independent Wireless th is another cell tower. MR. RINGER-Then we’ll change that to the 26. th MRS. MOORE-My other comment is that our submission deadline for applications is August 30. I th would request the applicant provide, you know, you, the Planning Board, can change his submission 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) deadline date to a date that can also be reviewed by Staff, and by C.T. Male. So I would change his submission date to another date. MR. RINGER-That they think they can get it to you by, you know, C.T. Male. MRS. MOORE-In sufficient time before the meeting, so that if there is C.T. Male comments, that the applicant has adequate time to respond and our goal here is to obtain the C.T. Male sign off. MR. RINGER-Right, and I wouldn’t want to go through what we had tonight. So how about if they got that information to you by the 8? th MRS. MOORE-If Mr. Scudder thinks he can do that. MR. SCUDDER-I can do my work by the eighth, but what about the Beautification Committee? When is that meeting? MRS. MOORE-I believe that is the 11 of September, as far as I know. If you’re able to submit us th information by September 8, what we do is we give that information to the Beautification th Committee the night of their meeting. MR. VOLLARO-It looks like the 26. th MR. RINGER-Yes. I had a public hearing on this. So before I table this, I better open the public hearing. Are there any comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. RINGER-Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Now, let’s make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 63-2000 JEFFREY L. KELLEY, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Until the 26 of September, with a submission deadline date of the 8 of September. To come back thth with a new site plan showing a detailed lighting plan, survey elevations, plantings, and if he’s going to do a fence, and what he’s going to do the fence with, so C.T. Male can get all that information, and then come back to us. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. SCUDDER-Thank you very much? MR. RINGER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED RENALD DEVINE, CONTRACT VENDEE OWNER: GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK AGENT: MICHAEL MULLER ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 49 BOULEVARD (SOUTH SIDE) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR RETAIL SALES OF BILLARD TABLES AND ACCESSORIES. A USE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED BECAUSE RETIAL SALES IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE IN A LI ZONE. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VARIANCE 51-2000, SV 52-2000, AV 18-1991, SP 18-91 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/12/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/00 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-13 LOT SIZE: 50’ X 133’ SECTION: 179-26 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-2000, Renald Devine, Contract Vendee, Meeting Date: June 27, 2000 “Project Description 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) The applicant proposes to utilize an existing 1,872 sq. ft. building to operate a retail store for billiard tables and billiard accessories, located in a light-industrial zone. The applicant has received a use variance. See attached variance. The applicant has also provided a revised survey of the property. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The building is located in a mixed-use area between residential and warehouse industry. Site Overview The applicant does not propose any exterior building improvements or lighting. The applicant has applied for a sign variance for the location. The sign variance was tabled at the ZBA for additional information. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The existing access is a wide curbcut between the road and the building. There is access to the side of the building via an adjacent driveway. The plan does not indicate customer, employee or delivery areas. The applicant has indicated 800 square feet is gross leasable floor space for the business. There is adequate parking on the site were four spaces are required and five are proposed. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant and the agent met with the Beautification Committee and developed a landscape plan for the site. The applicant intends to plant tiger lilies on the east side of the building, and low spreading shrubs underneath the windows on the north side/front of building. The location of the existing sign will change to be perpendicular with the road with a flower box beneath it. The beautification recommendations and the applicant’s landscape plan are provided for the Board’s review. Since there are no significant site improvements the existing stormwater and sewer design would remain the same. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant has indicated a list of requested waivers. The waivers requested appear appropriate because the use is located in a preexisting building. The proposed project is located in Neighborhood Ten of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions (Section 179-39) The proposed use will not have a significant adverse environmental impact because the comprehensive plan recognizes this area should allow commercial, office, and residential uses. Suggestions Staff would suggest granting the waivers as requested.” MR. RINGER-Okay. Nothing else, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. RINGER-Okay. Would you please identify yourselves for the record? MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos, from Muller & Muller, representing the applicant. A brief description of the project is use of an existing building on a very small lot on the Boulevard, on the south side, in a Light Industrial zone. We do have a Use Variance that’s been granted to use it for retail sales. I could qualify that and let you know that it’s only going to be minimally used for retail sales. The need of the applicant is for warehouse space. Billiard tables are very large items, and he needed a warehouse facility. He also sells some of these tables, occasionally. They’re big ticket items. They’re about $2500 on the low end, and they go up to about $10,000. So you don’t sell a lot of these tables. You don’t have a lot of traffic in and out. You have quite a bit of repair and installation work. So he has a need for a facility to take and disassemble tables, if you will, from somebody’s home, re-felt the rails, and then take it back out again. So it’s that type of facility, and not very many people come in and out. MR. RINGER-Is he still going to keep this place in Glens Falls on Lawrence Street? MR. BORGOS-That’s for sale. MR. RINGER-Anything else? MR. BORGOS-One of the big things that, when we went through this intensively with the Zoning Board, we tried to figure out the best location for a sign, and what you see on our proposed plan here is the location of the sign on the front of the building. The existing sign was for CDK Electric. That was the prior use that had come before this Board back in 1991. They did not have foot traffic coming in and out. They were not selling to the public. So their need for a sign to be visible to 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) traffic back and forth on the Boulevard was very minimal. We propose to turn the sign 90 degrees, and we’re seeking setback relief so we can place it, it would be outside of the planter box four feet from the property line. So you look at the plan, and you see that this is a very, very wide roadway, and it’s my understanding from the survey that the Boulevard is that wide because the trolley from Fort Edward to Glens Falls used to run down that street, and you had both motor vehicle traffic on that as well as the trolley lines. So there’s actually 22 feet from the edge of the fog line, the white line on the side of the southern traffic lane to the property line, and we propose to go another six feet to the sign post, and it’s four feet to the edge of the planter box. We looked at many different configurations with the Zoning Board, trying to come up with a sign location. We were on for last night but tabled until some time in the future when the Sign Ordinance is actually filed with the Department of State in Albany. We were aware of those problems. We had originally proposed to have the sign over on the northeasterly corner, but that raised some problems with double relief, essentially, from the 15 foot setback requirement. So we’ve moved it to the middle so we don’t have any side setback concerns, and we propose to keep it the distance from the front line there, so it’ll be visible from cars approaching from Glens Falls, as you’re heading to Hudson Falls. If you see on the plan there’s an existing two story apartment building to the west. That and the mature maple tree in front of the building effectively screen this parcel and this building from that traffic. That’s why you need to have a sign out there as much as you can, so it will be visible to people passing by. I think that would be the major concern that you would have, in addition to parking, and also you’d probably have questions about why we have so much parking when Staff notes indicate you only need four spaces. That arose out of our concern with the Zoning Board. In our various meetings with them, Craig Brown had originally interpreted the regulations to be eight parking spaces. That’s since been revised down to four. We have three interior spaces for employees that are in the garage door area at the southeast corner of the building. So all we really need is a spot or two for the public coming in to look at a table, and this business is mostly done out of catalogues. They look at a table and see a picture of what they like, and they order it, and quite often it’s done over the phone or through the mail. So, again, we have 800 square feet of retail space within this building, and the reg’s say we need four spaces. We propose to put those four out front, but if the Board has any problems with that, we’ve got plenty of space there to move those around and reconfigure them if you wish. MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll start at this end. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I really don’t have much to say about it. I guess my concern, more than anything, would be, I noticed when we were over there, it’s run down, in a sense. Do they have any plans of upkeep? MR. BORGOS-Well, this is a foreclosure building. Glens Falls National Bank is the current owner. There would definitely be an increased upkeep. The lawn will be mowed. The trees trimmed. The Beautification Committee suggested planting tiger lilies along the eastern wall, and that will be done. The sign itself is going to be an attractive sign designed by Ken Wheeler who did the signs for the entrances to Glens Falls, and they’ll have a shrub on either side of it, and flowers in between, around the cedar posts. There’s not a whole lot of other space on this property. It’s a very small parcel of property. MR. METIVIER-So you were in front of Beautification and they made suggestions to you? MR. BORGOS-Yes, that’s right. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MR. RINGER-That’s it, Tony? Questions, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Is the variance on the sign still tabled? In other words, we don’t have a variance concluded on the sign? MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. We have been before them on two prior occasions, and we have their feedback, and what you see here is what a combination of the Board and Staff felt was acceptable. I know Staff notes from Craig Brown have indicated that there are compliant locations on the parcel, and my intention is to address the Zoning Board and explain and demonstrate that the compliant locations are not visible as approach from the west, and I have a photograph, I didn’t bring all of them for you because I didn’t anticipate that, but this one here would kind of give you an indication. It was taken from the perspective of standing on the property line, on the property to the west, and again, this is taken from the boundary line of the apartment house to the west, and you’ll see how everybody parks on that street, as it is, and that’s certainly what was done before. If you look at the ’91 site plan, they had tried to have the cars come in at an angle that’s parallel with the roadway. It was just never done. It would be very hard to accomplish. People simply pull in at a slight angle, and that’s what we’ve tried to do on the plan here. We couldn’t achieve a 45, but the angle that we have coming in off the Boulevard will enable even a large vehicle to come in and back out, without getting anywhere near the roadway, which is a primary concern. This photograph here 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) shows the mature maple tree, and the apartment house, which screen the building that is what the applicant proposes to occupy. MR. VOLLARO-Normally we approve a site plan after all the variances are complete, don’t we? MR. RINGER-Normally, but in this particular case, the Sign Ordinance. MR. VOLLARO-We’re up in the air on the Sign Ordinance anyway, is what you’re saying. MR. RINGER-Right, and that’s why I don’t see a problem, unless someone else says, that we can approve the plan subject to the variance being granted by the ZBA for the sign, if we get to it. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. RINGER-So I don’t see a problem with it, but if someone has a problem. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t either. It’s just a matter of procedure. If we can go along with it, based on an approval from the ZBA, that’s fine with me. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, and I think the reason you can do that, if you wish, is because the approval or the application request that’s pending before the ZBA is only for the sign, as I understand it. The applicant has already received other variances allowing the facility. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-If that were not the case, we would not sit here and say, sure, go ahead and review the application pending the other variance request, but it’s only the sign that’s still pending. Your approval of the application should indicate, if in fact you approve the application, that you’re not, that any endorsement or any approval of the sign is subject to the Sign Variance being approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. RINGER-Do you have anything else, Bob? Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have anything. I mean, it’s a pretty tough site to work with, and the building’s already there. So there’s really not a lot to get into. MR. BORGOS-What we found, in going through the Use Variance application and that whole procedure, was a realization that this type of operation is probably the perfect fit for this building and this site, and anything more of a retail nature would be too intensive, and anything such as what was there before, such as CDK Electric, it was too big of a space for a small shop like that, and if you get any bigger, you need bigger equipment, and you get more employees, and it was a very difficult situation, but this seems to work very well. MR. RINGER-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I sat through both Zoning Board meetings over this. I mean, I concluded that it would be easier to get a zoning change than it would a Use Variance. It was a tough time for them. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s often true. MR. STROUGH-I wasn’t aware of that until this project. Because, you know, the project seems to be, or the proposal seems to be ideal for this site. I mean, though you’re medium impact, not a large need for a lot of parking. He’s got those big garage doors down below for when he does the assembly of the billiard tables. I mean, it just seems like a perfect site for him. So I’m very familiar with the project, and have reviewed the project, and have no questions. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve got a public hearing. Anyone from the public wish to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-We’ve got to do a SEQRA. Laura, in your Staff notes, you said the applicant had requested waivers. I can’t find where he’s requested any waivers? What waivers has he requested? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MRS. MOORE-Application, there’s a checklist in his application that he’s gone through and he’s checked off, addressed each item, and there’s certain items that are under the “WR”, which are Waiver Requested. Do you see those? MR. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have them, either. MRS. MOORE-You have this checklist, and in the column, it says Waiver Requested. MR. RINGER-I see. All right. Location of on site sewer, okay. MR. BORGOS-Essentially it’s a pre-existing building. So that’s why those things were checked. MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s do a SEQRA. MRS. MOORE-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 40-2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RENALD DEVINE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-Laura, do we have to make a motion to agree to accept the waivers? MRS. MOORE-That can be part of your motion. MR. RINGER-That can? All right. Then I’m ready to entertain a motion, if anyone would like to make one? MR. VOLLARO-Before the motion, were hours of operation ever talked about before on this? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. STROUGH-Well, they were in the Zoning Board meeting. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Strictly a nine to five shop. If it’s anything after hours, it’s completely contained within the building itself. MR. VOLLARO-And we had no comments on lighting, I don’t remember any of those, up and down the Board here. MR. STROUGH-The only thing, the Beautification’s recommendations, does that have to be put in the motion, or is that just, as a normal course of events, just happens? MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, if you want the Beautification recommendation, which is all the Beautification Committee response is, to be a requirement of the applicant, then you need to make that a condition. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think the applicant would have no problem with that because they’ve already basically agreed to do what the Beautification Committee did, but it wouldn’t hurt to add it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there’s two specifics that they ask for. MR. RINGER-Whoever makes the motion can include that in the motion. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I was going to use these two right here in the motion itself. All right. I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2000 RENALD DEVINE/CONTRACT VENDEE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Based on the following: One, the east side of the building would have planting of Tiger Lilies, and the front below the windows with low spreading shrubs. A condition of approval would be that the sign would be approved by the ZBA, or in conformance with the Town Code, and we agree to grant the waivers that were requested. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-It’s also dependent on the Sign Variance being approved by the ZBA. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. If you put it that way, that means that if the Sign Variance is denied, the site plan approval is void. If that’s your intention, that’s fine, but if your intention, what I was suggesting, I doubt that’s your intention. In other words, I’m not making this clear, but let’s say the Sign Variance is denied, okay. If you approve the site plan, they can still do their use. They just have to put the sign up in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. The way you just put it, if the Sign Variance is denied, they have no site plan approval. Is that your intention? MR. VOLLARO-So why even talk about that, then? MR. SCHACHNER-What you should say is that the sign location is subject to the ZBA’s Sign Variance, not that the entire site plan, not, that’s not a condition of your entire site plan approval. MR. BORGOS-The sign would be in a location compliant with current Code or with a variance granted by the ZBA. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So what I’m saying is, I’m suggesting that you change the wording of that proposed condition, so that you word it to be referencing only the sign, not the entire site plan approval. MR. STROUGH-Well, why do you even have to make it a condition because? MR. SCHACHNER-You should make it a condition, I think, for clarity of the record, so that nobody can take the position that this Board has approved the sign at the proposed location. Because this Board doesn’t currently have the authority to approve the sign at the proposed location. MR. RINGER-And it’s on the site plan. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Couldn’t we just acknowledge the fact? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s, essentially, what we’re saying. MR. RINGER-It’s handled well the way Mark stated it, that we approve the plan and that the site plan would be subject to approval of the, with the understanding that the sign would be. Do you want to try it, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. A condition of approval would be that the sign would be approved by the ZBA. MR. RINGER-Or in conformance with the Town Code. MR. VOLLARO-Or in conformance with the Town Code. Fine. MR. RINGER-And we agree to waive the requested waivers. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and agree to accept the waivers that were requested. MRS. MOORE-You’re granting them. MR. RINGER-Granting the waivers. MR. RINGER-Yes, agree to accept the waivers. MR. RINGER-Granting the waivers. MR. VOLLARO-Granting or agree to accept, either one I would think is satisfactory. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. Granting seems fine. MR. VOLLARO-Granting is fine. Okay. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-You’re all set, Mike. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. RINGER-We’ve got to do next month, site visits on the 16, two regular scheduled meetings th the 19 and the 26. There may be an additional, I don’t know. We’ve got a meeting on the 29 at ththth the High School, seven o’clock. MR. STROUGH-Have we worked out what we’re going to do at that meeting? MR. RINGER-Okay. What Craig has told me at the meeting. MR. STROUGH-I saw a draft, but I didn’t see any final version. MR. RINGER-Well, the draft and the final version are basically the same, from what he has said. The site plan and things are going to be on the wall, or somewhere. There will be copies of the EIS around for those who haven’t read it, not that they’ll have an opportunity to read it. There’ll be a sign up for questions. So the public will sign in, if they want to, and then they’ll be taking the questions, or, you know, in the way they sign, they’ll be having the people come up the way they signed. MR. STROUGH-Who will be there, Laura, taking people’s names down? MRS. MOORE-Currently, we’re in discussion about who is going to be there at six o’clock for sign in opportunities, but there is, typically we’re just going to put a pad of paper out there and hope that people are courteous to one another and sign in appropriately and not kill each other to get to the first spot. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. RINGER-Craig wants to try to stay in the time frame, if possible, understanding that we may not get out of there at 10, but he’s going to try to stick as close to it. Probably he feels quite sure that there’ll be a meeting right away, after that, a second meeting at least on this, and then possibly a third meeting, where the Planning Board will be offering comments. The first meeting is going to be, he felt, mainly for public input, and maybe even a second meeting of public input. He’s guessing on some of that stuff. MR. STROUGH-The meeting on Wednesday night will be here though, right? MR. RINGER-Right. The next meeting will be here, and not at the School. Other comments that just Craig and I had talked about, just kind of a protocol type thing, some of the things, when Paling was Chairman of the Board and we had public input, Bob did an awfully good job of taking the input from the public and not getting into a debate or discussion, and Craig felt, and I certainly agreed, and I’m sure everyone here would agree, we should try to avoid getting into discussion too much with the public, making comments or value statements or whatever. Let them make whatever comments they have to say, and then it’s up to the applicant to answer those and it’s up to us to make sure that the applicant answers them, rather than for us to try to answer the comments, and unfortunately, we have, lately, gotten into that. MR. STROUGH-All right. Now, what do they have for time, five minutes? MR. RINGER-All right. Craig had talked about time frames. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t mean to interrupt. I apologize, but can we go back just one step to what Larry was just saying, so that the Board’s real clear on this. Understand, I’m sorry to interrupt, but I thought before we leave that topic, understand that we, I think all endorse what Larry just said, and what Craig, I guess, has talked about, about not getting into the dialogue back and forth, and trying to answer the questions, and you should rest assured that, even more so than in your typical case with a public hearing where you already try to do that, here the applicant must prepare a document, which would be a draft of a Final Environmental Impact Statement, for you to review, and the most significant or most important part of that Final Environmental Impact Statement will be a Section called “Responses to Comments”. So the applicant has to provide you with draft responses to all the substantive and significant comments that are made by any members of the public. So you can sort of rest assured that, even more so than normal, you know, if somebody comes up with a compelling comment, and you’re troubled by it, you don’t need to get into a debate about it with the applicant or with the commentor that night. The applicant will have to provide you all, as the SEQRA Lead Agency, with a draft response to that comment, in writing, as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and you will have an opportunity, when you review that Final Environmental Impact Statement, to decide whether you feel those responses are adequate. MR. STROUGH-Basically, we can stay quiet, unless we want to, unless we have a question about clarifying a point that somebody said? MR. SCHACHNER-You can ask anything you want. I’m not sitting here saying you can’t, but you could say nothing the whole time, and in fact, many public hearings on Environmental Impact Statements are just, stated at the outset, are just for the purpose of accepting public comments. Questions won’t be answered. Dialogue won’t be entertained. Come up. State your comment, and let the next person come up and state their comment, and somebody at the beginning, I will suggest that somebody at the beginning of the meeting describe the SEQRA process, and Chris Round and I have done this in other hearings in the past, somebody describe the SEQRA process so that not only you all understand that, but the members of the public understand that they’re not going to get their questions, that their comments will not be addressed that night, that their questions won’t be answered that night, that the SEQRA process encompasses a formal procedure for addressing these comments and answering these questions, which is the Final Environmental Impact Statement. MR. RINGER-I think Craig was planning on making the statement to that effect. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we need to make sure that the public understands that. MR. SCHACHNER-I fully agree. MR. RINGER-The point that we’re trying to make is it just seems recently we’ve been getting into a lot of discussion with the public and sometimes it doesn’t turn out the way it should. MR. SCHACHNER-And in something like this, if you do that, it’ll never end. MR. RINGER-Right, so that not only this meeting, but particularly this meeting, but other meetings, we should be on our toes a little bit, and the only other thing that seems to be more of my personal concern, not necessarily Craig’s, is I feel we’re getting into a lot of these sidebars of our own up here, 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) and we’ve got people speaking from the floor. We’ve got the applicant, and we’ve got one or two over here talking back and forth, and I, personally, feel it’s distracting to the applicant or to the public, whatever speaking, and to our fellow Board members who may be trying to listen and can’t. So, just for cleaning up our own, and I’d just point it out. Craig had nothing to do with that comment, that’s a personal comment from me. MR. SCHACHNER-Although for what it’s worth, I agree with it. It also makes it hard to prepare minutes because all this stuff’s picked up on the microphones. So it certainly is helpful. If you want to have discussions among yourselves, it’s perfectly fine, but if you want to do that, I think you should say to whoever is speaking, hold on one minute, we’re going to confer about something, say whatever you’re going to say, and then let the applicant, I mean the commentor, speak. MR. RINGER-It’s just that at this particular meeting, we’re going to be in front of a large body, and we should certainly, you know, when I was back in business, it was like, be on your best behavior. We shouldn’t have to be reminded, but sometimes even the best of us, and I’m guilty as sin as anyone else. MR. STROUGH-Let’s get back to the order, the SEQRA order. So this is basically for public input, and then the applicant, the draft applicant, has to respond to the comments. Then what’s next? I mean, you went that far, I didn’t hear it. MR. SCHACHNER-And let’s just make sure we’re being clear. When we say, then the applicant has to respond to the comments, not verbally, and not that night. MR. STROUGH-No, no, at a later time. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So the applicant prepares a written document, which is a Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is presented to this Board, as the SEQRA Lead Agency. Just as you did for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, you have to decide whether you’re willing to accept the Final Environmental Impact Statement as responsive to all the significant and substantive comments that were raised on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Once you, if not, and it may be that they’re not. You may feel that certain areas that were commented on were not given enough treatment or adequate treatment, in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and if so, you need to tell the applicant that. Okay, applicant, we think you need to add more information in response to comments, you know, five, eleven, whatever, or the comments by Mrs. Smith, Mr. Jones, and whomever. The applicant has to do that, because you’re the SEQRA Lead Agency, and eventually the applicant produces a document that you’re comfortable with, that you think addresses all the comments that were made at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and recognize that that’s the verbal comments made Tuesday night at the public hearing, but it’s also the written comments that are submitted between now and I think it’s September 12 is when it closes, but whenever it closes. th MR. STROUGH-Written comments don’t have to be read Tuesday night, though? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely not. They don’t have to be and shouldn’t be. MR. STROUGH-At any time will they have to be read publicly? MR. SCHACHNER-No. They never have to be read publicly, and again, recognize that they’re going to be coming in past Tuesday night, because I think the public comment period ends, is open until something like September 12. So the applicant has to respond to all the substantive and th significant comments both the verbal ones and the written ones, in this Final Environmental Impact Statement. Eventually, sooner or later, you’ll have a document that you’re comfortable accepting as complete. It doesn’t mean you necessarily agree with everything in it, but you feel that it is complete, it is responsive and addresses all the issues that were raised, the substantive and significant issues that were raised during the public comment process, both verbal and written. You then accept the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Then it comes the time, shortly thereafter, for you to decide whether the project, do we have an application before us? We must have some kind of application before us, right? MR. RINGER-Mark, can we adjourn our meeting and go into a Workshop Session so we don’t have to have all this, not that, there’s no reason to be on tape, but why put all this on tape if we don’t have to? MR. SCHACHNER-Are you talking about what we’re doing right this second? MR. RINGER-What we’re doing right this minute. We’re on tape now, and why don’t we just adjourn and then go into a little Workshop Session? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/00) MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. It’s still a public meeting, but there’s nobody here. MR. RINGER-So let’s make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Larry Ringer, Vice Chairman/Acting Chairman 44