Loading...
2000-02-22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ALAN ABBOTT ROBERT PALING LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 4-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED KEITH CRIST OWNER: WILLIAM CRIST ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1025 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF USED CAR SALES TO AN EXISTING AUTO REPAIR AND QUICK LUBE FACILITY. AUTOMOBILE SALES IN AN HC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 10-83, SV 3-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNIING: 1/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-11.1 LOT SIZE: 2.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 KEITH CRIST, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And this was tabled on February 8. th MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-I’ll just make a comment that Keith Crist has submitted a landscape plan and a site plan that I believe addresses what the Board’s concerns were. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, Mr. Crist. Is there anything that you wanted to add? MR. CRIST-Well, I had put the landscaping together, kind of re-worked things a little bit. As far as adding anything additional to the project, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. PALING-No, it looks very good. MR. ABBOTT-One quick question. The area that’s graveled, over by the woods, the used cars are going to be displayed. It’s toward the front of the property. Is that going to be added to the paved area? Are you going to pave that? MR. CRIST-Eventually. I’ll stone it first and then pave it after the stone’s had a chance to settle, within a year, black top, yes. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. So this drawing shows it as it is today, not where the paving will be? MR. CRIST-Correct. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. That’s all I had. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. VOLLARO-It looks good to me now. No problem. MR. RINGER-Nothing on it. MR. METIVIER-Nothing. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? They’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to make a motion. MRS. MOORE-Excuse me. It’s an Unlisted Action. You have to complete a Short Form. MR. MAC EWAN-According to my notes from two meetings ago, it wasn’t required. MRS. MOORE-Was that in regards to the ZBA being able to do it as well? Okay. Sorry to interrupt you. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. Okay. How about a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2000 KEITH CRIST, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: For A-2000, in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan 4-2000 for Keith Crist for the addition of Used Car Sales to an existing Auto Repair and Quick Lube facility, and Whereas, the above mentioned application received 12/99 consists of the following: 1. Application Whereas, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. Pictures taken of site by Staff. 2. 1/25/00 - Staff Notes 3. 1/18/00 - Notice of Public Hearing 4. 1/12/00 - Warren Co. Planning – NCI 5. 1/6/00 - Meeting Notice 6. 2/22/00 - Staff notes 7. 2/8/00 - PB resolution – tabled to 2/22/00 8. 2/1/00 - Notice of Public Hearing 9. 1/19/00 - ZBA resolution re: Sign Variance contingent upon PB approval of use 10. 1/18/00 - Pictures of site taken by Staff 11. 2/18/00 - New information submitted 12. 2/19/00 - Landscaping Plan prepared by Oligny’s Creative Landscapes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/8/00 & 2/22/00 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, 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/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 review is necessary; and Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Crist. Thanks for re-doing that for us. MR. CRIST-My pleasure. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2000 TYPE II JAMES UNDERWOOD OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, GLEN LAKE CEA LOCATION: 99 MANNIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 485 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION WITH A 140 SQ. FT. PORCH TO AN EXISTING DWELLING. A PORTION OF THE EXISTING DWELLING WILL BE DEMOLISHED TO RECONSTRUCT A LOG HOME ON AN EXISTING FOUNDATION WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 6-2000 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-47 LOT SIZE: 1.91 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 JAMES UNDERWOOD, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And this was tabled on February 8. th MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-The comment is that I believe Mr. Underwood has submitted the information requested by the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything additional? MRS. MOORE-I do have a public comment to read into the record, during your public hearing for this application. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The public hearing was left open on this one. Okay. Everything in order? Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. UNDERWOOD-James Underwood, the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. METIVIER-Not at this time. MR. RINGER-Not right now. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a couple of questions. In the recommendation, Staff said, with the condition that the applicant include erosion control methods with the building permit. Now, is that erosion control during construction, or is that a permanent erosion control action? MRS. MOORE-I have suggested during construction. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The floor area worksheet shows an existing floor area of 2932, and the proposed is 3417. Now that’s an increase of 16.4%, and I just want to get to 179-16G for a second here, and with any increase in the floor area of an existing structure serviced by sanitary facilities which requires a building permit shall conform with the requirements of Chapter 136 of the On Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance. I would just like to have a note or something to that effect in here that this will conform to Chapter 136, and while we’re on this, Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to bring up something that I would like to see in some of the Staff notes, is that when we have a septic system, and I’d like not to talk about septic systems. I’d like to have the building inspector take a look at these drawings, and say that, as far as he’s concerned, these drawings do comply with 136. Because it’s in our Code, and when I look at the drawing on here, I want to make sure that somebody else is talking to the septic system besides us, besides me, particularly, because I seem to be the one that’s always jawing about septics here. So I’d like something in the future that the building inspector definitely signs off on 136. MR. MAC EWAN-Every time someone comes in with a building permit application it’s reviewed, the septics are reviewed. MR. PALING-But we don’t know that. What Bob is asking for is either some kind of document from the Board of Health or Dave Hatin, or put it in Staff notes, that it has been inspected. I agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Just like we get from Water or Highway, whatever. MR. PALING-Yes, exactly. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else at this time. That was all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-I have a letter. This was addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it says “Dear Board Members: Pursuant to my receipt January 13, 2000 of the Notice of Public Hearing and my telephone conversation with Craig,” I’m assuming it’s Craig Brown, “I wish to express my concerns to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the application for variance submitted by Jim Underwood. I have the following concerns: The plot plan furnished to me is incorrect and does not accurately depict the actual scale or location of residences or situation of Mannis Road to the properties. The existing position of Jim Underwood’s home is in extremely close proximity to our contiguous boundary line which does not allow for any privacy. To allow for the construction and reconstruction of Mr. Underwood’s future home on this site without full compliance with existing setbacks and side yard ordinances will only exacerbate this lack of privacy. Since Mr. Underwood’s lot is large enough to allow for the positioning of his home to meet the zoning standard for setbacks and side yards, I request that this variance be denied. I trust that my above mentioned concerns will be given full consideration prior to a decision by the Board. Thank you, for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Hal Rathbun” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other letters? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, in going through my stuff, I had a note on these drawings that I’d like to just talk to for a second, if I could. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure, go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that all the drawings that came are marked 2/13/94, 1994. MR. UNDERWOOD-You mean the top sheet? MR. VOLLARO-Well, all of these small drawings that depict the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mine say ’99 on them. MR. ABBOTT-Bob, it’s the date of the fax machine. MR. VOLLARO-I know, but that’s the only date on the drawing. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Is 2/13/94, unless somebody didn’t set the fax up for the Year 2000. Is that what you’re saying? MR. ABBOTT-Yes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. VOLLARO-My drawing all says 1994, and I was just wondering. MR. ABBOTT-I’ve got dates of 12/6/99. MR. MAC EWAN-You mean to tell me there’s actually a piece of equipment out there that’s Y2K non-compliant? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have ’94. MR. VOLLARO-You have ’94 as well? MR. RINGER-Yes, but the drawing itself shows ’99, 12/6/99. MR. VOLLARO-See, I can’t read that on mine. I can’t read it on any of them. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Any other questions or comments from Board members? Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2000 JAMES UNDERWOOD, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: As written by the Planning Board’s resolution {Refers to resolution prepared by Staff for Planning Board}. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan 5-2000, for James Underwood for a 485 +/- sq. ft. addition with a 140 sq. ft. porch to an existing dwelling, a portion of the existing dwelling will be demolished to reconstruct a log home on an existing foundation with associated site work; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 12/99, consists of the following: 1. Application Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 1/25/00 - Staff Notes 2. 1/19/00 – ZBA resolution – approved 3. 1/6/00 - Meeting Notice 4. 1/13/00 – FOIL request by H. Rathbun 5. 1/18/00 - Pictures taken by staff 6. 1/18/00 - Notice of Public Hearing 7. 1/19/00 - Hal Rathbun to Craig Brown (from ZBA file) 8. 2/8/00 - PB resolution – tabled to 2/22/00 9. 2/1/00 - Notice of Public Hearing 10. 2/22/00 - Staff Notes 11. 2/18/00 - New information Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/8/00 & 2/22/00 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, 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/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 review is necessary Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Underwood. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Thanks for your time. SITE PLAN NO. 6-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED GLENN BATEASE OWNER: SAME AGENT: THE LA GROUP ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 71 BIG BOOM ROAD THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT INCLUDES AN EXISTING EXCAVATION BUSINESS AND MATERIAL PROCESSING ON THE 7 +/- ACRE SITE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF REGRADING, REVEGETATION, AND RE-LOCATION OF PROCESSING MATERIALS TO A DEFINED LOCATION ON THE SITE. THE EXISTING BULDING IS ALSO BEING OCCUPIED BY A COURIER BUSINESS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 71-96, 33-94, SUB. 9-1994, 14-1994, AV 52-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 7 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-26 WM. NEALON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GLENN BATEASE, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-This was tabled on February 8 and on February 15. thth MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-I’ll read into the record the letter that I wrote to Rist-Frost Associates in regard to the prepared, for review, that’s dated February 17, 2000, this is addressed to Mr. Levandowski, “The Planning Board tabled Mr. Batease’s application for an Excavation Material Processing Business and re-grading a portion of the property at the February 15, 2000 meeting. The Board has requested a determination of the estimated cost to complete the Site Plan as presented. The dollar amount will be used to establish a performance bond or other form of financial guarantee. Staff would ask Rist- Frost Associates for this cost estimate determination in the following manner: 1. Provide the cost estimate for the completion of the site plan as one lump sum. The completion of the project would include the removal of garbage and junk as defined in the Queensbury Code Section 102-2 (Junk Yards), installation of landscaping, grading and filling of property, and installation of erosion control methods. 2. Provide a separate cost estimate for the tasks to be completed on site. The tasks are as follows: Removal of materials not associated with an excavation material processing business. Grading of the property as presented on the plan Filling of property as presented on plan Landscaping of property as presented on plan Installation of erosion control measures as presented on plan The application has been tabled to the February 22, 2000 Planning Board meeting. Your timely assistance with this project would be appreciated. We would also like to know the total of your fees pertaining to this site plan to date. Please contact the Planning Office with any questions. Thank you.” I’ll read Rist-Frost’s letter. It’s from Rist-Frost, dated February 22, 2000 “Rist-Frost has reviewed the above referenced site plan in regard to your request that we prepare an estimated cost to complete the site plan as presented. To properly complete the cost estimate we have determined that we require the following additional information: 1. Detailed information on the quantity and nature of the “garbage and junk” to be removed from the site. 2. Information on how the work would be accomplished. Would it be put out for bid by the Town (state wage rates), done by Town forces, or done by a private contractor not subject to state wage rates? 3. Why would the Town want to complete the filling and grading per the site plan if the applicant doesn’t perform? Wouldn’t it make more sense to stabilize it where it was and complete any unfinished erosion control and landscaping? To date our fees amount to approximately $740. Fees to prepare the estimate can be predicted after the information requested above is available. Please call if you have any questions.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. NEALON-Good evening. I’m William Nealon, attorney for Mr. Batease. MR. BATEASE-Glenn Batease, owner of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m assuming that you probably came up to speed real quick from our meeting of last week. MR. NEALON-Actually, I was away last week and I was called in on this today. I’ve been reviewing the Ordinance, Mr. MacEwan, and I’ve also been reviewing the requests of the Town Building Department that have previously been responded to by Mr. Batease, and the LA Group. I’m somewhat disturbed by what appears to be a moving target that we’re being presented with. We have provided the Town with the amended maps, showing the revised topographies. We’ve 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) provided the Town with, as far as I was concerned last time I was here before you, with virtually all that you had requested. There were some issues raised about Environmental Conservation Department concerns, and I believe those have also been satisfactorily addressed, both the Department and with this Board. It seems now we’re talking about whether surplus steel is a product that Mr. Batease uses in his business, whether some other article has now risen to the surface as being, I would respectfully submit, exalted beyond what it should be. This is an industrial zone. It is not a residential neighborhood. I was a little bit surprised to see a concern of a boat being on the property, when I can store a boat in this single family residential neighborhood, and we have concerns being addressed at this Board about a boat being next to an industrial zone. So I’m really concerned about Mr. Batease having been saddled, apparently, with an ongoing array of new requirements that always seem to be changing. Mr. Batease is in the construction and excavation business, or excavation and trucking business. I must, having read all of the Rist-Frost response, and I did not have an opportunity to see the letter of inquiry made to them, but I think Mr. Batease, and for that matter the Town of Queensbury, has been actively depositing materials there that have been used in the filling of this site over the course of some extended period of time. That is being filled in an orderly manner. Now, we have given you the proposed topographies. We’ve given you the layouts. I’m really at a loss to understand how we can give you what you have asked for and now you come back to us and say, yes, we have what we’ve asked of you, but now we want you to give us more. It does not seem appropriate, and I tried hard today to identify just what it was within the Ordinance that you were basing your request upon. I did not have a great deal of time to study it, but I couldn’t find it. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you in receipt of the memo from Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer for the Town, that’s dated February 11, 2000, regarding the Glenn Batease site plan 6-2000? MR. NEALON-No, I am not. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If you’ll read that memo, you’ll see he’s in violation right now, has been. As far as, you say that he has been complying, he hasn’t been complying. That’s why we’re here again tonight. We’ve had three site plans that have been approved for him over the course of the last couple of years, and none of them have come into compliance with what was approved. He’s under, right now, under DEC to bring his site up to order by April 15 or he’s going to be imposed with th fines from DEC. So he’s not in compliance. MR. NEALON-I believe you have a letter from DEC, indicating that the proposed solution that was being discussed between Mr. Batease and DEC has been approved by DEC. One cannot literally go out and. MR. MAC EWAN-The letter that we have on file from DEC in reference to that says that he has until April 15 to come into compliance, and he’s not right at this point, and they are going to make th another site visit. MR. VOLLARO-I think if you look at this letter, it says by January 15, 2000 “install erosion control that will prevent the escapement of sediments to either stream. The silt fence must be trenched” , and I don’t want to go on and read that. MR. NEALON-I’ve read it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If you’ve read it and I’ve read it, I know by being there that that hasn’t been done. MR. NEALON-I believe that there was a discussion between Mr. Batease that, am I incorrect in saying that? MR. BATEASE-They’ve got a copy of the letter from Mr. Post where we put the trench down the back side. MR. NEALON-I believe there is such a letter indicating what the proposed amendment to, or the addressing of DEC’s concern was. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the very crux of the problem here. Everything gets proposed, nothing gets accomplished. MR. NEALON-Well, sir, it is February 22. There’s probably five feet of frost in the ground right nd now. I think it’s a little unreasonable and unrealistic to expect excavating equipment to go down to address an issue that would take weeks to do under these circumstances, which could be done in an afternoon once the frost leaves the ground. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask the question, then. Why wasn’t it done back through the course of last spring and last summer, after it was approved? What was the problem then? MR. BATEASE-There were silt fences in then. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I’m talking about grading the slope, bringing it to the slope that it’s supposed to be, doing the landscaping that was supposed to be done on there, removing the vehicles and stuff. MR. BATEASE-That material wasn’t there. MR. VOLLARO-There’s another letter, prior to this letter from DEC, dated September 27, and I’ll th just read, and this is from Timothy Post as well, where he says, “I have visited the site on several instances since the letter was sent and have determined that the steps outlined as mitigation in the August 12, 1999 have not been properly and completely executed. Very little appears to have been done to correct the situation and prevent further sediments from entering the stream. In fact, there has been additional releases of sediments into the C(T) stream and the C(T) tributary.” Now this goes way back. This is all pretty well documented, and if we have to document the noncompliance, it can go quite far back. MR. NEALON-With all due respect, the site that you are addressing, in its original form, when specified as an industrial zone, had very severe slopes. They were located far closer to Big Boom Road than they are now. It was designated an industrial zone, and I think, in all candor, if you were to have looked at that site many years ago, when it was so designated, it would have been a very difficult site to use effectively as an industrial zone. MR. MAC EWAN-And what started this whole problem, Mr. Nealon, was him starting to fill that site without site plan approval. That’s what started this whole nightmare. So don’t, please, sit there and try to give us a long sad history of, this is an industrial site, an industrial zone, that we can do this, that we can’t do that, versus what you can and can’t do without site plan approval. MR. NEALON-We have given you what our site plan is. MR. MAC EWAN-You haven’t given this Planning Board everything that we have given you as an approval, to get this site in order. That’s why we seem to keep coming back here and running around this same issue about every five or six months, because you haven’t complied with the approvals previously granted by this Board. MR. NEALON-With all due respect, given the season of the year, and given the availability of the fill that is necessary to complete the project, I don’t know how much more we could do. MR. MAC EWAN-Given all due respect to you folks, I’m just tired of hearing excuses. I really am tired of hearing excuses. I, for one, I don’t know how the rest of my Board members feel, I want to see the site come into compliance. I want to see it come to fruition like it was approved by this Board. That’s what we’re trying to get accomplished here, and it seems to be a run around. MR. NEALON-We have given you the topographical layout of what this site is intended to arrive at. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the problem. We haven’t arrived there. MR. NEALON-No, we haven’t. It takes millions of cubic yards of material to get there. Do you have someone who’s going to make it appear instantly? I would respectfully suggest that that’s not reasonable, particularly at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-If it wasn’t reasonable, Mr. Nealon, he shouldn’t have come in here asking for an application to be approved, and furthermore, he should have told us a reasonable time frame in which he could get that accomplished. He did neither. MR. NEALON-That is not true. I have been here and explained that very thing to you on any number of different occasions. We told you exactly what the situation was. You asked us to be more definitive in terms of what this site would look like when the fill was done. We went to the LA Group. You have been provided with such a plan. We are doing our best to bring that plan into fruition. It is not a flat site, and you seem to be riveted on the fact that we have a farmer’s field that just needs to be sculpted. We do not have that, and we never have had it. MR. MAC EWAN-We realize that. We also realize the slope is causing, in our mind and DEC’s mind, some real concerns over that brook, that measures need to be taken to stop the erosion into that brook. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. NEALON-And measures have been taken, and there’ve been discussions with DEC. MR. VOLLARO-There’s, what, about five weeks, six weeks before April 15, and if you take a look th at what the January 10 letter from DEC states, it says, “By April 15, 2000 the back of the property, or that area along the back of the property that borders the buffer and stream and extending 50 feet towards Big Boom Road…this leveled area must then be covered with jute matting or other soil stabilization fabric, seeded with perennial grass seed, fertilized and mulched.” I don’t see how we can continue to fill that bank in and still have all that mulch and all of that stuff down at the bottom. See, that’s my concern, whether by April 15 this is even, with the condition of the site as I see it th today, whether it can even be brought into this DEC compliance by April 15, and I also have some th problems with some of the math that the LA Group did, by the way, and I can sit down and discuss that separately with them, and not taking up time to do that here, but they’ve calculated this down to one half of one percent of the amount of flow going into that stream, and I just don’t know, with a site in that condition, that you can calculate that close, and I wouldn’t take the time of this whole Board, but I’d be willing to sit down separately with the LA Group and discuss that, because I don’t buy the numbers that are in here either. MR. NEALON-Sir, I can’t speak to that. It is, in substantial part, a site that has not been made impervious to the inflow of water. From that standpoint there’s. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but they’ve put some hard numbers down that I just can’t buy, and I’d like to sit down and talk those out. MR. NEALON-Certainly, everyone in the engineering community may have his or her own impression. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true. It just so happens that I happen to be sitting in this seat, though, that’s the only difference. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, any questions, comments? MR. RINGER-Well, if you haven’t seen the letter from Craig Brown, I think you should read that letter. Because it does say, you know, it talks about the junk yard status of the property, and how it isn’t anything that he has a permit for. MR. NEALON-I understand that there’s a concern over surplus steel and a box trailer. MR. RINGER-There’s a great deal of stuff that’s there, that Craig feels could constitute a junk yard. So I would suggest that you get a copy, or you can have my copy if you’d like, and have it for your own information. The DEC was there throughout the summer, and apparently not much has been done about any of the recommendations, and I think you had plenty of time in the summer and in the fall to start that. We didn’t get the frost in the ground until very late this year. So there was plenty of time to get some of those things done that DEC had requested, and I don’t think you can fault this Board for doing anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think, Mr. Nealon, when you came in, you had some very valid points, especially as far as it being an industrial zone and the boat situation where, you know, people can store their boats in their own back yard, but we got after him about that, well, I wanted to let you know that I was not involved with that. I am concerned about garbage dumping, but Mr. Batease says that people go in. He can’t do anything about it. He can’t monitor it 24 hours a day. So that is kind of out of our hands. As far as the junk yard status, again, that’s one opinion versus yours. When you came in today and talk it about being a light industrial zone, then all that stuff that might look like junk to us could very well be things that Mr. Batease uses in his business. So it depends on, I guess, what side of the fence you’re looking at it from, but when we do go to the site, there, it looks unkempt up to a point. As far as the brook, and the silt fence and all of that, I really feel that this is kind of out of our realm, first of all, because aren’t you accountable to DEC before you’re accountable to us? MR. NEALON-Who comes first, I’m not sure, but certainly we have to satisfy DEC. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. NEALON-And I believe Mr. Batease has been in consultation with Mr. Post and the other people who have been responsible from DEC’s end of things. They’ve arrived at a solution, which, as I understand it, is acceptable to both parties involved in this matter, who have the technical expertise and the technical concerns to be speaking directly toward, there is not a stream. Let’s be realistic about what is on Mr. Batease’s property. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Nealon, let’s not debate your definition of a stream. We’ll stick with exactly what DEC says, and you’re in violation according to DEC, and that’s all I need to know. Your definition, if you want to argue whether you’ve got a stream, a tributary, a river or whatever, you take that up with DEC. MR. NEALON-All right. That has been taken up with DEC, and that’s my point. They seem to be satisfied, as I understand it, with the proposal that has been made by Mr. Batease. MR. MAC EWAN-But it hasn’t been completed. Yes, or no? MR. NEALON-At this juncture, the plan is to install retention ponds. MR. MAC EWAN-Has it been completed yet, Mr. Nealon? MR. NEALON-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You have until April the 15, according to DEC, to come into th compliance. MR. NEALON-We understand that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I just feel that, I believe you’re going to do that, and as far as the millions of yards of fill that need to go, how many yards I don’t know. We tried to put a monetary, or not a monetary amount, but figure out how many more truck loads would have to fill that in. I know that that’s not going to happen tomorrow and it’s not going to happen next year. MR. NEALON-We understand that. We are coming to you with a plan. This is what we want to do. We have been criticized because people went forward, including the Town of Queensbury, and deposited fill materials there without all the approvals. We cannot come back to this Board and do it incrementally and earn your blessings then either. I’ve seen that particular approach be taken by other entities, and have been roundly criticized for trying to get a camel into a tent a leg at a time. We didn’t come to you with that approach. We came to you saying, this is what we want to do. Realize the scale of the project. It’s going to take some time to accomplish it all. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, before we proceed, can’t we just tidy up, or can’t we just take care of everything that should have been done in the past, and then we can go to the next level? That’s all I am asking, and I think that’s all the Board is asking, too. MR. NEALON-Well, certainly Mr. Batease and I would be more than happy to sit down with you and talk about the various issues that you’ve raised, and, Mrs. LaBombard, I’m quite confident you and the other members of the Board have given due consideration to what you’ve said here tonight, and we appreciate that, and we intend to and are trying to work with the Board in addressing these issues, and we will tidy up the site, but one has to realize that there are certain things that are used in an industrial setting that you would not necessarily expect to find in your back yard, you wouldn’t like to have in your back yard, but this isn’t a back yard, but we will tidy up the site, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-You left last week, two weeks ago, whenever it was, with two distinct problems. First of all was the grading of the back of the property down to the brook, the DEC concerns. Secondly was the, what I termed items on the property that were not part of his excavation business that needed to be removed, and the point we left it at was we were looking for some guarantee that, in doing the site plans, those particular items would be dealt with, and we had talked about a performance bond. We had sent out a request to Rist-Frost to do that estimate of how much it would cost to do this, and unfortunately we don’t have that in front of us tonight. So I understand everything you’re saying. I agree with everything you’re saying. The site plan is the final step, or what the site plan represents is the final step, and there’s all these things along the way that need to be taken care of. We’re looking for a guarantee that that’s going to get done, because of the history of things not getting done in the past. Therefore, we’re supposedly tonight talking about performance bond or some other, I forget the wording. How did Laura word it? MR. PALING-Financial, way of getting the money to complete the job. MR. ABBOTT-Yes, exactly. “The dollar amount will be used to establish a performance bond or other form of financial guarantee.” So that’s what we’re looking for in order to move forward is a guarantee to do that. That’s all I have right now. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-We’ve had a series of meetings on the subject. We’ve virtually covered about the same thing, the same detail every time, and the last meeting we talked about junk on the property we wanted removed. Mr. Batease admitted that there were some items there that could be classified as junk and should be removed. We talk about boat storage. If we had seen two boats there that were stored in a neat manner, that anything would have been said, but one boat, as I recall, was on top of the other at a weird angle, and it looked like it was thrown there. It looked like junk, and there’s garbage on the site. MR. MAC EWAN-I would just remind the Board of what legal advised us of, because he admitted he was storing boats for other people, and that’s a whole other issue, because that’s a violation of the ordinances. MR. PALING-All right, leave the boats out and go to all the other issues, the child’s scooter smashed into the ground and the other junk material and garbage included on the site which we’ve asked to be removed, and it’s never been done. We’ve got the case of the silt fence. That was brought up when the weather was mild and the ground was soft, and we’ve gone nowhere. We’re right at the same point we were last week. So I’ll just repeat myself. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing additional to what other members have stated. MR. MAC EWAN-What do we need to do to get you into compliance? MR. NEALON-Mr. MacEwan, we will undertake to tidy the site. Mr. Batease was indicating to me that there are street sweeper type materials that sometimes are deposited as part of the fill, that sometimes there are papers that get brought in on that. I don’t know exactly. I have not had the opportunity, in the last week, to go to the site. It’s been some time since I’ve been there. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s disappointing that you’ve come in here in the eleventh hour to try to help see this application through to its completion. It’s unfortunate that you don’t have all this information in front of you to look at, so that you can see exactly what needs to be done. MR. NEALON-Well, I understand what position the Board has taken. Whether I agree with it or I agree, I think what Rist-Frost is telling you, if I focused on the major issue that Rist-Frost has hit upon, they’re saying if the site is not filled to the extent that is denominated in the plan, how much would it cost to bring in the fill and to hire contractors to finish the job as indicated. If you want a performance bond of that magnitude, that’s utterly ridiculous. MR. MAC EWAN-What we’re looking for is to come into compliance with DEC, stabilize the slope, do the landscaping on the slope, do your final contours and get rid of all the junk that doesn’t belong on the property, that’s not associated with the excavating business. That’s what we’re looking to get accomplished. MR. NEALON-Right, and we can do many of those things directly. We cannot finalize the entire slope all along that property line until the material is available. It becomes available. Portions of it are finished, and that’s the reality that we are confronted with. It doesn’t happen all at once. MR. MAC EWAN-From our understanding, you’re not that far away from making the slope, from stabilizing the slope. The problem that we are understanding, to comply with the grading, is at the top of the slope, where it’s uneven, where some of the equipment has been stored, which would be the northwest side of the property. Give us a date. When are you going to come into compliance? I’d like to table this thing until the first meeting of March. That will give Rist-Frost some time to respond to some of these answers, some of these questions they have, see if we can’t pull this all together. That’ll give them time to work together, and try to come up with a reasonable solution. So Mr. Nealon can go through all the documentation. MR. ABBOTT-When’s our April meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-The April meeting would be the 22. nd MR. VOLLARO-I would say that that’s what I would be in favor of. Let this 15 of April date come th and go, and let’s see what we’ve got on the meeting right after that. MR. MAC EWAN-Does everybody feel comfortable on that? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. PALING-I have a question. What are we going to do now, if as you say, this could be a way to do it, but what happens if we reconvene at whatever the date is, and the site hasn’t changed one bit? Which is what’s happened now for these series of meetings. MR. VOLLARO-Well, at the last meeting, Bob, MR. VOLLARO-Well, at the last meeting, Bob, my recommendation was, the last time we met, was to deny this site plan and have them re-introduce the plan after April 15, and then we could take a th look at how he’s done it and how he’s come along, essentially wipe all this stuff out and start from scratch on a brand new application. That’s what I wanted to do last week. MR. PALING-This Board has said, I believe, four times, to you Mr. Batease, what we want. I don’t think we have seen one thing done that we’ve asked for, and we’re going back when the ground was very soft and the weather was very warm, and we’re at the same point. Am I wrong or right on that? MR. MAC EWAN-No, you’re dead on. MR. PALING-Well, why should we, then, say, okay, let’s do it again. We’ll meet for the fifth time? MR. MAC EWAN-My reasoning for wanting to probably table this for one more month is to get a firm response from Rist-Frost, give Staff a directive of exactly what we need to have accomplished, so that, in their response to Staff in the letter that we received today, they have some questions about, procedurally, how to do this, whether it was going to be done by Town personnel or whether it was going to be done by a contractor, and if we could just table this until next month, we could clarify with them. I can do that, if you guys want me to, to clarify exactly what we’re looking for, and they can respond to it, so when we get back together on the 22, the 18 of April, we have an ndth answer. MR. PALING-Okay. So we’re saying let it go and look for compliance. MR. MAC EWAN-Until the end of April. That meets his DEC deadline. That gives him 30 days to put together a firm plan on how he’s going to tackle this, with a date on when he’s going to finish it. MR. PALING-Or even tackle it, do it. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, could I make a recommendation? I would like to see, at the next meeting, and I’ll go along with whatever timing situation you want here, but I’d like to see Mr. Timothy Post at the next meeting from DEC. I’d like him to be here when this next meeting goes down. MR. VOLLARO-Is there a way to do that? He’s right up in Warrensburg isn’t he? I’d like to see him in the audience and available to get up to the microphone if we have to. MRS. MOORE-We can certainly ask him to. MR. VOLLARO-Because I talked to him on the phone, and he would be agreeable to that, but I can’t ask him. You can. MRS. MOORE-And you’re talking about a meeting in March? MR. VOLLARO-Some time in March. I think it’s the 18. th MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking at April the 18, the first meeting in April. April 18. thth MRS. MOORE-A question or concern about that is that our deadline for submission for April’s agenda is March 29. th MR. MAC EWAN-He’s not submitting anything new. MR. RINGER-Well, if he can’t be here, we’ll have to proceed without him. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s not submitting anything. We’re tabling this primarily to give him time, hopefully, to come into compliance between now and then. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-An opportunity to discuss it with his attorney. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. NEALON-Okay. Can we have an articulation, excuse me, from the Board of exactly what it is that you are looking for? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done it. We’ve done it. MR. NEALON-I have letters that date back some time, that we have already complied with. I need to stop shooting at a moving target. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not, the target that’s moving here is Mr. Batease. Not us, and if you want to find out what he needs to do, refer back to the previously approved site plan. That’ll tell you. He’s not in compliance. So just review that and review what was approved, and review the site plan drawing. Do I hear a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2000 GLENN BATEASE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Until the meeting of April 18, for purpose of clarifying Rist-Frost’s letter that was received today, th February 22, 2000, regarding the performance bond. In addition to that, I would like to make as part of this motion a recommendation that the officer from DEC, Mr. Timothy J. Post be asked to attend the meeting of April 18. That Craig Brown re-visit the site and address the letter that he wrote th regarding the “junk yard” to see that things have been removed. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. ABBOTT-Could I say one more thing to the applicant? If, at the April 18 meeting, we have a th sign off from Mr. Post that the DEC concerns have been met, and that Craig has looked at the property and the stuff that constitutes the junk yard stuff has been removed, I think things would go a lot smoother up here. That’s just a recommendation. MR. MAC EWAN-You’d be heading leaps and bounds in the right direction. Just for the record, we’ll leave the public hearing open on that site plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER OWNER: SAME AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE SCHOOL’S FACILITIES. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A 2,740 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE “MAIN CENTER” AND A 8,100 SQ. FT. TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE “SCHOOL” BUILDING. THE ADDITIONS WILL BE USED FOR A LUNCH ROOM, CONFERENCE CENTER, OFFICE SPACE AND OTHER SCHOOL NEEDS. SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS AND SIDEWALKS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 4-93 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 82-3-1, 82-3- 2, 82-2-6 LOT SIZE: 3.01 AC., 1.44 AC., 1.90 AC. SECTION: 179-20 JON LAPPER, RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-2000, Prospect Child & Family Center, Meeting Date: February 22, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to expand the existing school facilities with an addition to the Main Center and a two story addition to the School. The expansion includes a lunchroom, offices, conference center and other school amenities. Staff Notes: Use Review The proposed expansion complies with the regulations of the zoning district Single Family Residential One Acre (SFR-1A). The expansion would fulfill the needs of the school faculty and children. The use does not interfere with the residential character of the area. There are no anticipated impacts on public services or facilities. The applicant has supplied drawings representing the two expansions. Circulation, Parking and Traffic The expansion of the facilities also includes site improvements for sidewalks, parking areas, and traffic circulation. The School Facility expansion includes a loop road connecting the administration parking area to the school parking area. The loop will be utilized to 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) facilitate circulation around the school and deter a sporadic entrance flow. The increased parking area near the administration building will be used mainly by staff. The need to increase the number of parking spaces is to accommodate for the employees of the facility. There is an increase in sidewalks that provide access to the new school addition and access to the existing administration building. The Main Center is currently a one way traffic flow that accommodates pick up and drop off. This area is designated with signs. The Main Center parking will also be increased to accommodate for additional staff and clients. The design does not appear to interfere with one-way traffic flow. The plans identify additional sidewalks to the new school portion. Upon a site visit there appeared to be significant pedestrian travel between the School Facility and the Main Center. Additional pedestrian controls may assist in the crossing this area. Site Amenities The additions are located in a manner to facilitate the schools needs and is compatible with the existing buildings. It is assumed the additions will contain some security lighting at the new entranceways. The plan shows an additional parking light pole for the School Facility parking area. The site plan for the School facility includes some planting for the new addition. There are no proposed landscape improvements for the Main Facility. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan for a 2,740 sq. ft. addition to the Main Center, an 8,100 sq. ft. addition to the School Facility, and an increase in the parking area to accommodate 190 vehicles for the entire campus. Additional landscaping for both facilities would be encouraged.” MR. MAC EWAN-And we have a Rist-Frost letter today. MRS. MOORE-Dated February 22, 2000, “Rist-Frost has reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced application and has the following comments: 1. Drawing SP-2 does not show final grading. 2. The parking and sanitary sewage calculations do not mention additional usage due to the added conference rooms. If these rooms will be used by outside personnel, the applicant should submit design rationale to incorporate this usage. 3. The sanitary sewer design does not provide room for future replacement. 4. Will the new Aquatic Therapy Center flow into the new septic system? 5. The absorption trench detail on Drawing SP-2 does not show width of trench. 6. Drawing SP-2 and the project narrative note that 50 new parking spaces will be added to the Prospect School site. Only 48 spaces are drawn. 7. The applicant should justify that the Main Center’s existing sanitary system will accommodate the new addition. 8. The stormwater management report stated that two (2) new 8 ft. by 8 ft. dry wells would be provided, one (1) for the additional impervious pavement area and one (1) for the additional building area for the Main Center, but Drawing SP-1 only shows one (1) new 8 ft. x 4 ft. dry well. 9. The stormwater management report stated that four (4) new 8 ft. x 8 ft. dry wells and 160 lf. of infiltration trench would be provided at the school for the additional impervious pavement area and roof, but Drawing SP-2 only shows 160 lf. of infiltration trench and two (2) new dry wells. 10. The new infiltration trench and the new septic system are only separated by approximately +/- 2 ft. Is there a possibility of interference and reduced effectiveness?” MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County. Is this one of the ones that fell under that humungous default approval? MRS. MOORE-Correct. I will indicate Mr. Jones has addressed Mr. Levandowski’s comments. He hasn’t been able to submit them to Rist-Frost for their review. He did provide 10 new updated copies and a copy of their response to Mr. Levandowski this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-So the nine Rist-Frost comments today have all already been addressed. MR. LAPPER-We only got the letter today. So they’ve been addressed today. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we did, too. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’re prepared to talk about all that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. Next to me is Larry Gouge, the Executive Director of Prospect School, and Richard Jones, the Project Architect. I will ask Larry, first, to give you some general comments about the project, and then we’ll have Dick go through the site plan and then address the issues. For the record, I’m not just an attorney for Prospect School, I’m also a member of the Board of Directors. The School performs a very important community service. I presume that you’re all aware of, and although this expansion, square footage wise, is not large, in comparison to the existing facility, it’s very important, just because they’re bursting at the seams. So it’s very important to the usefulness of the facility. One issue that I’d just like to mention up front, in the Staff notes, the crossing, the crosswalk across the street connecting the two facilities is only used by Staff, not for patients and clients. They would all be taken by vehicle across the street, just on a safety basis. So we feel that we’d like to propose, to start with, that signage be added on the street, indicating to drivers that there is a crosswalk, and asking the Town Board to reduce the speed in 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) front of the School, as they have done in front of the Queensbury Schools, and if it turns out that that is not sufficient, maybe we’d look at, we’d certainly look at other means, in the future, signalization or what have you, but at this point, we don’t think that that’s necessary, but it’s certainly a valid issue that was raised by Staff. With that said, I’d like to turn it over to Larry. LARRIE GOUGE MR. GOUGE-Thanks, Jon, Larrie Gouge. I’m the Executive Director of Prospect Child & Family Center, and this project’s been in the works, from a discussion point of view, for several years because we have increased needs in terms of space. We currently have staff that are in areas that are designed for storage purposes, and the field that we’re in has become hi-tech, like a lot of fields. The children have electric equipment, computers, and other things. So storage has become a significant issue, and it’s just become quite crowded. We do, as an organization, provide services to children with development disabilities through a pre-school and school age program. We provide early intervention and evaluation services of children who are thought to have a disability, as well as an increasing amount of outreach services in Warren/Washington and Northern Saratoga Counties. We provide therapy services not only on our site but in those Counties, in people’s homes, and on different sites, and that’s just a real short synopsis of what we do. MR. JONES-What I’d like to do, my name is Richard Jones, the architect for the project, just give you a brief overview of the project. The site plan, SP-1 that you’re looking at here, is for the Main Center. This is the building that sits on the north side of Aviation Road, along Mountain View Lane. Mountain View Lane is running in this direction. Aviation Road parallel to the bottom of the sheet. The existing Main Center building is outlined in this general area. The addition that we’re looking at is basically for offices and some conferencing space. We’re looking at placing that on the back side of the existing structure. The last addition that was done, several years ago, is right about in this area right here. There was an addition of two classrooms and some small office space. In addition to the addition on the back side, we’re looking at doing a small increase in the parking on site as well. Currently, the parking that exists along the front and the side toward the fire station is utilized by handicap and visitors to the site and some staff who are on this site. Other staff members, as has been indicated, park across the street and do come across the crosswalk area here, across Aviation Road. The existing site, the playground area sits to the backside. We’re taking this small storage area that currently exists in this general location and pushing it back. This is currently used for on-site storage. We’re going to push that to the back, and incorporate additional parking here of about eight spots. In addition to the building addition, we’re looking at re-locating one dry well. There’s currently one dry well located in this area for roof drainage on a portion of the existing building. We’re relocating that and adding another dry well for the additional roof drainage in this general area. We’re also incorporating a drywell in the area where we’re incorporating the new parking, along the front side. Currently, the slope runs from the back side of the parking toward Aviation Road. We would use this to cut off the drainage in that area where we’re providing the new parking. The second site that we’re looking at is actually for the Main School building, and this sits on the south side of Aviation Road. Aviation Road, again, toward the bottom of the sheet. There are currently two existing buildings that sit on that site. This is the Prospect School, the larger of the two buildings. This is the small administrative building that was built approximately five years ago for Prospect School, and we’re looking to do an addition, basically, between the two. The addition would be connected to the Prospect School, and we would not be connecting to the administrative building. Part of the process that we’re looking at, we have existing classroom space that’s sufficient for the Prospect School. We’re looking to add space for staff. As Larrie Gouge had indicated, staff is located currently in closets and any small storage space that we have in the building, and what we’re looking to do is provide space for them for conferencing on the main level, some open office space, plus some private offices, as well as the therapy center here on the back side. The second floor would be incorporated into a conferencing space that would be utilized by staff and personnel associated with Prospect School and clients. We’d be providing an elevator for handicap access to the second level. As part of the project, the existing parking sits here to the east side of the existing Prospect School. We’re looking to expand the parking that’s associated with the existing parking lot adjacent to the administrative building. We’d be incorporating 50 new parking spaces on the back side, and creating a series of walkways that would allow people, and basically this is for staff only, to come into the new building addition and the west end of the existing Prospect School. The existing building, again, we’re relocating some dry wells for the existing roof drainage system along the front side, and we’re also providing some new dry wells for the roof drainage on the proposed addition. On the back side we’re doing dry wells for infiltration in the parking area, as well as an infiltration along the, what would be the low side of the parking. Basically, the slope is coming from the west to the east, across that area. So we’re looking at sheet drainage. Our new septic field is located in an area parallel to the parking, and the back side of the existing Prospect School. Again, there is an existing playground area here on the back side that we would like to maintain. We’re looking at this becoming a one way ingress into the site. We would like vehicle traffic for employees and staff to come in at this location, park either along the administrative area or the back parking lot, or come through and park in this area. The east most entrance into the existing parking is basically ingress and egress. The parking or the ingress that’s adjacent to where Mountain View Lane comes into 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) Aviation is basically for bus traffic. Right now the buses come in and line along the curb area here along the front side of the building, and we would maintain that, but we would like to do this in a two way situation, this one way coming in. So that we can basically get traffic coming around the site. The basic addition that we’re looking at, and we’ve done a colored rendering here of the proposed two story addition for the School, which is on the south side. This is the Aviation Road elevation. This is the existing single story Prospect School. This is the proposed two story addition, and this is the existing administrative building. Currently, the administrative building has blue vinyl siding on it, pitched roofs. The existing Prospect School has a combination of brick veneer and a stoe material, an insulated material, for soffits. What we’re looking to do is take the brick and the stoe material and introduce that into the two story addition, as you see here, and we’re trying to make this with the pitched roofs. This is actually the west elevation that would run parallel to the parking lot on the west side. We’re trying to introduce pitched roofs in so that we can carry through the pitched roofs on the existing administrative building. Our thought is, here, that we will take the siding and actually put brick veneer on that building so that we can unify the buildings into one campus plan for Prospect School. This would be the main entry into the building. This is the therapy center, to the back side, which is basically single story. This is the two story that we’re looking at that would sit between the two. This is, as I said, the Aviation Road side. This is the west elevation, and that’s basically what we’re looking at as far as the plan. What I’d like to do is talk briefly about the Rist-Frost comments. We basically, as I had indicated, addressed those comments today. Laura has a copy of that letter. Basically, the grading has been totally indicated now on Drawing SP-2. We lacked some grading in the general entry area into the back building where the addition occurs. Comment Number Two, basically staff and clients will use the conference spaces that are proposed in the building. The addition that’s proposed for the Main Center, as I’d indicated, basically, right now staff are in closets and storage spaces within the building. We’re moving them out of those spaces, basically so that we can free up the space for classroom use, as well as the storage spaces for the class rooms, and we’re placing the staff back in here. We’re basically gaining two additional staff at the Main Center. We’re not adding anybody above and beyond that. The future replacement area for the septic has been indicated here on the back side, as requested by Rist- Frost. The Aquatic Therapy Center, we’re currently working with some of the equipment people right now for the sizing of that equipment, and it is not our intent to have the water or any runoff from that, go into the septic system. We’re currently looking at doing some type of on-site dry well system for that, and with the actual selection of the equipment, we’ll be getting more information from the vendors, and we will be able to size that. At the current time, we’re looking at something probably in the neighborhood of an 8 by 8 dry well, located somewhere adjacent to the back portion of the building for that. The absorption trench, that would be 24 inch width in the back, and the parking spaces in the back do add up to 50. We had left two spaces out here on the lower side. The dry wells, we had indicated the new dry wells for the roof drainage for the building, and we also have two dry wells which are indicated back here in the parking lot, which are the other two that Rist- Frost was talking about at the Prospect School. At the Main Center, again, we have one dry well that’s being added for the parking, as well as one new dry well, 8 by 8 dry well, for the roof drainage. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are the dry wells on the parking lot? MR. JONES-They’re not shown on your plan. They’re on the revised plan that Laura has. MR. VOLLARO-Are all of these things now on the revised plan? MR. JONES-Yes, they are. Yes, we addressed all that . MR. VOLLARO-We really haven’t had a chance to look at those at all. MR. JONES-No, and we realize that. It was our hope that we would be able to address those with Rist-Frost, before the meeting, but unfortunately because of the timing of getting the fax late this afternoon, we couldn’t do that. That basically addresses the comments from Rist-Frost. I’d be happy to answer any questions that any Board members may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, it’s very nice. I think as long as it meets all the Codes, it’s great. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to stick to the same thing that I said before. On all of these septic questions, Rist-Frost has a lot of septic related questions here. Rather than get into them, I just want to make sure that the septic systems will comply with Chapter 136 of the Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, per 179-16G, and I would like to see a statement on a drawing to that effect. Because when I look at a drawing, it represents to me almost two thirds of what I use for an approval, and if I could have a statement like that on the drawing, that this complies with 136, then I’d be out of the septic business, and I’m glad to get out of it. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. LAPPER-We’ll take care of that. That’s totally appropriate. I just wanted to ask one more question. Does the stormwater management plan get revised at all, as a result of Rist-Frost’s comment number four, as far as the Aquatic Therapy Center is concerned? MR. JONES-It’s really not stormwater. It’s more process water from the equipment. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that, but I could almost equate that to clean water, and it’s got, there will be a lot of it, and I’m just wondering whether it ought to be addressed in any way in this stormwater plan, based on the fact that you’re proposing a large dry well to handle that. MR. JONES-We’re talking, volume wise, about 1200 gallons. That’s why we felt an 8 by 8 dry well would be sufficient. The volume of the dry well is about 840 gallons, not counting infiltration. So we feel that it’s adequate for that runoff, if that’s the type of thing we’re dealing with. The thing that we’re not sure of right now is what equipment we’re going to be using, and that’s why we haven’t indicated anything at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, if you use these health spas or health pools, whatever they’re labeled, and they hold 1200 gallons, I’m assuming it’s chlorinated water. Right? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you dump that into a dry well? I would think that would have to be treated. MR. JONES-We’d be going through a processing type regeneration type tank. We’re going to be re- circulating the majority of it, but we will have some that will be backwash from that, and it will be treated prior to disposal. It’ll be part of the treatment for the equipment, with the equipment I should say. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have some documentation that backs that up? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re in the process of getting that. In fact, we’ve requested the information and we’re anticipating getting that information, plus a small video that we’re hoping to be able to show to the client. MR. LAPPER-Because the equipment hasn’t been picked out yet, what might be appropriate would be to have Rist-Frost look at that some time in the future and to have any site plan approval conditioned upon that, just to let them pass on the engineering of that process for treating the water and the sizing of the drywell, some months down the road, when the equipment is all determined. MR. MAC EWAN-You think it’s going to be some months down the road before that’s determined? MR. JONES-I’ll bet it’s at least a month away, yes. There’s quite a few vendors who have the equipment, and what we’re trying to do right now is narrow down the ones that we feel are going to provide us with the equipment that best suits the facility. There’s so many options that are included. We want to make sure, and at this point we haven’t been able to meet with the therapist from the Center, with the information. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not going to tell me you’re on a deadline, right? MR. LAPPER-No, but either way, an eight by eight foot drywell is not that significant, and we’d certainly come back and have that looked at. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not the significant thing in my mind. The significant thing is how you’re going to treat that water before it’s discharged. That’s the significant thing in my mind. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So, perhaps we could leave that as a condition, that that would require Rist- Frost’s review, and if they felt it was appropriate, we’d come back and talk to you about that aspect of the design. It’s not very important in terms of the site plan. It’s more of a process thing. It’s certainly something that you need to look at before the building permit is issued. MR. VOLLARO-Was there a lighting plan submitted with this, or not? MR. JONES-Yes. We basically have indicated a new light pole at the parking area on the Prospect School side, which would be the south side. There’s one located in the center of that parking. We’re doing lighting at all of the entrances and exits out of the building additions. The building on the north side, the Main Center, we’re adding some lighting around the, what would be the east side of the parking area where we’re creating a new parking lot. There’s quite a bit of lighting currently along both the south and the overhang at the overhead door on the east side of the building, but we 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) would be supplementing that with another wall light on that side. I’m not sure if that was indicated or not. MR. VOLLARO-I guess Larry would know the answer to this more than I would. Is there any light from the fire station that plays on that parking lot that’s adjacent to the fire station? MR. RINGER-No. We have just very limited lighting on the doors at the firehouse. MR. JONES-There’s existing lighting on the east end of the building. There’s some wall packs on that side, some high pressure sodium wall packs. MR. RINGER-The light pole on the south side, in the back parking lot, that’s 25 feet high? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. RINGER-How close are you to Willow Street or Willow Road? I mean the back yard of some of those houses have got to be pretty close to the end of that parking lot, I would think, somewhat close to those light poles. MR. JONES-We’re probably in excess of 150 feet from that area, I would say. MR. RINGER-From the property line? MR. JONES-Not from the property line, no. We’re probably about 100 feet to the property line, maybe 80 to 100 feet. MR. RINGER-I’m just wondering how that 25 foot light is going to reflect over into that neighborhood. MR. JONES-We’re about 110 feet to the property line. We’re about 100 to 110 feet from the back property line with the light pole. The light pole that we’re proposing would have the low cut off. One of my concerns, and I mentioned this to Planning some time ago, in the Town, seems to be the amount of spillover from lighting fixtures that’s occurring, and I’ve seen it quite a bit in some of the new stuff that’s been developed in the Town, in the last two or three years, and it’s been a concern of ours, and that’s why the pole that we’re proposing with the fixture would have the cutoffs on them to keep the light in the parking area. It’s becoming a real issue, I think, and I think we need to address it, and that’s why we’ve done that with that fixture. MR. RINGER-I can see some concern for the people there. Most of those houses on Willow are two story, and I don’t know how high the tree level is there, but they could be looking right at those lights. MR. JONES-The trees on the back side are in excess of 25 feet. That’s part of Van Dusen’s property in there, which I think at one point might have been part of the old watershed property. It’s all the tall pines in that area. MR. RINGER-Another question, perhaps another concern of site plan, right next door you have, the City has their chlorine plant there or whatever, a building loaded with chlorine and other chemicals. Has that ever been addressed by Prospect School, what’s in that building or what effect it may have? MR. GOUGE-Actually, it has. We have a disaster plan that also has the contingency if there were some type of leak in that building, that we would do a shutdown, and have met with the gentleman from Warren County who is in charge of the disaster planning, and have talked to him about that, and also, he’s looked into a number of issues that we’ve had, in terms of that, we are of the understanding that, since it’s been upgraded, there’s less of a concern than there was several years ago, at least, in terms of any potential problems. MR. RINGER-Being a member of the fire service with Queensbury Central, I’ve responded at least five times in the two years to a leak at that building, and I was always curious as to what Prospect School was doing, because there are so many chemicals, and chemicals that they don’t even know in the building what they are. MR. GOUGE-Right. MR. RINGER-I’d be afraid to go in the building when the chemicals are leaking, and I was just more curious, I guess than anything else, as to whether Prospect School was. MR. GOUGE-Yes. It’s a concern that we’re certainly aware of, in terms of if chlorine gas was to escape, the last thing you’d want to do is to go outside the building as well. You would want to stay 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) in, and we do have a plan to shut down all of the ventilators and the air and heat systems or whatever, in terms of that. MR. METIVIER-It’s my understanding, will there be an increase in pedestrian traffic, and I know not students, but the faculty crossing the streets? MR. GOUGE-I don’t know that there would be an increase, there would be an increase over what we currently have. It would be about the same. MR. METIVIER-And you have an issue with the traffic now. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Well, what I had said is that what we would propose, in response to Laura’s comment, would be to ask the Town Board for signage for a pedestrian crosswalk and ask them to lower the speed limit in front of the School as well, but for the most part, the employees park on the south side and go north, and since there’s only going to be two employees on the north side, at least during the morning rush hour, during the day there are employees who go back and forth, but that’s not when the road is so heavily used, but they also realize that, in the future, it may require some signalization. We would propose this, as a way to address it now and just to see how it goes, if traffic increases, in other words. MR. PALING-There seems to be quite a few different things you’re going to do, the lighting plan, and I’d like to see an overall lighting plan, so we can make a judgment on it, because that can be quite an annoyance to the neighborhood, and you’re adding several different fixtures or poles, and we don’t really know what they are. MR. LAPPER-Most of the lights are building mounted, except for the one pole in the parking lot. MR. PALING-That’s a 25 foot pole? MR. JONES-Yes. That’s similar to what sits in the other parking lot on the east side of the existing. MR. LAPPER-Is that 25 feet also? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. PALING-It has a box fixture on it. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Probably if it was lower you’d have to have more than one fixture. MR. MAC EWAN-The area where you’re parking 26 cars, you don’t have any pole lights out there proposed? Everything is lit from the building? MR. JONES-Which building? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m asking you. MR. VOLLARO-We’re on site plan two, SP-2. MR. MAC EWAN-The back parking area that’s closest to the Willow Road property, you have that one 25 foot light pole there. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The parking area that has the 26 cars in front of, the administrative building. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How are you lighting that one? MR. JONES-That is lit right now off of the building here, and we’d be proposing more lighting here. MR. MAC EWAN-More lighting where? MR. JONES-Off of the entrances here. We have an entrance coming in to this center here, of the addition, and then one in between the two buildings. We’d be lighting in this general area. MR. VOLLARO-Are these going to be pole mounts? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. JONES-No, they’d be building mounted lighting. MR. VOLLARO-Building mounted. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Now they should probably be shown on the drawing of the proposed addition. MR. JONES-Yes. I don’t think we showed any of the building mounted lighting on this one, but we did on the other site. MR. LAPPER-If the Board wants to see a lighting plan, we could certain come back, next time, with a lighting plan. That’s totally appropriate. MR. PALING-I’d like to see a lighting plan. Would you give consideration to making that two poles instead of one 25 footer? MR. LAPPER-We’ll look at that. MR. PALING-That might help possibly with annoyances. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. PALING-And are you going to do anything more with landscaping? MR. LAPPER-Dick has augmented that in response to the comments today. We realize that right now it’s pretty stark, and he had already proposed an increase in landscaping and now that’s going to be increased even more. MR. PALING-And we’ll see that. MR. LAPPER-That’s on the plans. MR. JONES-The SP-1 drawing, which is for the Main Center, the building addition is on the back side. We were not adding any landscaping to that one, because the existing tree line along the north side of the property was being maintained. There is quite a bit of planting along the west elevation and the Aviation Road side near the entries. At the Prospect School side, which would be the south side of the property, we had indicated a fair amount of new landscaping around the building addition. The existing administrative center is fairly well landscaped at the present time. The existing Prospect School, it gets pretty sparse along the, what would be the Aviation Road, the north elevation, and the east elevation. We were looking at introducing street sized maple trees down through along the Aviation Road elevation. One of the things that we wanted to look at was doing some additional planting along this elevation of the existing building, and we haven’t indicated anything further at this point, but we can certainly address that. MR. PALING-Are you saying that you’re coming back, we’re going to see you again with these changes? MR. LAPPER-If you would like to see a lighting plan, we’ll come back with a lighting plan. MR. PALING-And landscaping here. MR. ABBOTT-On SP-2, where does the current parking lot on the administration building side currently end and the tree line begin at this point? MR. JONES-This area here is what you’re talking about? MR. ABBOTT-Yes, going back. MR. JONES-It currently ends right there. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. So, how many, we’re losing how much green space there? MR. JONES-What we’re doing is removing tree line from approximately here, back through into here, and then we’re cutting the road through, or on the back side. So we’re maintaining everything along the property lines. This is approximately 20 feet along the back property, and we’re going from roughly five feet at the intersection with the existing, to about 25 feet here on the back corner. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. ABBOTT-What’s the setback of the road from the back of the property line? MR. JONES-Right here it’s about 20 feet. MR. ABBOTT-And what’s the nature of the tree line there? MR. JONES-It’s basically pines and a lot more pines. I think it’s basically pines. MR. ABBOTT-Because I know on the other side of the School, if you’re sitting in that parking lot, you can clearly see the houses behind you, and I’m wondering how much more, you know, from the other side of the building now, you’re going to be able to see the houses and conversely the neighbors look through to the. MR. JONES-What we’re doing is we’re cutting the roadway through, but we’re leaving this grouping of trees in this general area. The existing playground fence comes along the back side, and then comes back around to the corner. The existing tree line is right about in here. What we’re doing is cutting out the trees in this area to expand the parking, and then we’re cutting a swath down through for the one way roadway, but we’re leaving this area of trees in here. So you’d have a row of trees approximately 20 feet, the drive, and then tree line that would probably be anywhere from 25 to 40 feet in depth. MR. ABBOTT-In talking about the additions, there wasn’t talk of increasing the number of staff or clients that greatly, but yet you’ve increased the number of parking spots by at least 50 at this point. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. ABBOTT-Could we talk about that? MR. JONES-Sure. If you’ve been out to the site, you’ve realized that there is a parking problem. In looking at the Zoning Ordinance for the Town, this is not a typical school, whether it be primary or secondary. It’s a kind of a hybrid in that the staff ratio to students is a lot higher than a normal school, and I think that’s basically what has created the problem with the parking on site. That’s why when we looked at the total number of staff, and that type of thing, we felt that 50 additional parking would be adequate for what we were looking at, plus the eight on the other side would give us a few additional for visitors and that type of thing. So our staff to student ratio is a lot higher than a normal school. That’s why we’re proposing the additional parking that we’re looking at. We really need the parking on site. MR. ABBOTT-So you definitely need the 50 spots? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It’s just not one teacher for 25 kids. MR. ABBOTT-Right, I understand. MR. RINGER-Hours, what are the normal hours? MR. GOUGE-The school program goes on from approximately 8:15 to 2:15 to 3:00, and then we have some smaller programs in the evening, some respite programs. They’re much smaller, and we go by, while we’re open 12 months a year, we go by a school calendar, a six week summer program. We do have staff on site during those non-program times, but it’s not nearly as busy at that time. MR. RINGER-The evening hours go nine o’clock, ten o’clock? MR. GOUGE-We have one night a week we’re here until ten o’clock for an evening respite. So, families can bring children with significant developmental disabilities and handicaps and drop them off at the Center at six o’clock, and pick them up around 9:45. MR. MAC EWAN-And which side, is that the older school? MR. GOUGE-Yes, that’s on the north side, yes. MR. RINGER-So on the south side there’s nothing going on in the evening? MR. GOUGE-No, generally speaking, no. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Would there be with this addition? MR. GOUGE-No. There might be with the Aquatic Center, but I think most of that would be during the day, not during the evening. MR. MAC EWAN-No faculty meetings, administrative meetings or anything like that in the evening hours? MR. GOUGE-Very rare that I can think of. Occasionally, early evening, we have parent conferences. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you’ll have your annual open house. MR. GOUGE-We have, yes, a fall party, which is a fundraiser. MR. MAC EWAN-You talked about the ingress/egress as making this a one way loop, coming in on the west side administrative building, circling around and coming out on the other side of the School, correct? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-One of the concerns I have, and maybe you’ve already addressed it with your hours of operation, is that in the evening hours, a potential for headlight wash going into, you know, the Willow Road area, because once you expand this property, you’re only talking a 20 foot green space, buffer between your access road and your property line, which really isn’t all that much, and with headlight wash, it could be a significant thing, if you have a lot of activities in the evening hours, or a potential for a lot of activities in the evening hours. MR. LAPPER-Could we address that with some low plants along the cut? MR. JONES-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-Would it be cheaper to put up a fence? MR. LAPPER-It might look nicer to plant some stuff, but we’ll look at it both ways. MR. MAC EWAN-And the other question I had for you, you talked about reducing the speed limit on Aviation Road. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s my understanding, and jump in any time, Betty, if I miss on this one, that’s done by Warren County? BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-It’s done by the State. The application comes to the Town, and then it’s forwarded, probably through the County, but the State’s the one who comes and sets the speed limit. MR. LAPPER-I thought that was a Town road? MRS. MONAHAN-It doesn’t matter who it is. We do not have the right to set the speed limit. MR. MAC EWAN-The question I would ask you is, Prospect School, for all practical purposes, is like a private school. Are you under the same kind of guidelines as like a public school, like Queensbury School or Glens Falls Schools? What I’m thinking of, instead of going through the exercise of trying to get the speed limit reduced on a road which may be virtually impossible to do, what about putting up school lights, you know, school zone lights, like they have in front of Queensbury School? MR. LAPPER-You mean flashing lights? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that are on during your school hours. MR. JONES-Would we need approval from the State on that as well? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. I’m asking that question. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. LAPPER-That sounds like a good suggestion, and we could look into that. I think we’d still have to go to the Town Board and ask them first and foremost, but that sounds good. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Nothing else? Any other questions from Board members? We’ll open up the public hearing. If anyone wants to come up and address this application, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED J.C. WILLIAMS DR. WILLIAMS-Gentlemen, ladies. Good evening. I’m J.C. Williams, a resident of Willow Road, and I want to know, I’m very sympathetic to the comments that have been made by all of you, certainly Mr. Ringer, in terms of concerns some residents may have in the perimeter, to the rear of this addition, on the south side, and I do not think the architect really has come up with very specific measurements and very specific ramifications when it comes to the effect of egress and ingress of the buses, of the lighting, and I think we need to be very, very specific about what we’re doing here. The Prospect School is an absolutely wonderful organization. To substantially increase the size of Prospect School reflects the needs that it is providing. Down the road, those needs may expand even further. Has anyone at any point in time, either on this Board or any other organization in the area, considered that a fine service delivery product like Prospect School not be located there at all, in the future. We have expansion problems going on now with the YMCA. We have expansion problems going on now with the Prospect School. Granted, multiple jurisdictions here. We have expansion problems going on with our library. Is it possible that great vision may sit here and say, maybe we need a new campus area to serve all these growing needs that the greater community is developing. So in short, I’d like to see that we really assess the whole big long range picture here. Prospect School could very well get bigger than it is now. The YMCA is planning to get big right now, and of course the library. So a visionary thinker might say, we need a campus area that’s not landlocked by residences, and hopefully I know Mr. Ringer and the others have addressed the specifics of the Prospect School, but let’s look at the big picture of what, where we’re really going, and very specifically, I’d like to see the architect be very, very, very specific when it comes to how many feet here, how many yards there, how much light wash going here. Because I think we’re talking about impact growth here. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JOHN DIFFEE MR. DIFFEE-My name’s John Diffee. I live on West Mountain Road, on the north side, behind Prospect. The only problem that I see, which they were talking about is possibly maybe, I don’t know if they plan on putting a light in there, but around eight o’clock is when I go to work, and I just have the problem of taking the left there onto Aviation Road, because of the traffic going in and out, and the clientele crossing. If it gets too much bigger, is the traffic volume going to be huge? Is there going to be a red light there? That’s the only problem that I see. MR. MAC EWAN-You come down Mountain View Lane? MR. DIFFEE-Yes, Mountain View Lane. MR. RINGER-Traffic coming out of the School, where it comes out onto Mountain View Lane, that’s where the problem is, or trying to get out onto Aviation Road? MR. DIFFEE-Yes, when I come out of my driveway, which is on the north side, I come out on Mountain View Lane, and I have to take a left onto Aviation. Right where that left hand turn is is where the crosswalk is. A lot of times in the morning, I look to the right and to the left, I get ready to go, as the traffic is going by, and then somebody always seems to be crossing. I was just wondering about that, if there’s going to be some kind of lighting there, to signal when somebody can or can’t cross, so it gives people a chance to get out, off that side street, if the volume gets really big. It’s a little bit of a problem now, but other than that, I don’t know what they plan on doing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? DON THORNE MR. THORNE-My name is Don Thorne. I’m a resident of Willow Road. I abut the southwest corner of the property. I did want to add my concerns to the quality of life issues, as far as the properties behind, on the south side of the property, and the concerns about lighting, and trees and green space, earlier. I was also interested of the overall height of the new building has been mentioned, that being a two story commercial type building would be considerably higher than 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) anything else in the area, including I also saw on the drawing it looked like towers. I’d like to know just how high those buildings really are going to be. I guess my third concern is continued expansion of Prospect School. There is considerable undeveloped land to the west of the property that’s now owned by the City of Glens Falls and others. Is there a grand plan that would include continued expansion to the west for Prospect School property? MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. We’ll get those questions answered for you. Anyone else? ROMAN JAROSH MR. JAROSH-My name’s Roman Jarosh. I’m on Crownwood Lane, and I’m on the north side of the Prospect School. Can you tell me how much square footage you’re actually putting in buildings and how much square footage you’re putting in parking? It seems like the expansion is more for parking than it is for building space, and then the road that you’re putting in connecting the two parking lots. Okay. Well, that’s a question that I have. It seems that you’re just putting down more blacktop, instead of instructional space, and then you’re going to have all that runoff. You’re just getting rid of more green space, that’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-In answer to your question, 2740 square foot addition to the Main Center, an 8,100 square foot addition to the School Facility, and an increase of 190 vehicle parking spaces. MR. JAROSH-And what’s the square footage of the parking spaces, and the road that they’re putting in, a 20 foot road? MR. MAC EWAN-Square footage of them? MR. JAROSH-Right, in relationship to the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get that answered for you. MR. VOLLARO-Is that basically for runoff, is your question really runoff? MR. JAROSH-For runoff and privacy, and green space. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. JAROSH-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Thank you. LEVI BROWN MR. BROWN-I’m Levi Brown. I live at 37 Willow Road. I want to preface my comments by saying I think the Prospect School does an outstanding job, educationally, and they’re good neighbors, but I have several points that I want to make to the Board, and to the audience. This, I believe, is the third expansion within the last 10 years. They’ve added to the parking lot. I’m not sure of the date, but maybe three or four years ago, took out maybe a dozen tall pines, and they didn’t put up any barrier. So from where I live, you can clearly see the parking lot, and the lighting does effect you in the evening. I think before that, they added the administration building. My concern is, when will it stop? We all know that, I believe, that services for disabled students will be increasing. The population in the area is increasing. The acreage that the Prospect School owns is not large. If this project goes through, what does that mean for future expansions? I am concerned about the two story building, from my house. Currently, the one story roof is just about at the skyline. If there’s a two story building with peaks on the top, it will clearly be in the skyline, and it could be clearly seen very easily through the pine trees. I’m also very concerned about locating a parking lot to the rear, and having a road going through the rear, because that road will be very close to the Prospect School line, which is probably roughly, I haven’t measured it, within 50 feet of the back of my house, maybe 75 feet. So I, again, I think Dr. Williams said something that I would like to second, that I think it’s time to look at other locations, be very aware that, I’m not here to say, not in my back yard, because Prospect School is there. They’ve done a good job, but this expansion is huge. Prospect School is surrounded by single family residences on all sides. I just think it’s inappropriate that this expansion is to take place in an area that’s surrounded by residential facilities, single family. There’s plenty of land in Queensbury that could be set aside. Again, if we think out of the box a little bit, maybe Prospect could hook in with some other educational facilities that have land that’s available. You are the people that are privy to that. Maybe it seems BOCES has a lot of land, maybe behind Queensbury School, but just keep in mind that this is a residential area, and it concerns all of us in that area that the expansion is going to be too big for the area that they have. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter that I’ll read into the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-It’s dated February 19, 2000, it’s addressed to the Planning Board. It says, “Dear Sir: I, Gary DeAngelo, have resided at 10 Dorset Place in Queensbury for the past 19 years. My property meets with the Main Center of Prospect School. First, I would like it to be known that Prospect School is a worthy cause and has done a wonderful job with the children. But I would also like it to be known that I oppose any expansion on the Northern side of Aviation Road. My reasons are that the noise level has increased dramatically over the years. By noise level I mean that I hear children loudly playing as if they are in my back yard. I hear regular maintenance of the property, such as mowing, etc. before 8:00 a.m. I also hear an outside intercom from time to time. I occasionally work late evenings and listening to this activity especially early in the morning makes it difficult. There are more residential properties adjacent to the Main Center and adding on to this would overcrowd the site and lower the value of said properties. I suggest that all construction be limited to the southern side where there is more land for expansion. Sincerely, Gary DeAngelo” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll leave the public hearing open. Can we get you gentlemen to come back up. A couple of questions. The height of the building, I’m assuming it’s not going to exceed 40 square feet? MR. LAPPER-Thirty-five feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Thirty-five feet, and that’s to the top of the towers? MR. JONES-Yes. The towers that we’re proposing are actually to provide covers for the mechanical equipment. What we’re attempting to do is keep those hidden. So we’ll be providing covers for that mechanical equipment area. MR. RINGER-You mean the air-conditioning and stuff will be covered by these? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. PALING-Does that cover in all directions? MR. JONES-It will be covered from probably at least in these directions. MR. MAC EWAN-What direction won’t it be covered from? MR. JONES-Probably the west, toward the City property, toward the water building. MR. LAPPER-Chlorine. MR. MAC EWAN-Really. That’s the front of your building. MR. JONES-It will be setting far enough back on that side that you won’t see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Square footage of the parking area and the access roadway. MR. JONES-That’s the Prospect Center and the administration side. The paved area that we’re looking at with sidewalks and paving is 150, if I add it up correctly. MR. LAPPER-We’re still at, well in excess of the permeability requirements. MR. VOLLARO-You only went up from 37 to 42. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not very much. MR. MAC EWAN-A question from a couple of the neighbors regarding ongoing expansions, future expansion. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess to start with, Prospect School, like many schools, being located in a residential area, is not inappropriate and not unusual for a school because you have the school kids that you’re educating. The site is certainly limited, in terms of what it can accommodate. If we looked at the Code, the 42% impermeable, I mean, it could go up to 70%, and still be within the Code, and make the whole thing a two story building. There’s no plan for that. There’s no need for that now. There’s no money for that now. Incrementally, the School has grown, but it’s been a little bit at a time. This is a major expansion, $1.35 million expansion, which is a big investment for the School, a lot of money that has to be raised, that’s being raised. There’s certainly no plan now to expand, and there’s not any anticipation that there’s going to be expansion needed, but it’s certainly possible in the future that there would be, as somebody said, as the needs grow, but at the same time, we’re mindful of the neighbors, and I think that the issues, it’s clear from what the neighbors said, that they mirror what the Board has said. So we’ve got to look harder at that buffer in the back by Willow, in terms of whether it’s additional plantings or a fence, and also looking at the lighting plan to make sure that they won’t, that that won’t impose on them. So those are concerns that we’ll address. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-I think in general that sums it up. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t know if it’s a question, but a comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Jones, is it possible to bring the parking lot, instead of having it on the slant, bring it down, and make it a, just bring it down, so you have, and maybe you could even make it more of a triangular shape, where you wouldn’t need to have that access road. It seems like there’s another way that you could configure that parking lot, where you could get more of a buffer, and also I wanted to, another thing was, they’re not turrets, these are just little hidden thingies? MR. JONES-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Can you see, when I look at this elevation, I can’t see them. MR. JONES-What you’re looking at is right here, in the background. It’s beyond the front. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you don’t see the peak. MR. JONES-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So are those lower than the front elevation here, on the north? MR. JONES-No, they’re higher. This is the eaves line of the front elevation here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but where’s the roofline of the front elevation? MR. JONES-Right there. It’s a flat roof on the front. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a flat roof. MR. JONES-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what had me confused. I thought that. Okay. MR. JONES-The whole thing isn’t pitched, no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, that’s what was confusing. Well, do you think maybe, I mean, obviously we’ve had a concern about the height of the buildings, and how much, I guess what Dr. Williams said, to have a little more specifics, even though we see it here, but then, and I’m pretty, I always think I have a pretty good eye for plans here, but I really didn’t understand what that was. I thought it was maybe the roof. So, the north elevation has a flat roof. MR. JONES-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The whole thing has a flat roof, except for these little projections that are coming out. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. JONES-Right, that’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I think it’s a beautiful looking building, but I’m concerned about that height there. Is that more aesthetics? MR. JONES-What we were trying to do is introduce some of the pitch roofs from this building to tie the entire building together, the campus. Right now, everything is flat roofs with equipment sitting on the roofs. We felt that, to best utilize the site, we needed to go two story, because of the limited areas. So we were looking at the two story addition here. This we were trying to mark entries into the building. This is actually for mechanical equipment for the therapy area of the building. This one runs from front to back. This is actually a spline that goes through the building. This one is for shortens. You’ll see a little hip right here. So this one is a shortened one at this entry. So we have a short one, the long one, and then this is just a single area on the back side of the building. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We had another project on Route 9. What’s the distance, what’s the height of the peak from the bottom? MR. JONES-We’re looking at 35 feet to that peak. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thirty-five feet, okay. MR. JONES-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because I think we have something in Town where there’s a, you can’t build anything more than 40. MR. JONES-Yes. The height in this area is 40 feet. That’s what’s allowed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. You’ve clarified that design in my mind. Now, back to the parking lot. I mean, that works nice and looks nice, but I’m just thinking about all the concerns of the people that have come up here tonight. If there’s any way that that parking could be, instead of being on the oblique, could be just brought down somehow. MR. JONES-Our septic field for the addition is here. Our replacement area is up in this general area. If we were to take this and start to rotate it, we are limited right here by the fence for the playground. We’re not going to be able to infringe closer to the building than that. Whether we would have enough room to rotate this and accommodate 50 vehicles, I think we’d probably end up being closer with the roadway here than 20 feet. We could certainly take a look at it as an option, but I’m not sure that it would work in rotating this thing this way. MR. RINGER-Why couldn’t the road come in in front of the parking lot or right behind the building? MR. JONES-Right here along the fence line? MR. RINGER-Yes, and come across that way. MR. JONES-It might be able to be accommodated. We’d foreshorten this a little bit on this end. So we’d pick up another roughly 55 feet here, as far as a buffer, rather than the 25. MR. RINGER-As I understand, the buses are going to come in and drop children off there. MR. JONES-The buses are all coming in here. MR. RINGER-So they won’t go into that back road at all? MR. JONES-No. This is strictly for staff and personnel for the building. The buses currently come in at this area, and go out this area, and that will not change. That’s going to continue. Staff comes in on this side to park in this area, but what we’re looking to do is try to keep this to ingress only. So that we don’t have people coming and going out of this one lot here. MR. RINGER-That road all the way around will be one way? MR. JONES-Yes, this would all be one way to this point. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-How much traffic comes out of Mountain View? I mean, does any, is there a lot? MR. RINGER-It’s hard to see out of because there’s a trailer park and trees in there. It’s hard to make that. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. VOLLARO-That entrance that you have is right across the way from Mountain View, as this gentleman said when he came up. MR. JONES-Yes. I think the entrance he was referring to is this one on the Main Center side. Again, bus traffic comes in, drops students off, and comes out, and this is a very tight relationship to the corner. MR. LAPPER-Again, we’re not adding students or staff except for two members of the staff. So this is really to accommodate the situation that exists now, which is inadequate parking, and more staff than the building can handle. So that it’s going to make the situation better internally, but it shouldn’t have any impact on the neighborhood, because it’s just not going to bring more cars or buses here. Also, in the back, and we can look at it both ways, but the neighbors on Willow might prefer to have the drive, which is protected, which has the tall pines on those islands in the front, because during the day, rather than having cars parked there, rather than having the cars park closer, they may prefer it the way it is. Because you’ll have cars driving periodically, but it’s mostly just going to be no parking there, but that, you know, whatever you want us to look at. MR. MAC EWAN-I think I’m kind of leaning toward the idea Cathy’s got here, is maybe seeing what you can do to reconfigure that back 50 space parking area, and re-doing the access road to pull it farther away from the property line. MR. JONES-Pull it closer to the fence line on the back of the playground. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We’ll look at that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Well, I guess, I think we’d be inclined to table this thing, and I’ve come up with a laundry list of six items, as we’ve been talking here tonight. Jump in any time anyone wants to add something or doesn’t think it’s significant. Number One, we’re going to address the Rist-Frost comments, which they’ve already done, but give an opportunity for Rist-Frost to review their responses. Okay. Two, I’m interested in the aquatic pool, and how you plan on discharging that water. I realize that you’re talking a little bit down the road, but I think that’s a pretty significant part of your project, and how you’re going to discharge that water and how you’re going to take care of it. Three, your ingress/egress to the site. You wanted to delineate some signage on your site plan to show that. Four, we’re looking for an overall lighting plan, inclusive of building lights, pole lights, and we’re looking at light wash, and how it effects neighboring properties. Five, and I’ll leave this one up to you, Mr. Lapper, is to look into posting speed limits on Aviation Road, more importantly, toward lighting like school lighting, flashing lighting during school hours, versus petitioning the Town Board or State government to change it legislatively, and, Six, address the buffering needs along that back access road, whether it’s intensifying the buffering you’ve got there with a fence or vegetation, or it seems like we’re more inclined to actually rather have you realign the access road and reconfigure the back 50 space parking area. MR. LAPPER-Could you clarify number three, ingress/egress? MR. MAC EWAN-Just on your site plan with signage. You talked about the administrative, the 26 parking area, that area, was only going to be ingress and not egress. So that needs to be denoted on your plan. Any other questions, comments, additions for this list? MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve pretty much got it covered. MR. MAC EWAN-Do I have a motion to table it? MR. ABBOTT-The middle entrance on the south side, is that posted, buses only, going in? I’d probably add that, make that buses only in the far side and out, what Craig just said about the one way. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking about that one there, buses only in. MR. VOLLARO-I guess he is. MR. MAC EWAN-Which entrance are you talking about, buses only? MR. ABBOTT-The middle one. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. LAPPER-The middle one. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t that parking lot also utilized by staff? MR. JONES-But the east most entrance is ingress and egress on that one. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. JONES-And most of the staff is coming in at the times when the buses are there dropping off the students anyway. So if we can keep them segregated, we’re probably better off. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-The far one on the west should be no buses. The one way should have a sign there for no buses. MR. MAC EWAN-Up here? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s what we’re talking about signage. MRS. MOORE-Remember also mentioned landscaping for both the School Facility and the Main Center, if that’s something you’re interested in including again. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. You said you submitted a landscaping plan that addressed some of Rist- Frost’s concerns, correct? Did you say that in the beginning? MR. JONES-Not a landscape plan that addressed those. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We have come up with a new plan. We will put that in writing. MR. JONES-We’ll do that as part of the buffering plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Both sides of Aviation, right? MR. LAPPER-There’s not much we can do on the north side, because in the front where you see the pavement is pretty much between the building and the road, and there’s already landscaping along Mountain View and in front of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do we have a motion? Does someone want to introduce a motion please? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: Until next month. [To address Rist Frost comments of 2/22/00; to provide lighting information for the Main Center and School facility (parking area and building lights); to provide additional information on the Aquatic Pool operation; to provide information on the ingress and egress of the Main Center and School facility, to provide information on the pedestrian crossing between the Main Center and School facility]. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd MRS. MOORE-Can I just provide information that the deadline date for March’s agenda is tomorrow. I apologize for that, but. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. I think something can be worked out. AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. GOUGE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED K & R SUPPLY OWNER: DAVE DYMINSKI AGENT: RICHARD GRAHAM ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 39 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A PORTION (3,200 SF) OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO OPERATE A WHOLESALE H.V.A.C. SUPPLY BUSINESS. THE PROPOSED USE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR A NEW USE TYPE IN THE LI ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9- 1989, AV 10-1989, SP 5-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-15.3 LOT SIZE: 1.80 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 RICHARD GRAHAM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-2000, K & R Supply, Meeting Date: February 22, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to utilize 3,200 square feet of an existing structure to operate a wholesale HVAC supply business. Planning Board review and approval is required for new uses in the Light Industrial Zone, LI-1A. Staff Notes: The building was constructed as part of Site Plan 5- 89 for Genesee Refrigeration business. The use is consistent with allowed uses in the Light Industrial zone. The parcel was also subject to an area variance AV10-1989 for frontage on a Town Road. The area variance was granted conditioned upon a shared access that is currently provided to a parcel adjacent to this one. The proposed use is similar to the operation of the Genesee Business with the wholesale of refrigeration supplies. The proposed use is compliant with the Section 179-26 Light Industrial Zones for a Wholesale business. The proposed business will utilize only a portion of the building for wholesale of HVAC supplies. Currently, there are two employees, the business owner and one other. There are no impacts on the existing site infrastructure or environment. The surrounding zone and uses are light industrial in nature. The applicant proposes one free standing sign that will be subject to the sign permit application. The applicant proposes no interior or exterior alterations to the building. The existing parking area is graveled and the plans indicate fifteen spaces. The site is able to accommodate additional parking if needed. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of K & R Supply to utilize a portion of (3,200 square feet) of an existing building for the wholesale business of HVAC supplies.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. GRAHAM-Good evening. I’m the applicant, Richard Graham. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little about your project, Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM-I basically want to do what I did when I worked for Genessee Supply, when we did an HVAC business. I just want to open up a wholesale store for the contractors in the area, a little supply house. MR. MAC EWAN-Who was in here, prior to you, wanting to use this building? I’m trying to remember. Do you remember, Laura, off hand who was using the site? MR. GRAHAM-I don’t know. MRS. MOORE-My information says Genesee Refrigeration business. I didn’t find anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that who was in there before? Okay. Is there anything else you wanted to add? MR. GRAHAM-No, that’s all I wanted. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. PALING-Your plan notes that it’s a retail floor. You don’t actually mean that, do you? It’s a wholesale. MR. GRAHAM-I’m a wholesale business. MR. PALING-You’re not going to retail. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. GRAHAM-I can’t, due to insurance. MR. PALING-Because it does say retail on the sheet. It says showroom/retail. MR. GRAHAM-No, I’m a wholesale business. MR. PALING-Are you going to do any repairs to the equipment involved? MR. GRAHAM-No. MR. PALING-Are you going to process refrigerant? MR. GRAHAM-No. MR. PALING-There’s nothing escaping. MR. GRAHAM-No, all I’m doing is selling. MR. PALING-Okay. What line of HVAC are you going to have? MR. GRAHAM-I handle Goodman, out of Texas. MR. PALING-Yes, that’s all I have, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: K & R Supply, 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. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2000 K & R SUPPLY, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As per resolution prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 11-2000, K & R Supply to utilize a portion (3,200 sf) of an existing structure to operate wholesale H.V.A.C. supply business. The proposed use requires Planning Board review and approval for a new use type in the LI zone; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/26/00, consists of the following: 1. Application w/drawings Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 2/22/00 - Staff Notes 2. 2/9/00 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution – Default approval due to lack of quorum 3. 2/16/00 - New Site Development data sheet and maps 4. 2/15/00 - Notice of Public Hearing 5. 2/4/00 - Meeting Notice 6. Previous resolutions and map for bldg. Genesee Refrigeration Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/22/00 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, 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/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 review is necessary. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. GRAHAM-Thanks. SITE PLAN NO. 13-2000 TYPE II FRED & LINDA MC KINNEY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 23 MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 494 SQ. FT. SUNDECK ON PRE-EXISTING DOCK TO REPLACE CANVAS CANOPY AND METAL FRAME STRUCTURE. PRIVATE BOATHOUSES AND COVERED DOCKS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL PER SECTION 179-16. LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION CROSS REFERENCE: AV 7-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 13-2000, Fred & Linda McKinney, Meeting Date: February 22, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 494 +/- square foot sundeck over a U-shaped dock. The sundeck will replace a canvas canopy cover. Planning Board review and 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) approval is required for the construction of a covered dock. Staff Notes: The existing dock was recently resurfaced due to storm damage. The applicant has evaluated the repair of the canvas cover system and determined the construction of the sundeck was a better avenue. The applicant received an area variance to obtain setback relief. The proposal meets all other requirements for the construction of a covered dock per Section 179-16 and 179-60. The proposed sun deck over the existing dock is at about the same heights as those of neighboring properties, so views down the bay won’t be impacted. The residence to the south has a higher elevation, assuring further that the sun deck will not intrude on views from that residence. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the construction of the sundeck.” MRS. MOORE-And I’ll just note, the applicant wasn’t able to attend tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, out of the country. Warren County approved by default? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have no one here from the applicant tonight. So, any questions, comments? It’s pretty well covered. MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty straightforward, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, no SEQRA is required. MRS. MOORE-Mr. MacEwan, you have to open your public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-I will open the public hearing. Thank you very much. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBOTT-I’ll make a motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2000 FRED & LINDA MC KINNEY, Introduced by Alan Abbott who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: As per resolution prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 14-2000, Fred & Linda McKinney to construct a 494 sq. ft. sundeck on pre-existing dock to replace canvas canopy and metal frame structure. Private Boathouses and Covered Docks require Planning Board review and approval; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/00, consists of the following: 1. Application w/drawings 2. Warranty Deed dated 4/19/96. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 2/22/00 - Staff Notes 2. 2/16/00 – ZBA resolution 3. 2/9/00 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 4. 2/4/00 - Meeting Notice 5. 2/15/00 – Notice of Public Hearing 6. 2/16/00 - ZBA resolution Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/22/00 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, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; 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 review is necessary; and Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll abstain. I didn’t get to visit it. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard MRS. MOORE-Mr. MacEwan, can I interrupt? Before we continue with the next applicant, Site Plan 12-2000, you should open the public hearing, and leave it open, and let the audience know that it’s been tabled. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2000 TYPE II KEVIN & MARYBETH MASCHEWSKI OWNER: JAMES & ROSEMARY DAVIDSON ZONE: WR-1A APA, CEA LOCATION: 73 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT A SEASONAL DWELLING INTO A FULL TIME RESIDENCE. THE PROPOSED ADDITION INCLUDES A 400 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR GREAT ROOM, A 350 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO MASTER BEDROOM AND A 595 +/- SQ. FT. DECK. CONVERSION OF A SEASONAL DWELLING UNIT AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA BOTH REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-69, 179-79 MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing for Site Plan No. 12-2000 for Kevin & Marybeth Maschewski, and we’ll leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SITE PLAN NO. 14-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED STEVEN SUTTON OWNER: WILLIAM P., JR. & PATRICIA LEONARD AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, P.C. ZONE: HC- 1A LOCATION: ROUTE 9, NORTH OF MONTRAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING INTO RESTAURANT INVOLVING CONSTRUCTION OF 2,170 SQ. FT. DINING DECK, PARKING FACILITIES FOR 49 VEHICLES AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. NEW USES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 10-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 2/7/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 68-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 14-2000, Steven Sutton, Meeting Date: February 22, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing structure with some exterior improvements to operate a restaurant. Planning Board review and approval is required for proposed uses in the highway commercial zone that include construction of new facilities. The applicant has also applied for and received an area variance for setback relief. Staff Notes: The structure was built in 1960 and utilized as an Insurance Office. The applicant proposes to renovate the inside for restaurant use. The remodeling also includes the construction of an outdoor patio and increase in the parking area. The proposed use will benefit from the clients that visit the variety of recreational uses and the newly installed sidewalks. The applicant’s plans have been forwarded to the Town’s Department(s) and Rist Frost Associates for review and comment. Traffic Circulation and Parking Area The applicant’s site plan indicates 49 spaces will provided on site, this exceeds the zoning requirements. Staff would recommend that the 17 spaces to the rear of the deck (east side of the lot) be reserved for future use upon demonstration by the applicant that additional spaces are needed after experiencing a restaurant season. This recommendation is based on an accurate portrayal of seating. Staff would request the applicant provide numbers pertaining to the amount of seating 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) within the building, and the amount of seating on the deck. The increase in pavement will include the removal of some vegetation and installation of dry-wells and septic system. The plans indicate existing vegetation to the rear of the property is to remain, this area is between 20 ft. to 40 ft. the site has two access points denoted with signs that request drivers to stay to the right. The circulation is directed to the parking areas in the rear. The provision of no parking in the front of the building and the addition of landscaping will enhance the restaurant. The “dining deck” appears to be an additional benefit to the site. The applicant should be asked to provide additional information concerning the additional amount of traffic to be generated due to the change in use, and present information on the turning movements. There are curb cuts for Skateland opposite the curb cuts for the proposed use. There will be additional traffic in the center turning lane, and those impacts should be addressed by the applicant. Landscaping and screening Although there is a significant amount of existing landscaping, additional landscaping and/or a fence to the rear of the property would further screen the proposed use from neighboring properties. Properties behind the deck area at higher elevations may still be able to view this use, but this is also true of the existing situation. Additional Site comments The drive area to the north of the building has a width of about 13.5 from the corner of the building. Emergency vehicles will be able to circulate around the entire building. Noise, smoke, and odor are potential concerns that should be considered with the proposed use. The plans do not identify existing or proposed lighting for the site. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan for the proposed Restaurant, and construction of a “dining deck”, with the condition 17 parking spaces to the rear of the property are removed, the amount of vegetation is increased, and further information concerning the amount of traffic impacts on turning movements be presented.” MR. MAC EWAN-They got an Area Variance, and Warren County. MRS. MOORE-Warren County was approved by default. I’ll go to Rist-Frost comments dated February 22, 2000, “Rist-Frost has reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced application and has the following comments: 1. Will any additional exterior lighting be proposed? If so, applicant should provide detailed information including type of fixture, height, pole or wall mounted, etc.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Steve Sutton, and Tom Nace. We see this as a major improvement to a 1960 building that’s in pretty poor shape in the corridor, a permitted use in the Highway Commercial zone, appropriate and a really nice improvement, architecturally, for what’s there. I just want to start out by showing you what the building looks like, compared to what’s there now. This is small and you probably can’t see it from a distance, but we’ve got the existing building, which has been for sale for about two years, and sitting there pretty much unchanged since 1960, and that architectural treatment, which is really going to be nice in that corridor. There are some other buildings, the old Gee Ray’s Restaurant, that was fixed up and has been sitting there, some vacant buildings, and other stuff that’s under utilized in that corridor, and this is just a positive change. In terms of Steve & Donna Sutton’s business, you’re all familiar with how they run the business, and the architecture of their buildings that’s been done by Jim Miller, who’s here tonight also, and this is going to be in keeping with the same high class way they run their operation and also the way they have the site designed. It is complimenting the Toy Cottage, which they did a very nice job on, and the furniture building as well. Steve, do you have any preliminary comments that you’d like to make? STEVE SUTTON MR. SUTTON-Not really at this time. I’d just like to say that this is planned to be a seasonal business, operating from about the first of May until Columbus Day. We think it fits in well with the area for what’s going on there with family type entertainment, and the thing that tourists look for, a place to come in and eat reasonably and have a clean, nice place to go. So we just think it fits the area. The opportunity came up, and we just had an idea for it from our years of traveling to Maine and the Cape and whatnot, and that’s where we got the concept, and so we just kind of think it fits in with the strip and everything that’s going on in our area. MR. NACE-Okay. I’ll walk you through the site plan real quick. What we’ve done, you can see on the layout plan, the existing building sits here. There are presently two curb cuts which the State just put in with the re-construction of Route 9 this year, and presently there’s an asphalt parking lot in front of the building. We wanted to get a better green buffer in front of the building and move the parking around to the side and the back, so we made this a circulation loop, brought traffic into our parking aisle, provided a good beefy landscape buffer in directly in front of the building, and also put some landscaping in the loop out here in front. Traffic circulation will be in to the site, parking. Traffic can either make the choice to either come out here, or come back out the way they came in. This also serves as a service access for deliveries to the restaurant. One of the comments from Staff was regarding the 17 parking spots in the rear. We’ve calculated the parking based on the square 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) footage. We’ve also checked it based on the number of tables and seats that you could actually get within the dining areas, including the deck. They both come out about the same. I think the most restrictive, or the most required parking was for the square footage calculation, but they were both within two or three spaces, and that comes out, I believe, at 42, and because of the way the thing laid out, we’ve provided 49. If we were to lose the 17, we would be well under the required parking, and well under the parking we think will be necessary. There are a couple of intervening properties behind this parcel before you get to the Twicwood area. I think if you look at your tax map, that the Town had plotted out, it’s about 350 feet from the rear of this property to the nearest residence up in Twicwood. Landscaping, Jim Miller Landscape Architect, not Jim Miller Architect, had done the landscaping here. I think we’ve provided a fairly good buffer in front, and around the deck. The lighting was one of the comments that Staff had, and I had not, it was just through a misplaced so something that I should have put on and I didn’t, the lighting I’ve shown here what we anticipate are three low, 15, 16 foot pole mounted style lights, probably of either a nautical theme or some sort of a colonial theme that would fit in with a seaport type of a look, and they would also be coordinated with lights, low wattage lights on the building or maybe on the edge of the deck railing to provide lighting for the deck dining area. They could also be, although we haven’t worked out the details. They could also be coordinated with sidewalk, low sidewalk type lighting also. MR. VOLLARO-What kind of lights would they be, Tom? Are you talking sodium or? What type of lights will they be, the pole lights? MR. NACE-What light source? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-I haven’t chosen it. It would depend on the actual fixture. We’re talking, as far as light levels, we don’t want anything too bright because obviously it would interfere with the dining. We want something just bright enough so that it’ll give safety access lighting to the back of the parking lot, and provide a little bit of spillover lighting onto the deck. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. PALING-The 350 foot distance to Twicwood, how is that measured, property line to property line? MR. NACE-I don’t have it in front of me. Staff had, attached to the zoning comments, or Staff comments from last week, had attached a copy of the GIS map that they have on the computer, and if you measure from the back property line, not to the nearest resident’s property line, but to the nearest house up in Twicwood, from our back property line. Here’s a copy of that. Here’s our property, and up here is the nearest house. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re just measuring it on the flat. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. PALING-Now there’s a question in Staff notes that talks about the plan indicates existing vegetation to the rear of the property to remain, and this area is between 20 to 40 feet. How big is that actually? MR. NACE-Okay. That is this area right here, and it is 20 feet, and over here it’s about 30 or 28 here, and it’s up to 40 I guess in here, but over at the narrow end here it’s 20. MR. LAPPER-That property in the rear is also zoned commercial. MR. PALING-South, the rear. MR. NACE-To the rear, to the east. MR. VOLLARO-To the east. I guess the biggest thing on that is to make sure that those existing trees do remain out back. They are probably the biggest buffer for the residential area. MR. NACE-Yes, and all we’re really doing here is the asphalt, and there is a dry well here and a dry well here, but, yes, that can be protected. MR. PALING-What time would you intend to close in the evening? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. SUTTON-The intention right now is around from 11 in the morning until 9 at night. MR. LAPPER-You could stay open later, potentially. MR. SUTTON-Potentially. MR. PALING-Then you could stay open later. Are you doing anything in particular about odor that may be given out by exhaust fumes? MR. SUTTON-Well, first of all I’d like to point out that we’ve been in the restaurant business for 17 years, and have never had a complaint on odors. We’ve served fish in our restaurant. We buy fish every Thursday and we serve it right on through Sundays. We wouldn’t be putting this investment in and having people eat out on the deck if we didn’t have every intention of keeping it clean, having an enclosed dumpster, using the deodorizers that are available today. MR. LAPPER-Which is exactly what you do now. MR. SUTTON-Right. So I really don’t feel that odor’s going to be an issue. I certainly wouldn’t be going into this, because the people that are eating there are, obviously, it’s not going to be conducive to eating, unless you have, you know, the right atmosphere, and any kind of bad smell would certainly not be the right atmosphere to sit on a deck and eat in the summer time. MR. PALING-Could we see a lighting plan? MR. LAPPER-There is a lighting plan now. It’s just these three external low lights. MR. PALING-And that’s it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SUTTON-Bob, the one thing that we were talking about before, the fact that we plan on closing before the leaves are down, I mean, we plan on closing at the end of the season. So it’s before things are defoilaged, and the fact that evenings are longer through the summer and what not, lights will really be a small part of this project. We’re not open at Christmas time, so to speak, when it’s 4:30 at night or whatever. MR. PALING-And the leaves are gone. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. PALING-That’s all I have for now. MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set for now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s fine. I think you’ve dressed up everything. It looks great. MR. VOLLARO-My only question was traffic along Route 9, if there’s an interface between the west side installations of Route 9 and these entranceways and exit ways here. MR. NACE-Okay. A couple of issues there. We have looked at the opposing, on the other side. I don’t have them on here. I did put them on a drawing that I’ve sent to Mark Kennedy for verification of using these curb cuts. They do line up, the entrances across the street are to Skateland, okay, and they’re fairly wide entrances, but they do line up about as well as you can, and obviously DOT was looking at that when they re-did the road, because the access management was part of their plans. Also, there’s that new center turn lane, which allows easier access into any of these sites, and we’re down one lot from Montray entrance. So the interference with that is certainly minimal. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a left turn lane into Montray, isn’t there, a left turn lane going into, kind of a cueing lane? MR. NACE-Well, there’s that free left turn, but, yes, as you get up to Montray, beyond our property line, it becomes marked as a left turn. MR. VOLLARO-I was just concerned about whatever cueing might set up on that. MR. NACE-It doesn’t cue back far enough to get into access interference. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot between this lot and Montray. MR. NACE-Right. There’s that lot that serves as the DOT stormwater basin. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else. MR. RINGER-Why not make one entrance in, one entrance out? Why do you have to have the two in and two out? MR. LAPPER-Partly the answer is because DOT just designed it this way. So those improvements have just been made, and it’s really DOT’s call, because it’s their road. We’d have to get a permit from the State to make any changes, and that’s why Tom had talked to Mark Kennedy at DOT, because they just did this. MR. MAC EWAN-The State doesn’t designate whether those ingress/egresses are one way or two way. MR. LAPPER-No, no. I mean, in terms of the location. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what he’s talking about. MR. NACE-Okay. As far as the one way, two way, we don’t want to force all the traffic back around the back of the building, okay. We leave that as an option to traffic to come out on the north side of the building. It actually makes, when you start looking at the traffic patterns, it makes the interference less, if we have both of them two ways. MR. RINGER-Why not make one entrance, one big entrance, instead of an entrance here, an entrance there? MR. NACE-DOT doesn’t, first of all, they don’t like big entrances because it doesn’t channelize traffic enough. MR. RINGER-I’m sorry I said big. I meant one that’s big enough to accommodate enough cars to get in and out. MR. NACE-Because DOT just did this, okay. MR. RINGER-And they would prefer to have two? MR. LAPPER-The floor works really nicely, the location of the building on the site, so that you’ve got, for deliveries, so that people can go around the building and go out again, without having to make a sharp turn to get back to the center entrance, on the north side. MR. NACE-Does that make sense? What he’s saying is if you do a single entrance, first of all, we need to get service traffic back here. If you do a single entrance in here, wherever it is, then you end up with some fairly sharp turns to get that truck traffic back around. This, for any delivery trucks coming in here, this makes a better exit, and for your main, this will probably end up serving 90% of the traffic, okay. MR. RINGER-Tom, you’re going to bring traffic in and around anyway. Why not bring it around and back out? I guess I’m not understanding what you’re telling me. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. RINGER-Say you bring all the traffic in on the south side, right there. If you bring them all the way around the building, they’re going to come out the same way they came in. MR. NACE-No. That’s what I’m saying. Most of this traffic will come back out here. It won’t circulate around the building. It’s probably only some of the people parked over at the end of the aisles here will actually come around the end of the building. This is primarily for service. Okay, but it just allows better circulation to get into here and out, and still allow some traffic to come in the other way. Delivery trucks can come in and exit back out, okay. The general traffic can come in either entrance, get to the parking. Most of that customer traffic is going to come back out and probably use this entrance. If this one happens to be stacked with people waiting to make a left hand turn, those people wanting to go right have an option to go by and come out to the other entrance. MR. RINGER-Chances are, you’re not going to get deliveries, if you’re open from 11 in the morning until 9 at night, your deliveries are probably going to be from 9 to 10 or 9 to 11. The deliveries aren’t going to occur when you place is open, probably. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. LAPPER-It’s simply, in order to allow the trucks to make that sharp turn, if they’re coming on the north side, you have to eliminate some of the landscaping in front of the building, to put more pavement there, closer to the building. MR. RINGER-So the trucks coming around the building to come back out to the. MR. LAPPER-Trucks coming around the building. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else right now. MR. METIVIER-Is this strictly for sitting down to eat and have ice cream, or is there going to be take out? MR. SUTTON-There’ll be some take out. MR. METIVIER-What about an ice cream window, walk-up window? MR. SUTTON-We’ve been tossing that around. We really haven’t made the decision which way we’re going to go on that, whether it’s going to be strictly sit down for the ice cream inside. MR. METIVIER-I just worry about the parking. How many tables did you plan on having inside? MR. NACE-Okay. When I figured out the parking, okay, I looked at it two ways. Your Code says one space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area, okay, and gross floor area including the deck is about 3800 square feet. So that’s 38 parking spaces. Then one for every two employees, and we figured at maximum there are probably eight employees. So that’s where we get our 42 parking spaces. Looking at the other portion of your Code, it says one space for every four seats, and I just took the areas that are there and started plopping some tables on, admittedly made it fairly close, and I came up with 140 seats, which gives me 35 spaces, plus four for employees gives me 39 required, versus 42. Okay. MR. METIVIER-Do you think you can seat 140 people in and outside? MR. NACE-That’s really the maximum, yes. MR. LAPPER-Staff is asking us to remove 17 spaces. We think that we have an extra seven more than the Code requires. So that’s sort of a compromise, if it’s very popular, that there’s seven additional spaces to accommodate. MR. METIVIER-I just wonder, if you are filled to capacity, and you have a window besides, what’s going to happen with your traffic flow? MR. LAPPER-It’s a sit down restaurant. Like most sit down restaurants, take out will be also available. MR. METIVIER-Right. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll jump back to your parking requirements. I’m curious about Staff’s response to their response regarding what the Code requires and what they have on their site plan. MRS. RYBA-Laura and I went through the calculations, and one of the reasons we came up with what we came up with for seating is because there’s nothing that was listed by the applicant regarding number of seats. So we had to go by the design flow, and that’s only 800 gallons per day, which comes up with 100 seats, and I know there’s a note on the plan that says that there would be disposable dishes and utensils, but that wasn’t really made clear, regarding the number of seats and the also the number of employees. So that’s why we came up with the recommendation for fewer parking spaces. The other consideration is a planning consideration, which is, if you’re going to try to get this area more pedestrian oriented, it would be useful to have people try to walk, and there are sidewalks here now. So that’s why we came up with the recommendation for fewer parking spaces. MR. LAPPER-We acknowledge that Suttons has ample parking at the furniture store, which is sort of a different peak hour than a restaurant, but because it’s a few lots down, it seems that 47 is a safe number and if you took out spaces in the back, the back’s buffered anyway. It’s not really going to make a big difference on any neighbors, and better than to have a parking problem, better to go ahead and spend the money and put the spaces in. It’s still a nicely buffered, nicely landscaped site. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-My guess is if you took out 17 parking spaces, it probably would make a considerable difference in buffering, but the question here, that we need to get to, is I share a lot of the concerns that Tony has regarding the potential for how busy you’re going to be there. I mean, if you’re intention is to kind of like compete with the scenario of Martha’s where you potentially could have a walk-up window to serve ice cream, and, you know, you can have a place where you can have fish dinners to go, I can potentially see a lot of traffic moving in and out of that site, and to have the amount of parking spaces you’ve got now, even not taking out those 17, I would question if that would be enough for you. MR. LAPPER-Well, you’re saying sort of both things. So, on the two few question, we would point out that Suttons is available, two lots down, with all of their parking, if necessary. On the too many, we think that it’s probably better to include the 17, which we think is 7 extra spaces, just to be sure, and still buffer the neighboring commercially zoned property. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I would say that if your hopes and ambitions are to have a walk-up window where you can serve ice cream along the idea of a Martha’s concept, I would prefer to see people park down in the bigger parking lot, down in front of Sutton’s and the Toy Store, down that way, than walking up to that window, versus trying to have a lot of traffic moving in and out of that site. Because we all know the problems that Martha has throughout the season. MR. LAPPER-We’re talking about seven spaces, the way we’ve done the calculations, and if you really want to see the seven spaces removed, we would remove them in a different spot, because for truck movement, we need some in the back there. If you want to see seven spaces dotted in as future spaces, if necessary, and not built, we can do that, but we don’t want to remove 17 spaces, because we think that’s just going to be a potential to have the congested lot. MR. VOLLARO-Well, as far as buffering is concerned, you either remove them all, or don’t remove any. That’s my opinion. I mean, it doesn’t make any sense, for me, to remove seven of them. MR. MAC EWAN-With your application, did you supply documentation as to how you came up with that? I mean, they’re using some calculations based on square footage and water usage because it wasn’t clear as to how many tables or whatever you were going to have in the facility. MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s two ways. There’s square footage. The Code allows for restaurants either square footage or number of seats. MR. NACE-The square footage numbers are right on the drawing, proposed lot coverage, building is 1635 and deck is 2170 square feet. That’s where the 3800 comes from, and parking requirements, it says one space per 100 square feet, or one per every four seats, plus one for every two employees, equals 42 spaces. MR. PALING-Well, now that Staff has this information, would you agree that their calculations are okay? You didn’t have it before. MR. NACE-It was right on the drawing. MR. PALING-I thought they referred to, they had to make, no. MR. NACE-For the number of seats. Okay. MRS. RYBA-In terms of square footage, that’s correct, but in terms of seats, we did not have that information. MR. LAPPER-But it was right there, what Tom read. MRS. MOORE-It’s unclear how many employees. MRS. RYBA-It wasn’t clear in terms of the number of employees, however. That wasn’t listed. So that fits into the seating as well. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MRS. RYBA-But based on the calculations, I’ve mentioned planning perspective because the Code allows it, you can calculate it, you can do it based on seats or based on the square footage, and in terms of planning, as I mentioned, if he could have more of a pedestrian orientation in that area, which is something that you do want to see, then I would still recommend that you remove some of that parking. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. PALING-I’m hung up on having overflow parking. If they could adequately have the number they want, and we cut it by 17, that doesn’t seem like a good move. MRS. RYBA-Well, you can also, they could go through one season, and then have a determination of just how it works. MR. SUTTON-When we were going through the site plan for the furniture, it was expressed, I know, by Chris Round, that there’s a desire to link the parking lots along there, you know, Sutton’s, the Toy Cottage, the Village Collection, and I was asked to keep that open between the Toy Cottage and the Village Collection, and it would be my hope that we would continue to do that. Betty Jane Baxter owns the property just to the north, although John Orton, who I know is here in the audience tonight, has a 20 foot right-of-way on the north end of that property, but it would be my hope that we could continue to do that, so as traffic becomes, you know, obviously we’re going in to this to be successful, and all the things you’re saying to me are good problems to have, if it is successful, but hopefully by keeping that open, there are a lot of alternatives to get traffic into different sections of the parking and also different sections for getting back out on Route 9, especially during evening hours when other businesses along there are closed, so that we can utilize some of that existing parking. I think cutting down 17 spaces would be quite a hardship to start out and try to run a successful business, with the expenses that are involved in getting this up and running. The parking is a crucial part of it. I’ve certainly seen that from experience. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as deliveries and trash removal, the hours that they would be taking place. MR. SUTTON-Well, it would be desirable to get them in. I mean, our trash removal now is usually around, anywhere from, usually they’re there from seven to eight thirty in the morning. So it would be before opening hours, before there’s traffic in there, and we would hope that the suppliers, like Kraft, Sysco, and what not, would adhere to our hours and get in there and get out before we have, you know, busy time. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you ever had any complaints at Sutton’s with the trash haulers coming in at three, four in the morning or anything like that, or do they pretty much stick to your hours of operation? MR. SUTTON-Yes. They don’t come three, four in the morning, but they have their problems too. I mean, they have a lot of ground to cover. So they’re usually there, usually I see them about seven o’clock, something like that, when they come. MR. MAC EWAN-Just getting back to the extra lights that you’re referring to, not the low voltage lights, but the parking lot lights. Can you describe, again, what your plans are for those lights, please. MR. NACE-I can give you, we haven’t picked an exact fixture. I can give you a typical something that we would be looking to be similar to. It would be something on the scale of, this has a little bit of a nautical flair. We’re trying to find something that would be pole mounted, 15, 16 feet high, probably a 200, 250 watt luminar, but something along those lines, or similar in a colonial fixture, but they’re not high wattage. They’re not a flood type light that’ll shine and give a lot of glare and spillover. We’re just looking for enough light so that at the back end of our parking we have adequate light for safety. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? Anything else you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-Not at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. If anyone wants to comment on this application, you’re welcome to come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED EARL MILESON MR. MILESON-My name is Earl Mileson. I live at Number 10 Twicwood Lane. I believe if I heard Tom correctly, I’m the property that he measured 350 feet to my house from the back of this property, or about 200 feet to the back of my property to this property. My house is directly in a straight line in back of this property, and I would be looking directly on to the deck from my deck off of the back end of my property. Marilyn I, together with the Sabos and McNulty’s, are probably the most effected by the potential noise, visual and smell pollution that could occur. Due to the fact that our property sits higher than Route 9, when the trees are removed to make room for the deck and rear parking, we will have a clear view of the restaurant, Route 9 and Skateland. Our neighbor, John Orton, last year removed almost all the trees that could have provided some visual trees for us 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) as a buffer. He didn’t help our situation regarding this project, as the noise, lights and busy activities on Route 9, such as the go karts and lights at Skateland and the loudspeaker and lights at Della Honda. Marilyn and I have discussed these concerns with Steve and Donna Sutton, and expect that they will do everything possible to allow us to enjoy our back yard where we spend the summer on our deck, and by our swimming pool. We are not speaking either for or against the Sutton restaurant project, but we do ask that the Planning Board, during its site plan review, take into consideration these problems and how they relate to the new regulations that are under consideration for the Town. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JOHN ORTON MR. ORTON-I’m John Orton. I border Steve on two sides. The property that he borders me on is all commercial. I have no problem with what he’s doing. I would hate to see Route 9 turn into the same thing as Downtown Glens Falls has. You drive through Downtown Glens Falls and all the buildings are empty. We have an empty building now that’s going to be changed. It’s going to look better. Gee Ray’s right next door is empty. Somebody they’re probably going to do something with that. If we put a lot of rules and regulations on these empty buildings, they’re probably going to stay empty forever, and I don’t know if we really want that in Queensbury or not. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. BJ BAXTER MRS. BAXTER-I’m BJ Baxter, and I own the Village Collection, the property to the immediate north of the proposed restaurant, except for John’s buffer, and I obviously adjoin the Toy Cottage, and I will say that Sutton’s have always been wonderful neighbors, and whatever they do, when they build in Town, is very stylish, and well run, and a credit to our Town. So I think we should be happy to have a new project of theirs underway. We have to consider that Route 9 is the main commercial corridor between New York and Montreal. So we’re going to have development all through these years. People pay property taxes, and insurance and mortgages and things for commercial property, to have businesses. So wouldn’t we rather have a lovely project from the Sutton’s, than have another Wal-Mart, or something like that. There are concerns to be addressed, and I have spoken to Steve about the smell, because, obviously with the fish place, you would think about that, and I do know that I have never noticed, ever, any odor from Sutton’s restaurant. So I think they have that well covered. I also have a concern about the parking, because obviously I have a lot between myself, my building and Sutton’s, and the new project, but I feel sure that they should be given the chance, it seems like they have things well though out, and I do think if there was a problem with parking, give them a year to address it, and then make a correction, if need be, why put harsh restrictions on them right now, to get this project underway. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Might I ask you a question? What are your hours of operation with your business? MRS. BAXTER-Basically 9:30 to 5:30. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would you have a problem, if he was really busy during the summer, and there was overflow parking on your parcel? MRS. BAXTER-I might consider renting him some spaces. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. KEITH CRIST MR. CRIST- Good evening again. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. CRIST-I’m Keith Crist from A-2000. We’re directly across from Steve Sutton’s proposed project, and I’m for the project. I don’t want to see another vacant building on Route 9, such as the Fresno Grill has been for about two and a half years, to date now, and when Fresno Grill was open we used to have a lot of customers that would come up for lunch and leave their car off, and we’d service it, lube, oil filters, and other service work, while they were having lunch, and we’ve lost a lot of that business since Fresno’s been closed, and I was excited to see that Steve wanted to put another project that would give us a restaurant, that would give us some traffic flow, that people could walk over, I mean, they already, Sutton’s is a destination for our business. A lot of people come up and they’ll, since the sidewalks have been put up, they’ll walk up to Sutton’s in the warmer weather, while 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) we’re servicing their vehicles. So, all in all, I’d definitely like to see something go on with that building, for an improvement, and as they say, anything that Sutton’s have done, as BJ said, when Steve puts a project together, it’s done nicely, and landscaped very nicely, and it’s an asset to the community. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. CRIST-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? CAROL EPPICH MRS. EPPICH-Good evening. My name is Carol Eppich. I live on Corinth Road in Queensbury, which is another commercial corridor which many of us living on that road would be delighted to see a project like that, and I would like to comment. The State of New York, the County of Warren, and the Town of Queensbury spend thousands of our tax dollars every year trying to entice the out of town visitor to this region. I feel that if local businesses who wish to improve their properties or invest in new businesses to serve the needs of these visitors are criticized rather than encouraged, what message does that send? The tragedy of small towns are seedy buildings, dead bushes, and for sale signs, and who wants to travel a long way to see those things? A commercial road like Route 9 can always find room for improvement, through upgrading of buildings, better landscaping, fresh paint, and when a project is put forth that falls within allowable use and zoning laws, it should be welcomed as a sign of vitality. This is not a big box building, and it is being brought forth by successful business people who are very community minded, and I urge you to approve this quality project. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JEAN MC COMSEY MR. MC COMSEY-My name’s Gene McComsey. I live at Cedarwood Drive in the Twicwood area. I have two concerns, first being an odor issue, with it being a fish place, and also with garbage, the potential is for odor. I know that Sutton’s does do a very good job with their odor control now. The potential’s always there, and I’d like to know what kind of avenues they’re planning on taking in that route to eliminate odors, and also, nobody’s addressed the issue of possible increased traffic on Montray and then over through Oakwood, going to, on that side of Queensbury, bypassing possibly Route 9 and Quaker Road, to get to and from the restaurant. A lot of people blow through the stop sign that is right there, at the corner of Twicwood and Montray Road, and they don’t even pay attention to the stop signs now. Is this going to be impacted even greater, and is that going to be looked at as a potential problem, and how can that be relieved. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. LINDA MC NULTY MRS. MC NULTY-Linda McNulty, 14 Twicwood Lane. I also own the vacant lot at 16. I have a map of the area. I’ve also got a couple of pictures I’d like to bring up and give to you, or show you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MC NULTY-We’ve had many concerns about the development on Route 9, and we know that Steve Sutton is a very aggressive developer. I would have no qualms about this project if it were in the Fresno Grill property instead of Leonard’s. I think it would be a major asset, really. The buffer definitely is a major problem for us already. We lack coverage for sound along Route 9, and we are now also getting noise off of the Northway. I lay in bed at four o’clock in the morning, and I hear the Northway, through Andersen vinyl clad windows that we replaced in 1990. I’m also concerned about the noise and the smell. We’re going to be listening to car doors slamming as people get in and out to frequent the restaurant, and I have a feeling that, once one season is given, the foot is in the door, it could be a year round business. It can be longer hours, until 10, 12 o’clock at night, and we’re already offended by the security light on the back of the Toy Cottage. I sit on my sofa in the family room, and it’s glaring right in my eye, every night. It doesn’t go out until 11 o’clock. I don’t think there’s any amount of plantings that can be put in there that will properly buffer us. Maybe in 20 years it would buffer the neighborhood, but it currently does not. Mr. Orton did remove a huge amount of trees, and I specifically called the Zoning Department, in January, three times, and could not get them to respond. It finally took my next door neighbor, Chris Sabo, calling, to get the Zoning Administrator up there. It baffles me why property that should have been buffered was cleared. That property backs up to residential areas. There should be a minimum, as I understand it, of 50 feet of dense growth, and that is not there. We do not have that. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Did the Zoning Administrator make a determination, or the Code Enforcement Officer? MRS. MC NULTY-As far as I know, no. This is a bigger issue now, because that property was once zoned Single Family Residential behind us. It, in 1988, was changed to commercial, right up to our back property line, which had been cleared back in the 70’s. A 50 foot buffer is not adequate, and in addition to that, Ted Turner, who is our Councilman, wasn’t even aware that this zoning was being re-done. Now how, as residents, were we to be aware of it if our own Councilman wasn’t? I’ve got another issue, as far as the property having been on the market for two years, I’m a realtor. It only came on our Multiple Listing Service in June of ’99. So it has not actively been marketed. Mr. Sutton apparently has it under contract. He is not currently the owner. So he cannot claim hardship, and as far as the building selling, I know that there had been other parties interested in it, with the exception of the noise across the street, because of the go karts. So, if that issue could be resolved, perhaps we could get another business that would not be high impact on a neighborhood, and the Master Plan, if you look back in it, indicates that the east side of Route 9 should be low impact. I have copies of that here highlighted, too, to make it easier for you, if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-Our current Town Master Plan? MRS. MC NULTY-Our current Master Plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Section Four of Neighborhoods it gives some recommendations in there, and it doesn’t say anything about low impact. MR. RINGER-These pictures were taken from your deck, looking down? MRS. MC NULTY-They were taken from the Sabo’s deck. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. RINGER-The Sabos are next door to you? MRS. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MC NULTY-I guess that’ll do it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? TONY FREDELLA MR. FREDELLA-I’m Tony Fredella. I reside at Five Twicwood Lane. I sit here listening to the presentation, and my biggest concern is, not as much as being a resident in the area, but what we are trying to do with this small piece of property. According to the paper here, we’ve got less than one acre of land, and we are talking about 17 parking spaces being critical to a successful business, or an unsuccessful business. With the congestion that we have on Route 9 now, this should be a major concern. The parking that was requested was based on 3800 square feet, 1635 of that which is, I believe, building or inside. One of my questions is, is that 1635 feet seating area or include the kitchen and the total floor area? And maybe that doesn’t matter. I don’t know, but it seems like we have got a situation here with a very small parcel of land, less than one acre, in an area that is already over-congested, just beat to death with traffic, has all kinds of problems with the residential area that it once was, and we are adding to the problem. I am not in objection to what the Sutton’s are trying to do. They’re good operators. I frequent their establishment quite often. I just would like to see something done about a larger parcel. The Fresno Grill would be a perfect place for them to open up. The property is available, and I doubt that it would cost as much as the property that he’s going into. Of course that’s his business. I’m not about to tell him how to run his business, but he sits here and talks about the traffic going in and out, the congestion, the trucks having an option of going two ways, maybe having an ice cream window, maybe being open from May through October. I’m sure April would creep in. April is a wonderful month. I just have some real concerns about this being developed into a restaurant on this small piece of property. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? PAT GORMLEY MR. GORMLEY-Hi everybody. My name’s Pat Gormley. I live at One Twicwood Lane, and like a lot of my neighbors here, I’m new to the area, and we’ve only lived here about six months or so, and 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) I don’t know Mr. Sutton personally. I know his restaurant. I know his store, and I know that his company makes great apple pies, but other than that, I really don’t know the man. I do have a question, though, about the ideas for the restaurant, especially in terms of music. Most of the outdoor decks and restaurants that I go to do have either live music or recorded music playing, and if his hours are only until nine o’clock, I think I’d still have an issue about hearing music, and I just wanted to have it on the record, that one of the neighbors or some of the neighbors are concerned about having music as part of this venue. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? PAM WARTH MRS. WARTH-Good evening. My name is Pam Warth. I am a Saratoga Springs resident, and I’m here tonight to support Donna and Steve. I know all of you are familiar with Saratoga and what a nice community that is. It’s quite a shopping destination, and I think in the 15 years that I’ve been traveling to Queensbury, I’ve seen a remarkable improvement in Queensbury itself. I can remember 10 years ago now thinking twice about driving up here to do shopping, and I feel Donna and Steve have made an incredible improvement on making this a shopping destination, for whether it be a restaurant stop or shopping for furniture, and aesthetically they make things very appealing to look at, and in this area, it kind of goes hand and hand. I happen to think Queensbury is a beautiful little Town. There’s a lot of improvements that need to be made, and I think Donna and Steve make a huge effort in making this community nice for all of us. So I support them. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? KAREN SABO MRS. SABO-Karen Sabo. I live at 12 Twicwood Lane, and I understand, with the current zoning, that it is allowable to have a restaurant on that site, and I have no doubt that the Sutton’s would do a wonderful restaurant, but I do have many serious concerns with this particular project right here on this piece of land. The first issue, and I know it’s been brought up, is the odor. However, I feel that if this is going to be mostly predominantly fried foods, that would be different than a typical restaurant, and when you have restaurants that have like mostly fried foods, you do tend to smell those more like fast food restaurants, and so I am concerned about that, and I have spoken with some (lost words) and second I’m very concerned about the fact that this restaurant would have an open deck, and how that noise would impact the neighborhood behind us. If it were an enclosed restaurant, then that wouldn’t be an issue, but since it is open, and since we do hear so many noises anyway, I would be concerned about that, and I would be concerned if, as Pat said, there were to be music. Because if there were to be music, then that would create more noise, and I would be concerned, and also about the hours. If they’re until nine o’clock now, I would be concerned that they would go up until 10, 11, and about the noise, I’m very concerned also that the buffer, all the trees would be about half an acre of trees like directly behind where the deck would be and where the parking would be, those are all currently trees, and those would be removed, and my biggest concern about that is the fact that, as was already mentioned, there is no group of substantially buffering trees on the Orton property. There should be 100 feet of buffer between his residential and commercial, and that is not there. Those trees that you see in the photo, the evergreens, that basically, most of those trees, if you even want to take a tour and go look, are mostly on that property right there. So, even though, you know, that wasn’t due to Mr. Sutton’s, you know, that wasn’t because of him, I mean, the fact that if they were taken down for this project, it would have a huge impact on us with the noise. I’m worried about the parking lot in the back. The size of the project for that piece of land. If it were scaled smaller, or if it were a different type of restaurant, if it didn’t have so much parking, I think it would be less of an impact, but as it stands now, I have some serious, serious concerns, and also, I know that, currently, a restaurant is allowable, but I know that, as Linda mentioned in the Comprehensive Land Use, it’s recommended that the east side be re-zoned to be less impact commercial zone, and one of the things that would be prohibited would be fast food restaurants because of the high impact. Although this is not considered, you know, you could argue and say it’s not considered a fast food restaurant, that would have a high volume of people in and out, and would have a high impact, and although this is what’s proposed and what’s recommended, it is part of the land use, but what I would like to say is that I know in your Code book, I believe it’s Article V, 179-31D for Site Plan Reviews, it says in reviewing site plans you have to consider the land use plan. So the current land use plan does use those recommendations, even though it may not, they’re not in effect. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute, back up and say that part again? MRS. SABO-The recommendations that are in the land use plan, they’re not zoned into effect by law right now, correct? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We have a Comprehensive Lane Use Plan that we’re using now. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MRS. SABO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The one that Mrs. McNulty handed me here tonight, that is a proposed one. It has not been adopted yet. MRS. SABO-I believe, if that’s from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was adopted in ’98, but the recommendations haven’t been made. Is that right? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. I’m going to look to Staff for clarification on that. MR. RINGER-It was prepared by Chazen. The recommendations that she was quoting are recommendations that have, are being prepared by the Chazen Company which the Town is negotiating with. MRS. SABO-Those recommendations are from your Comprehensive Land Use manual, under Neighborhoods. MR. MAC EWAN-I have two of them sitting right here in front of me tonight, both of them have different language in it, and I need to determine which one is accurate. This one that was highlighted, I’ve not seen this one before. That’s why I’m kind of curious. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The one Mrs. McNulty gave us is one we have never seen. MR. RINGER-It hasn’t been accepted yet. It’s something that Chazen is working on. MRS. SABO-No, no. It was adopted. MR. RINGER-She didn’t give you the one that Laura, we got in our notes? MR. VOLLARO-This looks like it came right out of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MRS. SABO-Land use manual, and it goes through Sections, Neighborhoods and sections. MR. MAC EWAN-Which we all have that. The version I have has that language in it, right here. It doesn’t mention the low impact section that you’re referring to, in my copy. MR. VOLLARO-It seems like Chazen is making the recommendation here that says uses that are not recommended for the east side Route 9 are recreational and/or amusement center, auto repair, fast food restaurants, due to concerns about noise, odor, traffic, lighting, etc. This has yet to be adopted. MRS. SABO-But, see, the meetings with Chazen, that was taken, and it was brought up with Chazen that that was part of the Comprehensive Land Use manual, and they agreed, and it was shown, and. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s only a measure that can be adopted by the Town Board by resolution, and it hasn’t been done yet. MRS. SABO-No, not the Chazen, the Comprehensive. MS. RADNER-There is, of course, a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that’s in effect, that’s what the zoning code requires us to look at now. Whether they perhaps looked at some model plan or some plan that’s in effect to get this language, I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m trying to determine here. MRS. RYBA-Laura’s going to go get a copy. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Because the format that’s here looks like it came right out of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MRS. RYBA-Yes, it did. MR. VOLLARO-And if it did, why, then that’s exactly what it says there. I didn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. In the interest of time, let’s keep rolling here, while she’s gone to do that homework. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MRS. SABO-Okay, and that’s what I wanted to mention, like, even though it hasn’t been re-zoned yet, it’s only being recommended to be re-zoned. It has to be considered for any site plan review, for the future of what the corridor’s going to look like, and also another thing that I would like the Board to consider is that, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s going from a current Type II use to a Type I, Type II being the office building to a Type I being a restaurant? MR. MAC EWAN-No, it would still be a Type I, or an Unlisted. MRS. SABO-Yes, it’s a Type I. Okay. So it requires a SEQRA review. So I just wanted, I copied down something stated by the New York Planning Federation. So for the purpose of SEQRA review, which I know you’re all familiar with, but it’s just to avoid impacts, to look for alternatives, to mitigate, if necessary, and to say no if you have to. That’s taken from the New York Planning Federation Short Course Book, and I’m just concerned that, I didn’t realize that this high of volume, this big of an impact of proposal was going to be made. I know that the Milesons’ went and spoke with the Suttons and conveyed many concerns that many of the neighbors had, and had hoped that things would be possibly altered or changed to help with our problems, but this project as it stands right now, I’m just very concerned, and I think it would have a serious negative impact on our neighborhood, but like I said before, I have no doubt that they would do a wonderful business and make a wonderful restaurant. It’s just, in that location, I think it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? CHUCK MC NULTY MR. MC NULTY-Chuck McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane. In regard to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the highlighted copy you’ve got is from my copy, which was provided to the Zoning Board members. It’s a copy of the plan that was developed in 1998, and was adopted by the Town Board. Now the zoning that’s in place is based on the previous Master Plan. The zoning that’s being worked on now is supposed to be implementing what’s in the 1998 Plan. I guess two other thoughts. One, I know what the rules say as far as what’s allowed on this property now, but I think it’s time that the Town took a look at whether or not they’re going to protect residential areas. Now, by the rules, there’s no reason why Mr. Sutton can’t build his restaurant where it is. He doesn’t have to comply with buffer requirements because he’s got a piece of commercial land that’s abutting commercial land, but there’s no buffer behind it because the Town did not respond when several neighbors called several times, when Mr. Orton was cutting trees. They just refused to come, until all the trees were cut down. The other final thought I’ve got is just to give you an idea, I guess, of the kind of concern we’ve got. I don’t know whether you heard the dull roar up there through the early part of this Planning Board meeting, but back in the audience, up until this issue came on, there was a dull roar from everybody laughing and having loud conversations out in the adjacent room. That stopped when Mr. Sutton and his people came in. That’s exactly the same kind of problem we’ve got with all the commercial development up and down Route 9. It’s that kind of low, dull roar, odd sounds that come in collectively from all kinds of places, that is ruining the neighborhood. Now there’s several spots in the Town of Queensbury where there are neighborhoods that abut commercial properties. We’re not the only ones, and obviously it’s a problem. We need commercial development, but somehow we’ve got to find a way of getting things set so commercial and residential can live together, and dealing with this idea of buffering, doing something with the parking so that we get rid of those 17 parking spots and provide those 17 somewhere else, would certainly help. Odor is going to be a lingering question that I don’t know if you’re going to be able to solve. I can tell you from experience working with DEC and odor problems on Long Island from landfills and yard waste composting materials, that it’s very hard to pin down. It can skip over houses and hit other houses, and it can be a real pain in the neck, and the best solution is not to let the cause be developed in an area near a residential area. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. ORTON-I’m John Orton again. As my name’s been thrown around in here a lot, I only have two comments on it. Yes, I was called. The Town of Queensbury came to my house three times when I was cutting trees down. What they came up with, I might have cut three trees down between a buffer and residential property. I said to Craig Brown, what should I do about it. He said I may have to plant three trees back. I said, well, I’m willing to plant three trees back if I cut three trees back. Also, my neighbors about my pool, I cut some trees down up there. I offered to re-plant trees up there. So myself and Steve and most people are trying to do what Twicwood people want them to do, but it sounds pretty bad when Twicwood can tell commercial people with property on Route 9 what they should do and what they shouldn’t do with their property. I think the Town of Queensbury and the Zoning Board depends on commercial property, and commercial people to keep their taxes down, and to keep people coming to Queensbury. If the neighborhood people stop commercial people from expanding and bringing money and people in here, the Town of Queensbury is going to have a lot of problems, I think. Thank you. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Well, we’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. Do you have the Comprehensive Land Use Plan there, Neighborhood Seven, Page Seven. Do you have under Recommendations, the second paragraph, does it start with “Uses not recommended for the east side of Route 9”? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Why didn’t we have that one attached to our plans tonight, when we had Page Seven from Neighborhood Seven, Page Eight? MRS. MOORE-The flip side is the next page from that, is Seven and Page Eight, and I happened to copy the wrong one. MR. MAC EWAN-It makes all the difference in the world. Okay. Let’s respond to some of the questions and concerns. MR. LAPPER-Okay. To begin with, there isn’t going to be any music, not part of the plan. We consider this project what’s called an adaptive re-use. We’ve got a 1960’s building, an existing commercial building, in an existing commercial zone, that is not the property that buffers the residential zone, but there is an intervening commercial property in between. I would just point out again that the type of business that the Sutton’s run, they’ve been in the Town for many years. You know what they’re going to do. They run a restaurant. You know how they control odors. It’s just, when they run a restaurant, it’s going to be a low impact restaurant because they do a quality job, and this is a classy property use, classy design, considering what’s there now. There are a lot of other uses that would be less compatible, but frankly, the Sutton’s property is the nicest property in that whole zone. You’ve got the Skateland auto racing thing across the street. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jon, excuse me. I don’t mean to interrupt. We’ve heard this, and we know all of the things you’re saying. The people that came up here said all those things. How are they going to control the odors, so we can at least answer that question. Answer the questions, because it’s getting late. MR. LAPPER-I was addressing noise. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m sorry, but all those things are true, and I agree with you 100%. MR. LAPPER-I have to make one point on the visual impact. I mean, there are three property owners that, unfortunately, buffer the commercial zone and are on a hill. So they’re looking at Skateland. They’re looking at the mini golf. They’re looking at everything that’s there, but the Sutton’s are not the problem. The Sutton’s run a good operation. They would run a good operation with the restaurant, in terms of odor elimination. As Steve said, they’ve got people sitting outside on the deck. So if this doesn’t work, they’re not going to be successful. Therefore, they have to control it. How will they control it? They’ll control the dumpster the same way they have it now, with a dumpster that’s completely enclosed and deodorized. They’ll control the cooking odors with a ventilation system just like they have right now. They have fish. They have full service restaurant at Sutton’s, and there’s not an odor problem, and one of the neighbors said that, and that’s just by buying the ventilation equipment and installing it. MR. PALING-On the noise situation, will there be a loudspeaker? MR. LAPPER-No loudspeaker. No music. MR. PALING-No loudspeaker and no music. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-No PA system of any kind. MR. LAPPER-None. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And it’s not Steve Sutton’s fault that Mr. Orton cut those trees down. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and in terms of the intensity of the development, it’s just slightly under 40%, 39. something percent green. So it’s certainly not maxed out, compared to what could be done on that site. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my question in all of this is how critical, Steve, to the business, if they’re a success of a business, are those 17 parking spaces out back? I mean, how critical are they really? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. LAPPER-Before he answers that, we should be talking about seven, if you will, just because, when you do the numbers, as Tom did, it’s 42. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know, but seven doesn’t cut it. That’s the problem. MR. LAPPER-We don’t want to have 10 spaces less than what would be required in the Code, just because then you’ve got too few spaces, which could also be a problem. People parking on the grass, people parking on the adjacent site. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think there’s been a couple of ways to mitigate that. One is by being able to use Steve’s property that’s to the immediate north of this. MR. LAPPER-That property is three properties up. You’ve got the vacant. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that, but there are some interesting things that have come out, in terms of people being able to walk. I mean, we’ve had some meetings in here, of which I attended one, on making Queensbury more walkable, and one of the reasons why these sidewalks were put in here was to accommodate that more walkable reason. MR. LAPPER-We agree with that, and if we want to talk about taking seven spaces out and talking about that after a season, whether they’re needed, that’s fine, but to take out 17 just seems like too much. MR. VOLLARO-But seven doesn’t cut it. Seven just doesn’t do what I’m looking for. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you feel on their supporting of the needs for 17, versus your numbers you came up with? MRS. RYBA-Right. First off, there is some flexibility in the Code, in terms of parking. So, yes, when you go through, the Planning Board does have some flexibility to allow less than what’s required, or to have some of that area go into green space until there’s been some experience that demonstrates that they might need more. I think that it’s, the reason why the 17 was recommended was because you really do need that whole strip for protection, rather than just taking out seven. If you were to take out seven, I’m not really sure which ones you would take out in the rear, except for maybe where the septic area is. That’s the only thing I could think of there, in terms of removing parking, and I would really have to, I think, take a closer look again to make a better recommendation whether or not the seven would be removed, but my initial review was that you really needed that whole strip. MR. NACE-The issue, obviously, is the buffer back there, and the idea that taking away those parking spaces is going to add significantly to that buffer. It will add approximately 20 feet, the length of a parking space. What if, instead of, you know, we’ve already got 20 plus feet, okay, at a minimum we have, from the edge of asphalt to the property line, there’s 20 feet of buffer. What if we increased the effectiveness of that, by planting some conifers in there that will provide a little better screening and buffering, within that 20 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m looking at some photographs here, Tom, that some of the members of Twicwood brought up. You might want to just take a look at them, if you will. This is off the Sabo’s deck. Is that correct, this is off the Sabo deck, these photographs? MR. NACE-You can just barely see the building as it is. This is in the winter. The leaves are off. I’m not sure that I understand. MR. RINGER-How many of those trees would you be taking out, though? MR. NACE-In these pictures. MR. RINGER-With that parking lot in, those 17 spaces, how many of those trees would go? MR. NACE-We’re talking, the existing building’s here. We’re talking about just clearing back to here. I’m not sure, in these pictures, exactly where that property line shows, but it’s obviously, you know, we’re obviously, they’re standing on their deck. Our property line is 300 feet from that. MR. RINGER-They’re standing here, taking the picture here. MR. NACE-I think one picture you actually saw the rail of the deck. So it had to be at one of the houses. Okay, and there’s quite a bit of tree cover in the foreground here. So, obviously, this is our 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) lot. So, the edge of our lot’s 300 feet from that deck. So most of these trees, you know, gauge where 300 feet is. I’m not sure if I can there, but it’s certainly down there a ways. MR. VOLLARO-But the parking spaces that we’re talking about are right in here. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. RINGER-And how many trees are in here, 10 feet, 20 feet, do you have any idea? MR. NACE-Twenty feet, not a terrible amount. I think we could certainly, by adding some pines in there, increase the effectiveness of the 20 feet, plus the, fill in, you know, some of these deciduous leave somewhat of an under story, that with some pines we could fill in that under story a little bit. MR. VOLLARO-Is there any kind of an unnatural buffer you could use at all, a fence type arrangement back there on the property line that would help? MR. RINGER-The elevation is so high from the houses that a fence wouldn’t have any effect. MR. NACE-I think the pines would have the better ability to grow higher with time. MR. VOLLARO-That’s quite a slope anyway, between the back of this property and up to the top. MR. NACE-There appear to be quite a number of trees in there that we would not effect. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. METIVIER-I just have to ask, have you looked at the Fresno Grill, and if so, why did you come to this? MR. SUTTON-If dollars weren’t an issue, I’d love to have Fresno Grill. It’s a half million dollar property. It’s twice as much investment. I’m sure that property would have sold a long time ago, if it wasn’t for that, and I guess the thing that keeps creeping up into my mind, and I’m beginning to wonder how you play by the rules. You leave the green space that’s required in the zone, as it is. I’m surrounded by commercial property on this property. Bill Leonard has a piece of property for sale in that zone, whether it’s me or whether it’s somebody from out of town coming in, you make a huge investment, just to get to this stage, where we’re at tonight, and the rules keep changing. It’s a bigger question than what we’re here right now for, but just keeps creeping in my mind, what are the rules in the zone? MR. LAPPER-They haven’t changed the rules. They’re just talking about it. MR. SUTTON-Okay, but I think we’ve tried to develop this site, which is a hard site to develop, but it is available. It is on a commercial strip that’s been commercial since the 30’s. Before the Northway was there all the traffic came up Route 9, every day, day in and day out, all the way from Plattsburg to New York City to Montreal, all the traffic came up Route 9. Now Route 9 has finally come back. It’s finally viable. It’s bringing in sales tax dollars. It’s successful, and you just don’t know whether to even try to develop the site anymore, because, you know, you read the Code. You go through it. You talk to a realtor, and Mr. Levack will say, that’s allowed in that zone. Okay. You have to leave this setback. You have to do this. I can live with that. I can live with that. So then I hire this gentleman and this gentleman and say, can we do this? According to the way I read the zone, we can do it. So you put the money in it, you get to this point, and all of a sudden we’re talking different buffers, different things than are actually in the Code. So it gets harder and harder to decide whether you even want to get to this point, to try to do something in the community. I don’t know whether you see where I’m coming from, but it’s just getting harder and harder to decide whether to even bring a project in front of the Board, because you don’t know whether the rules are changing, or what they really are. Today, not tomorrow, but right now. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think the rules have ever changed, in that sense, from your project of six months ago to your project of tonight. I mean, sitting up here on this side of the table is not easy, either. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re trying to do what’s right in our mind, what’s right for the neighbor’s, what’s right for you, what’s right in the best interest of the Town, and we have to try to bring all those concerns, all those issues together, and come up with a viable project for somebody. MR. SUTTON-But when the rules are set, from one zone to the next, it shouldn’t be that big a decision. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not just a matter of black and white all the time. MR. SUTTON-Well, as you know, I’ve been through process before, and spent a lot of dollars, and you can say it’s a gray area, but really it shouldn’t be. It’s either Highway Commercial or it’s not, and the three properties around it are either Commercial or they’re not. After a while you just say, how do you approach the Board with a project, because of three or four neighbors, which I understand their concerns, but you want to change the rules because somebody doesn’t like the project that you’re putting forth. This is a hardship for Mr. Leonard because he wants to sell the property, and he understands he has a piece of commercial property, and it just makes you wonder whether you want to continue to try to do the things that we do there, but anyway, that’s probably for another forum and another time, but that’s kind of my feeling. MR. MAC EWAN-Is this the architecture, the color schemes that you’ve shown on your illustration? MR. SUTTON-Well, within reason. I don’t think we’re going to have a purple railing there. I think it’s a computer sketch that kind of, we’re going to do it as Adirondack and as fitting into what we see is the architecture of the area that we would hope the architecture of the area would be. Obviously, we know that there’s a lot of projects that don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Lapper, would you just maybe address the size of the lot, with the building on it? Maybe you could make the neighbor feel a little more confident about your plan. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve got the distance from the neighbors is 350 feet from their house to the property line, which is a pretty big distance. Granted, the adjacent commercial neighbor has taken down some trees. So what Tom has offered is that, and we’re looking at the picture in the winter, without any leaves, which is very different than would be in the summer, and this use is proposed not to be used in the winter, but we can add Evergreens, which would be at the car height, that would go underneath the trees that are there, so that that would at least be a visual screen, which would probably be nicer than a fence, to do some trees, and that would probably help. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the colors are Adirondacky which will blend in with the environment. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The building will look like that, except that the railing may be a different color. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I guess her concern was that the parcel is only about an acre. MR. LAPPER-Okay. In terms of that, that’s a pre-existing commercial parcel. We could develop it so that it was 30%, only 30% green space, and this is 39 and change green space. So there’s more green space that’s on there. Another issue is that the parking is not going to be in front of the building. It’s going to be on the side and the rear, and that was done so that it would look nicer from the travel corridor, and we looked at it, knowing the residents are 350 feet away, that that’s not going to be an issue. If it’s 20 feet, more or less, it shouldn’t really effect them. In the commercial zone, you’re only required to have a five foot buffer. To the property line, and we’ve got a 20 foot buffer. MR. NACE-Just to correct the record, I had told Jon 39% green. It’s 37%, just so the record’s straight. MR. VOLLARO-What size trees would you be thinking of planting in this back, what size Evergreens? Because if we put real small stuff, it’s going to take a while for them to come up. MR. NACE-I think if we used five, six foot stuff. If you go too big, I think we’ve had this discussion before. If you go too big, it takes a while to take root and take off, five, six feet seems to be a good intermediate. MR. VOLLARO-That’s about the only mitigation thing that I can see to do with this, other than removing 17 spaces back there, and in looking at the, when you take a look at the plot plan that they have here, this being the plot you’re talking about, just retaining these trees, for the sake of those 17 spots, doesn’t really, really do much for people who are 300 feet away. MR. METIVIER-I do think you’ll create more problems taking away 17 spaces than you would, you know, I just think it would be a disaster. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it doesn’t make good sense to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. VOLLARO-It’s a Short. MR. MAC EWAN-Short Form. MR. NACE-I think you still have the public hearing open. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to ask one more question if I might, Mr. Chairman. On the odor problem, is there anything available with scrubbers in them or any kind of, you know, where you would have, I’ve seen these before somewhere, where you could actually scrub some of the odor out by being absorbed by water, what they call a water scrubber. I don’t know, I know the neighbors are concerned, and I know the prevailing wind is probably in the direction, or westerly prevailing wind. So what do you do now, in terms of eliminating odors? MR. SUTTON-Well, I got off the phone today with Saratoga Restaurant Supply, and with Mike Shneger, who is a designer of restaurant kitchens and what not, and what I told them was I don’t even want to meet with you until I get through this site plan review. Because obviously, we’ve put a lot into this up to this point. If, for any reason, things didn’t go well here or what not, I haven’t spent a lot of time in actual planning. We have a chance to build a new kitchen. We have a chance to do it right. I like to do things right. If it means spending a few more dollars, again, I want to, there’s no way that anybody’s going to sit there and eat with odors. Fresh fish does not have an odor. It’s spoiled fish, it’s spoiled beef, it’s rotten potatoes that have odor. There’s just no way we’re going to put that investment in. So we’re going to get the State of the Art disposal, the deodorizers and the dumpster. That’s where the odor comes from. So, I don’t see that as a problem that we’re going to have to face, because we’re just not going to let it happen. We’re going to have everything we can do to minimize the exhaust. Obviously, we’ll have a, we have to meet all the New York State Health Codes. So we have to have the ANSI system, the hood system, the filtering system, and those are questions I will be addressing to the restaurant supply people to say, hey, look, there’s a concern in the neighborhood, what can we do, but I can’t tell you honestly that I’ve already planned it or anything. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do the SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“A communities existing plans as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” That is, could this action have an adverse effect with that statement? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a commercial use in a commercial zone. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I mean. MR. RINGER-I guess we’d have to determine if that was small or medium intensity. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I can’t go by this. MR. RINGER-No, but Laura said it was in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the 1998 Plan. MR. RINGER-Which is adopted. MR. VOLLARO-Which is adopted, yes. MR. RINGER-Would you read that, Laura, please. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MRS. MOORE-I have, under Recommendations, it says “Allow commercial activity of small to medium intensity (size and character) similar to what is already in existence. Encourage offices and the low impact commercial uses. Ensure that residential areas are adequately buffered from the commercial activity. MR. MAC EWAN-But you have to read the other side, because what you’re reading, on Route 9 north to Round Pond Road, the recommendations are a response to that paragraph of a description of what’s along that corridor. Right? And that corridor, in that paragraph it’s got one sentence that says it’s directly in back of the commercial lots of residential zones and uses. Well, this doesn’t abut a residential zone. It abuts another commercial zone. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you comfortable with that? MR. VOLLARO-I’d say no on that question. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then no, okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STEVEN SUTTON, 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 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce the motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2000 STEVEN SUTTON, Introduced by Alan Abbott who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As per resolution prepared by Staff. That no music, outside speakers, or PA systems be used. Lighting and light wash is not to go off the property, it’s to stay on the property. Hours of operation should not exceed 10 p.m. in the evening. Twelve white pines planted in the back, five to six feet 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) high. That an updated plan be submitted in regard to lighting, in reference to Rist-Frost’s comments, just to demonstrate where the lighting will be located, and the trees. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 14-2000, Steven Sutton for conversion of existing office building into restaurant and involving construction of 2,170 sq. ft. dining deck, parking facilities for 49 vehicles and new septic system. New uses in the HC zone require Planning Board review and approval; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/26/00 , consists of the following: 1. Application, stormwater management report dated 1/2000 and maps SP-1, SP-2 dated 1/26/00 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 2/22/00 - Staff Notes 2. 2/16/00 - ZBA resolution 3. 2/9/00 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution – Default approval 4. 2/11/00 - FOIL request – K. Sabo 5. 2/15/00 - J. Lapper re: agent form 6. 2/15/00 - Notice of public hearing 7. Undated - Pictures taken by staff 8. 2/7/00 - FOIL request – K. Sabo 9. 2/18/00 - C. Jones, Fire Marshal to M. Ryba 10. 2/19/00 - A. Ferraro of Skateland to Planning Board 11. 2/22/00 - Rist Frost comments Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/22/00 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, 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/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 review is necessary. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd MR. RINGER-The hours of operation would not exceed 10:30 or 11 o’clock. Could we put a stipulation in on that? We’ve gotten burned on that before. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They said until nine. MR. LAPPER-If you want to have it as a condition, we’d probably prefer to say 11. MR. RINGER-That’s a little bit more than what you said. MR. VOLLARO-What were the proposed hours of operation? MR. LAPPER-Steve thinks he’d start out going until nine o’clock, but if it’s successful, that doesn’t mean that he might not want to be open until eleven. He has no plan to do that now, but he’d like to have the flexibility. MR. RINGER-If we could put it in now, I’d prefer something like 10. There’s nothing wrong with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Add it to the motion, if you want. MR. RINGER-I’m not making the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-You can add an amendment to it. It hasn’t been seconded yet. MR. RINGER-Well, Alan’s made the motion. I’m asking if Alan wants to put that in his motion, then okay. I would like to put in the motion 10 o’clock. I think that would be a reasonable. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. SUTTON-I could probably live with that. I’m curious as to hours of operation of the go karts, the golf, the things that are really making the noise on the road. This is a relatively quite operation we’re talking about here. Now, all of a sudden you’re picking on one business over another. MR. MAC EWAN-No, Mr. Sutton, you asked and I’ll answer that for you. Those were the same things that that proprietor told us that they were going to do during the course of their presentation, that they weren’t going to exceed certain hours, and that wasn’t put in the resolution, and the resolution is the only thing that’s a binding thing for approval, and when that wasn’t put in there. MR. SUTTON-So what are their hours now? MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever they want them to be. MR. SUTTON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Because it wasn’t put in the resolution, but they said to us that they weren’t going to exceed certain hours of operation, and they didn’t do it. I mean, you could always come back and ask for a modification to the site plan if you get approval tonight. MR. LAPPER-We’re talking about what the rest of the road does. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d say at this point, don’t push it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We won’t push it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what about a stipulation about to put in the State of the Art equipment to cut down on the odors? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know how you’d police that, Number One, DOH is going to make sure that happens. They have criteria and they have design standards that all restaurants need to have, not just his, everybody. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I think in this case, Steve wants to go the extra mile, if I heard you correctly, to make sure that that doesn’t happen. So, the same thing with the noise. I think maybe words in this should indicate that the latest State of the Art equipment will be installed for the prevention of odors. There’s no reason we can’t say that. I don’t think that that’s dictating design in any way. MR. ABBOTT-It’s an enforcement issue at that point. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you know you can smell odors of some establishments, even though they’re complying with DOH rules and regulations. I’m just trying to. MR. RINGER-You don’t have a base for what the odor is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, I’m comfortable as far as good faith with the Suttons, as far as, he needs to have good stuff in there. MR. RINGER-I don’t think you can put in a motion good faith. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, no, no, no, no. I’m just ranting on right here. MS. RADNER-You need to have a concrete requirement, like requiring him to have a covered dumpster or requiring him to have a ventilation system. If you put in something like State of the Art, that needs to be defined. MR. RINGER-There’s no basis for it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Exactly. I understand that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we set on that? MR. LAPPER-If you want to say covered dumpster and ventilation system. MR. MAC EWAN-Your dumpster’s going to be covered anyway. It’s going to be also fenced. It’s required by the Ordinance. Okay. Just to read back this thing, so we’re clear on this, there’s no music, no outside speakers or PA systems, lighting and light wash is not to go off the property. It’s to remain on the property. Hours of operation are not to exceed 10 p.m. in the evening. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-The trees. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t think we were going to follow through on the trees. MR. LAPPER-We’re going to add. MR. VOLLARO-They said they would add. MR. MAC EWAN-We need a size, a number and a quantity, and a species. That’s the problem when you do this sort of thing without having it documented. MR. LAPPER-We’ll give it to you right now. MR. NACE-Okay. We’ll do a dozen white pine across the back there. They’re bushy at the base. It’ll fill out to a fairly good width, five to six feet high. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-White pine, five to six feet high, quantity of 12. Do we have a second? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll second it. MRS. MOORE-I have a question. The plan that’s as presented up there, is that an updated plan to what has been submitted to Staff? I would ask that an updated plan be submitted in regard to lighting, as in reference to Rist-Frost’s comments, just to demonstrate where the lighting will be located. MR. ABBOTT-Can you put the trees on that? MR. NACE-Yes, I was just going to say, the trees will be on that, too. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Do we have a second? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I second it. MR. VOLLARO-We had a second. AYES: Mr. .Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. SUTTON-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 15-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OWNER: SAME AGENT: C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: NE CORNER BAY & DREAM LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 20,000 SQ. FT. CHURCH, CLASSROOM AND MEETING ROOM WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND UTILITIES. CHRUCH IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE RR-3A ZONE AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 89-1993, AV 16-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 2/7/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 51-1-35.1 LOT SIZE: 17.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-15 FRANK FAZIO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from staff, Site Plan No. 15-2000, Bay Road Presbyterian Church, Meeting Date: February 22, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 20,000 square foot Church with classrooms, meeting room and associated parking areas. Planning Board review and approval are required for the construction of a Church in the Rural Residential 3 Acre Zoning, RR-3A. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for the Church and it is suggested the Planning Board 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) provide recommendations to the applicant for the preparation of final plans. Staff Notes: The parcel is currently vacant with an open meadow and bordered by Bay Road and Dream Lake Road. The building adjacent to the parcel is owned by Bay Road Presbyterian Church and utilized for Church purposes. The proposed use is an allowed use in the zone with site plan review. The applicant has received an area variance (AV16-2000) for height relief. The Church facility is currently located across the street from the proposed site. The proposed Church will accommodate additional members and other Church related activities. The existing Church operates a religious school that is utilized during church hours. The Church is located on 17 +\- acres of land with existing vegetation remaining on some areas of the site and with other areas landscaped as needed. The preliminary plans identify building landscape. Staff would encourage additional landscaping along Bay Road and Dream Lake Road. The plans have been forwarded to Rist Frost Associates for review and comment. The plans identify the septic system and some preliminary stormwater management. These plans should also include the method of securing drinking water, from either a well or Town Water. The lighting plan that was submitted appears to be well lighted. The proposed site is located on a rise, and is situated in an open area, thereby making the lighting more visible. Poles for lighting along the south side of the church are closer together, thereby providing more intense light closer to the walkway. Determination of lighting scheme appropriateness for the neighborhood should be considered. According to the applicant, the average lighting for the entire area is 3.0 foot-candles. This is comparable to what might be needed for an athletic event. The applicant should be asked to identify average illuminance levels for the drive area, and each of the parking lots separately. Building light plans should also be included in the Final plans. The Travel Corridor Overlay zone emphasizes the importance of maintaining rural character along major regional arterials, such as Bay Road, Section 179-28. Section 179-30 encourages access from a local road if property has frontage on the local road also. Access from Dream Lake Road instead of from Bay Road should be considered. Sight distances are good in both directions on both Dream Lake Road and Bay Road. The Bay Road curb cut has enough distance from the Dream Lake Road. intersection (220 ft.). An access from Dream Lake Road would cut across the entire field rather than just a portion as shown in the proposed site plan. This would also involve about 80 ft. more of roadway. The plans submitted indicate 70 spaces are required, but 124 are provided. Of the total, 71 spaces are shown in front of the church. Parking in front of the church does not contribute to maintaining the character of the neighborhood. The existing church (almost opposite) has the majority of its parking to the rear of the church, with some spaces to the north side along the drive. The reduction of paved spaces and the location of paved spaces should be considered. Recommendation: Staff recommends tabling of the site plan application for the church pending final plan submission that addresses Staff comments and Planning Board comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Rist-Frost’s letter of today. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Site Plan 15-2000, “Rist-Frost has reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced application and have the following comments: 1. The applicant provided a Stormwater Analysis Summary which is conceptually acceptable but is not detailed enough for final site plan review. The applicant stated in the summary that a stormwater management plan will be prepared during final design. The detention basin should be sized to handle a 50-year design storm. 2. The grading plan does not include the detention basin grading, basin outlet pipe sizes and outlet structure details. Pipe sizes for the stormwater collection system are generally not shown. 3. The applicant should submit the design rationale that a five (5) gpm well will provide adequate capacity for peak flows. 4. New curb cut will require review by the Town of Queensbury Highway Department. 5. A note stating that all erosion control measurements shall conform to New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control should be included on the plans.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. FAZIO-Good evening. My name is Frank Fazio from C.T. Male Associates. We’re representing Bay Road Presbyterian Church. ED GODDERT MR. GODDERT-My name is Ed Goddert. I’m Co-Chair of the Building Committee for the Bay Road Presbyterian Church, and to my right is Melissa Lupe. She’s our Design Engineer on this project. MR. MAC EWAN-In the interest of time here tonight, I don’t think we’re going to dive into this real deep, because there are a number of outstanding issues on this application. Are you in receipt of Rist-Frost’s letter of today? MR. FAZIO-We received it this morning, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-On behalf of the Planning Board, I need to apologize to you, and I should apologize to applicants prior to, that are on the agenda tonight for these letters getting to us very late, 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) and the night of a meeting, it certainly isn’t good planning, and it doesn’t make for a good orderly meeting either. Would you tell us a little bit about your project? MR. FAZIO-Sure. I think maybe I’ll address some of those comments that came in from Rist-Frost and from Staff as I go through this. Basically, the site is located on Bay Road. The terrain, which basically there’s a large steep hill from Bay Road down to approximately the Travel Corridor zone, and then it kind of traverses the site in a southeasterly direction. The reason we located the building, let me clarify, this is a two story structure. The worship hall is in the upper level, and in the lower level are the classrooms and the kitchen and meeting room facilities. What the Presbyterian Church would like to do is that they wanted to have rear access to the lower level, in the back. The upper level will be grade. So it will appear to be as a one story structure from the front, and the back you can see where the back is fully exposed. What will happen is the terrain will gradually go down slope from the sides here, going back to the back side of the front here. The access will be from, we show it from Bay Road. There’ll be one lane coming in. It’ll be two lanes coming out, with a left turn lane out heading south, and a right turn lane for heading north. We’ve put this in here to achieve proper site distance. We took measurements out in the road there, and we’re traversing the land along in here, to come in at a nice gradual slope into the site. If we came in up at this location, it’s too steep. So we chose an equal area down through here. We provided enough parking in the front here, which is approximately 71 spaces, to service the upper level of the worship hall. The lower parking in the back will serve as basically the meeting rooms, the classrooms and the dining area where they have their functions in there. So there was some question as far as why didn’t all the parking go in the back. Well, the main entrance to the Church is in the front. If we had all the parking in the back, everybody would have to come in through the back door and come up a set of stairs to get up into the worship hall. The site will accommodate approximately 350 seating in the worship hall, and approximately 115 in the classroom. So that equates to about 450, 475 occupants of the Church. It could happen at one time, and that’s maximum. We do have a little bit extra parking than is required. I think 71 was required. We have 124. I guess if you equate the parking to the occupancy of the building, you’re looking at maybe three to three and a half occupants per car. So in that rationale, we feel we’ve got the adequate parking, and again, we do want to have enough parking in the front so that everybody that goes to the worship hall can enter through the front. We have a pull in foyer for them and everything, and handicap parking will all be in the front, and we have some in the rear. The drainage report, we’ve actually presented a preliminary analysis that was done. The report is actually about 95% completed, and we have addressed all the concerns from Rist-Frost, and we will submit that to the Town, which will probably be in the next week or so, for their review. We have a detention basin located in the back. All the existing runoff that comes from Bay Road will traverse around the site and we’ll continue that through the path, so it doesn’t interfere with anything that’s on the site. We would have a detention basin that will contain the flow from the parking area and the building, through this basin, which will have an outlet and let it off at pre-developed conditions. So we’re meeting all the requirements for stormwater management. The sewage system will be located in this vicinity over here. It’ll be a tile field, and because we exceeded the length of the tile field, we’d be also putting a dozing chamber in for that, or the pump, and there’ll also be a well supply that will feed the building, and we can justify the five gallons per minute. We require that as a minimum. We hopefully will achieve more than that, but the facility, as a minimum will require, I think, actually less than five gallons per minute, but usually State Health Department requires at least five gallons per minute minimums on that. The lighting that we show, there was some concern of the intensity. Basically, the intensity of the lighting is where you see two fixture heads here and here, where we have the high reading of foot candles, which brings up the average. As we get to the outer reaches of the parking areas, along in through here, the light is set up so that we’re about one, one and a half foot candles at the perimeter of the parking lot. As you progress further, probably another 20, 30 feet, you’ll end up into an area of about zero foot candles, as you get into the perimeter in here. We’re trying to follow standards, we try to achieve at least one foot candle throughout most of the parking lot, which is what we do. We do have some areas which are .8, .7. They are acceptable, but they’re at the outer edge perimeters. So as we come along the back here, we do have fixtures that are the down shielding light, so as to prevent the wash going off the property. They’re on 20 foot poles. They’re metal halite light fixtures, and again, the intensity will be right in here and in here, and underneath each fixture itself, as we get off the site, it’ll lessen. I think that’s, the landscaping. We do show some foundation planting, some trees. As you know, the Church is doing fundraising for all this type of thing, and I think one of their intentions they would like to have is that there would be some donations of people for trees and plantings. We don’t have a defined plan at this point, but obviously, as it comes together through the donations, we’ll have some sort of buffering and some sort of screening through here. Certainly we’ll have the foundation. They would like the Church to look good, and possibly put some trees up along the access way. Obviously, we do want the site to be visible from the main road. That’s the purpose of it. There was a question about bringing the access in from Dream Lake Road. That was a question that was brought up. Our concern for that would be that the traffic’s traveling from the south. To turn right on Dream Lake Road, the access would be only about 100 feet in from Route 9. As your cars come in and start to make the left hand turn, obviously during services, everybody seems to run at the same time. You could end up with cars, as they come around this corner, starting to make slower movements, and there could be some back up that would go up onto Route 9 on that. So we do want to have an access in here, to just go 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) before the County Planning, and that was acceptable to the County Planning Department. Also, we do realize we have to apply to the Town for a Highway permit for that, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. FAZIO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-When you say zero candles, you’re talking out to your property line? In other words, there’s the travel corridor, and then out from there, onto Bay Road, essentially, you’d have zero candles at the property line? MR. FAZIO-Most definitely on Bay Road there’d be zero foot candles. As we go out further from the lights, I would say you’re probably maybe about 20, 25 feet from the edge of the parking lot, you start approaching zero foot candles. For example, the lighting on the side of the Church there, where the sidewalk winds around a little bit, underneath there I think we were ranging around six or seven foot candles, right underneath the light. By the time we reached the other side of the parking lot, heading to the south there, I think we were around one foot candle. So you can see it drops off rather rapidly. It all depends on the height of the poles and the type of fixtures. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. Do you have a layout of that? In other words a circle that shows foot candles on the ground? MR. FAZIO-We ran a point by point. It’s actually more accurate than your typical contours that you see. It actually has numbers, and it’s on a grid system. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m talking about. MR. FAZIO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And you’ll show where the zero comes up on the perimeter of that? MR. FAZIO-We can actually do that, yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s something I just want to make sure of. Other than that, I don’t see anything on here. I’m glad you have a well to go along with septic systems. This is one of the few things you see where you have, you don’t have public water along the Bay Road and a septic system to go along with it. MR. METIVIER-What do you plan on doing with your existing structure? MR. GODDERT-That hasn’t been determined yet. There’s several possibilities. One would be to liquidate it and use the money for the new project, but of course we would be in both simultaneously. Another thing is, we could use that for additional facilities if we were to expand. We currently have programs all week long, as well as on Sundays. MR. METIVIER-As far as the programs, day, evening? MR. GODDERT-Day and evening. We have an Elder Share program, one day a week during the week. We have a nursery school there, three days a week, and so forth. There’s ongoing activities both days and evenings. MR. MAC EWAN-Parking lots. The requirement was for 71 spaces I think it was, and you’ve provided 125? MR. FAZIO-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Why the excess? MR. FAZIO-Basically, we asked the Church what kind of parking facilities they would like. They do have some concerns, when they have large gatherings, that they do not want to run out of parking spaces. Obviously, you park on lawns, you park on side streets, and people have long walks coming in there. So that was one of the reasons. Again, one of the reasons, we do have approximately 75, I believe, in the front, which services the worship hall and the upper level. So that would accommodate everybody that would go inside for services, and that’s what one of the counts for parking was based on, for that, for the seating capacity inside the Church itself. Certainly we didn’t want to have people parking in the back and have to come up the stairs to the back way all the time 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) whenever there’s a function at the Church for services. The back lot would primarily serve the classroom facilities, and any function that happens, and act as an overflow for the front parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as your landscape plan kind of being up in the air at this point, I would like to see a definitive landscape plan, particularly some sort of streetscaping that’s right along the edge of your parking area along Bay Road, that will act as a buffer for the visual impact that you’ll see coming across there with trees, flowering trees of some sort like that. Maybe this would be a good idea, if you came up with a definitive plan, kind of like adopt a tree or adopt a shrub campaign within the Church membership. You’ve obviously got five items to address, and the Rist-Frost letter of today. Staff’s also looking for some additional support information on the lighting. Signage, a question about signage. MR. FAZIO-The sign is located, small up in the front along Bay Road there. It’ll certainly meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinances. It will probably be lit, looking at a back lit sign at this point in time, and I think Mr. Goddert, we discussed the earlier on before the meeting, and that, again, is an issue that we’d like to see some sort of a donation, didn’t want to handcuff anybody on a certain type of sign, but I think we’ll probably set some sort of standards that meets all the Town requirements and how it should be. We could probably provide some guidelines as to how that will look. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside. I have on question. Do you own the Scot’s Cemetery? Does that Church own the Scot’s? MR. GODDERT-No, we don’t. MRS. MONAHAN-Is that maintained by the Town at this time? Okay. I was concerned about that. I didn’t want it abandoned up there. I’m concerned, you know, if we’re going to keep the rural area of Queensbury, about that huge, great big parking lot, asphalt, up there by the road. It’s going to be the first thing you see. I think maybe besides planting, maybe you want to look at some berming. Something besides just planting that will soften that in there, because, you know, and frankly I thought the same thing about Prospect School. That’s all we’re getting in this Town now is these huge, great, big asphalt. Certainly we don’t need it out in the Town of Queensbury. That’s one of the few parts that’s stayed rural. I mean, you know, from this Town Hall north is about one of the few places, yes, that are still rural. You can see a few horses. You can see a few other animals, and to put a horrible parking lot like that up there, with nothing softening, even planting isn’t going to do it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? We’ll leave the public hearing open. We’ll considering we have some outstanding issues here, what I’d like to do is to table this application, so that you can address the Rist-Frost letter of today, February 22, a comprehensive landscaping plan. I think it nd was Mrs. Monahan’s suggesting of berming, not only the parking lot area but the access road going in and out, because you’re kind of sloping away. You’ve got some unusual topography up there. The berming, I would think, would be more appropriate toward the parking lot that’s parallel with Bay Road and your access road in. You might be able to put a small berm there to kind of ease that lower parking area that goes down around behind the Church, put together a good landscape plan that will encompass that. MR. FAZIO-If I may address the berming issue, I didn’t really address, the height of Bay Road in relation to the parking lot, right across from the entrance to the Church, is probably about 15 to 20 feet below the road. Certainly a berm at that location will certainly not do anything, because as you drive up, you’ll actually be looking over the top of the parking lot as you come in. I do agree, though, coming from the south, you will probably see some visual coming, and maybe we can soften something on the entrance road location there, but as far as along the front of the Church there, somebody could put some ornamental trees along the front of the parking lot as you see them, but as you’re driving up there, you’re going to be about 14, 15 feet higher than the parking lot there. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’d be looking for a mix of evergreens and deciduous trees. Lighting information, you’re going to respond to that. I also mentioned the Rist-Frost letter. Is there anything else that Staff wants responded to, or Board members? MRS. RYBA-I would like to have a little bit more specificity with the lighting. If you could provide a uniformity ratio, and the standard that you’re using, if you’re using the (lost word) standard, I’d like 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) to know what minimum foot candle level. I know you mentioned you were aiming for the 1.0. I’m wondering if you could perhaps address that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a motion to table, then. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2000 BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: [To provide additional information on landscaping of the property; to address Rist Frost comment; to provide information on lighting for the project]. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Let the record reflect that I’ve left the public hearing open. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 16-2000 TOM KUBRICKY OWNER: SAME ZONE: LC-42A LOCATION: 80 OAK VALLEY WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SEVEN (7) STALL HORSE BARN. AGRICULTURAL USE AND FARM, ALL CLASSES, INCLUDING BARNS AND STABLES AS ACCESSORY USES ARE A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE LC ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 86-1993 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 26-2-14.4 LOT SIZE: 14 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-13, 179-63 TOM KUBRICKY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 16-2000, Tom Kubricky, Meeting Date: February 22, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 1,200 square foot seven stall horse barn. The barn will be utilized for personal horse storage and horse equipment. The property to be utilized is 14+/- acres and is zoned Land Conservation 42 acres, but the lot is pre-existing. The proposed use is considered an agricultural use according to section 179-63 and requires site plan review and approval according to section 179-13. Staff Notes: The site is currently an open meadow bordered by fence and wooded hedge row. The barn is proposed to be located in the middle of the 14 +/- acres. The site plan indicates that the barn and the home are on one lot, this is not the case. The barn will be located on its own parcel. An agricultural use is an allowed use through site plan review. The placement of horses on the parcel is considered an agricultural use with a barn being the accessory building to the use. Staff would suggest the final plans identify the individual lots, for the purpose of showing property lines. The applicant may combine the parcels, and then the use would be considered an accessory use, which would still be allowed. Section 179-63 of the Town Zoning Ordinance indicates that the use would be considered a Class A farm according to acreage. However, the applicant has indicated that the proposed use will not be for commercial purposes, but for personal use. The Class D hobby designation would be applied for keeping of animals for personal pleasure use. However, that classification indicates that the use is incidental to the residential use. [This may explain why the applicant shows the adjoining residential parcels.] The Class B designation would apply for commercial or personal, but acreage's are between 5 and 10 acres. Since there are surrounding areas in residential use, and the intent of the use as stated by the applicant is to keep horses for personal use, the agricultural use should be classified as a Class D, Hobby, agricultural use, with a Class A designation concerning acreage only. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the allowed construction of a horse barn for keeping of horses with the following conditions noted on the final plans: 1. the 14+\- acres is to be fenced whether or not the lots are combined, 2. the number of horses be limited up to 7 horses as outlined in the Town Code 179-63 D, 3. the keeping of horses be for personal use, no stabling of horses belonging to other persons, and no commercial venture with horses without site plan review or site plan amendment and approval from the Planning Board, and 4. Since there are surrounding areas in residential use, and the intent of the use as stated by the applicant is to keep horses for personal use, the agricultural use should be classified as a Class D, Hobby, agricultural use, with a Class A designation concerning acreage only.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Good evening. Can you tell us a little about your project? 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. Tom Kubricky. I’ve had horses all my life, and I just want to keep them there by my house. It’s a seven stall barn. It’s going to be a first class show. It’s high end stuff that I’m going to do. I’m not running a dairy farm or anything like that. It’s going to be a nice. I don’t know if any of you guys have seen the house, but the barn’s going to match the house, and it’s going to be first class all the way. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you familiar with the Staff Notes that she just read tonight regarding what the recommendations are for approval, should we approve this application? MR. KUBRICKY-Somewhat. I’ve talked to her prior to this, coming here. It’s going to be strictly my own horses. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. RINGER-The Staff recommendations, the 14 acres will be fenced in, you’re able to do that? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, it is. It is now. MR. RINGER-Handling and disposing of the manure and waste, what are your plans for that? MR. KUBRICKY-Whatever you want done with it. MR. RINGER-We’ve had people come through before with horses and they’ve come up with some kind of a plan to dispose of it. MR. KUBRICKY-What I’ll probably do is I’ll probably load it, and get it out of there. That’s probably what I’ll do with it. I mean, it’s going to be a screened in barn. I built a house. I’m going to protect what I’ve got going on there. If there’s any complaints. MR. RINGER-I was just wondering if you could tell us a little more about it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, 179-63 actually answers Larry’s question. It says, “Manure shall be applied to the land in such a manner so as to minimize offensive odors to neighbors, and in no case shall be closer than 10 feet to the property line.” You’ve got more property. That’s what the Code says. MR. RINGER-He could put it in a pile some place 10 feet from the line. I’d just like to have some idea of what he’s going to do with it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says, “Shall be applied to the land in such a manner so as to minimize offensive odors”. You could probably spread it. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. I would. MR. VOLLARO-But 179-63 talks to that. It also talks to pesticides and herbicides, which is something I wanted to just discuss. Do you plan on using any herbicides. MR. KUBRICKY-Not really, no. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You don’t keep your horses on your property now. MR. KUBRICKY-No. I don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you plan on doing any farming on the property for purposes of grass or hay for the horses? MR. KUBRICKY-No, not really. I just plan on keeping it mowed down and let the horses eat good, and in the winter it’s cheaper to buy it than it is to try to cut it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BERNIE CHARLEBOIS 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. CHARLEBOIS-I’m Bernie Charlebois, and I live at 90 Oak Valley Way. My property adjoins the 14 acres in question. I did have one question on the Staff Notes. It says that the applicant may combine the parcel and then the use would be considered an accessory use, which would still be allowed. Does that mean that if the two lots that are in the building development are combined with the 14 acres, then horses would be allowed on the lots within the development? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not sure I follow you. MR. VOLLARO-It would be allowed on the 14, the 14 acres. MR. CHARLEBOIS-But not on the two lots that are within the building development? MR. MAC EWAN-Staff, will you respond to that, please. MRS. MOORE-I can provide some information. The comment’s coming from a concern that the two lots, if you look at the plans right now, there’s actually three lots, the proposed site plan is for the 14 +/- acres which he’s proposing. There’s two additional lots that are not provided on the plan, that are included in the plan, I would say, but they’re not demarcated, that are part of what we call the subdivision the North 40, and this comment’s going to come across as there’s a deed restriction on those two parcels, in regard to keeping of livestock. So this application is specifically for that one parcel that’s 14 +/- acres, and is not for the two parcels that are where the house is located right now. MR. VOLLARO-Laura, is the property line these? MRS. MOORE-That would be correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the property line. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That divides this and that, and that’s the 14 acres he’s talking about. MRS. MOORE-Yes, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And you’re saying that these lots down here are really two lots? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And they have the deed restrictions on them that says you can’t put animals on these two? MRS. MOORE-I’ll let him refer to it. It’s a deed restriction. I don’t know how it’s worded, exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-But it is still considered a permitted use on that 14 +/- acres. If Mr. Kubricky needed to come back for a site plan amendment, or another site plan approval, and he wished to include those two other lots, I’m sure he would have to come through with some civil issue in regard to the deed restrict. MR. VOLLARO-Well, my understanding was he has to fence this whole 14 acres. So he has to draw a fence along this property line between these two. MR. KUBRICKY-I’ve got 25 acres, and I’m saying in the 14 acres of it, you know what I mean, I don’t want horses up by my house. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I understand. MR. KUBRICKY-I’m asking to build a barn on 14 acres, not to have horses up at my house. MR. VOLLARO-So you have no desire to bring the horses down into the other two restricted lots that have some deed restriction on them. MR. KUBRICKY-Not at all. That’s correct. MR. CHARLEBOIS-I just wanted clarification of that statement, and you’ve answered it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. CHARLEBOIS-No. Thank you. RICHARD SAGE MR. SAGE-My name is Richard Sage. I live at 82 Hunter Lane. My property is not contiguous with Tom’s, but it’s in the vicinity, and I’ve lived there for 21 years. I would like to encourage the Board to apply the computer term “WYSIWYG” to this project. What you see is what you get. There’s been a problem up there with actions being taken on that property that were inconsistent with regulations of the State and of the Town. They haven’t impacted me, but I think it’s wrong for these things to happen without the Board’s taking notice of them. When you’re finished with the project here tonight, it goes through its steps, and then something is implemented, and if it’s not quite implemented right, lots of times it’s not done, and five years from now, all those rules and things that you have worked hard to put into practice can be negated, by just not following up on it. I think it’s mandatory that boards should follow up on those things. I know it’s tough, and I know it’s tough on the individual, too, because they change their mind, but I think if they do change their mind, they should come back to the Board, as the regulations require. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? PAUL SERVANT MR. SERVANT-Hi. My name is Paul Servant, and I live on Fox Road, and my property faces this property, and I have a few concerns about, one, the size of the lot, 14 acres, seven horses on there. Is there going to be an odor or noise problem in the area? My property faces this area, and also hours of operation. Is this going to be a lighted track or anything like that? MR. KUBRICKY-No, there won’t be a lighted track. The light might be left on in the barn. The dog next to my house barks all night, and if my horse winneys all night, you know what I mean, I’ll ship them out, because if you know where I live, you see what I build, and I definitely don’t want to denigrate an area to bring it down. The stuff that I do, I think I do it high end. My horses will be nice horses, and it’ll be a nice groomed field. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think we got a handle on it. MR. VOLLARO-The seven horses that he’s going to put on 14 acres is allowable, by the way, under the Code. MR. SERVANT-Very good, and the environmental impact has been addressed on this, like I would think? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a buzz word that’s been floating around the Town. We’ll do a SEQRA in a few moments, which is an environmental assessment form, where we determine whether there’s any significant environmental impacts associated with this action. MR. SERVANT-Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Okay, now I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: TOM KUBRICKY, 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. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) 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 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NOES ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion. MR. VOLLARO-Before we introduce a motion, it’s closer to 40 up to the top of the horse. On my site plan, it says no cupola? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s coming out? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. She told me it was over. I thought it looked nice, but if you don’t want it, it’s off MR. VOLLARO-It just makes 40 feet, or a hair over. The top of the cupola. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Put the cupola without the weathervane. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. MRS. MOORE-The issue is that he’s in the APA, and they have a restriction of how you can be in the APA, which is restricted to 35 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Five less than the Town Ordinance. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the answer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2000 TOM KUBRICKY, Introduced by Alan Abbott who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As written by Staff, and incorporating the recommendations of the Staff that the following conditions be met: The 14 acres is to be fenced, whether or not the lots are combined; the number of horses be limited to up to 7 horses; the keeping of horses is to be for personal use, no stabling of horses belonging to other persons; no commercial venture with horses without site plan review or site plan amendment and approval from the Planning Board and since there are surrounding areas in residential use, and the intent of the use as stated by the applicant is to keep horses for personal use, the agricultural use should be classified as a Class D, Hobby, Agricultural use, with a Class A designation concerning acreage only. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 16-2000, Tom Kubricky to construct a seven stall horse barn. Agricultural use and farm, all classes, including barns and stables as accessory uses are a Type II Site Plan review use in the LC zone; and 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/20/2000 , consists of the following: 1. Application w/map Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 2/22/00 - Staff Notes 2. 2/9/00 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution – Default approval due to lack of quorum 3. 11/24/93 – APA to T. Kubricky 4. 10/21/93 - Notes to Board 5. 11/26/93 - S. Cipperly to T. Kubricky 6. 2/4/00 - Meeting Notice 7. 2/15/00 - Notice of Public Hearing 8. 2/15/00 - New drawings received w/note from L. Moore – No Cupola Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/22/00 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, 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/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 review is necessary. Duly adopted this 22 day of February 2000 by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Tom, could I ask you this. You have seven horses, but did I miss something, because it’s getting late, but you only have six stalls. Are you going to put one in the tack room? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. It’s going to be set up like that. It’s going to be, I’m going to set it up for eight and then one. One’s going to be in the tack room. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about the grain room? MR. KUBRICKY-The grain room is going to be a stall, really. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because you have the stairs upstairs, you have a stairs to go up. So you’ll put the hay upstairs. MR. KUBRICKY-Right. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED SITCO, LLC OWNER: EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORP. ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 276 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE SPACE (52,000 SQ. FT.) IN THE FORMER AMG BUILDING WITH A NEW TENANT – SITCO, LLC. THE PROPOSED USE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR A NEW USE TYPE IN THE LI ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 31-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-24.27 LOT SIZE: 3 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JON LAPPER & MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 17-2000, Sitco, LLC, Meeting Date: February 22, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to utilize a 52,000 square foot building as warehouse facility 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) for a packaging company. Planning Board review and approval is required for new uses in the Light Industrial Zone. Staff Notes: There are no proposed alterations to the interior or exterior of the buildings or site. There is between 4-6 employees for the facility. They anticipate 4-6 deliveries/pick-ups a day by tractor trailers. They do not anticipate a 24 hour operation, the Board may consider discussion on the hours of operation. They propose a directional like sign to their facility and no other signage is proposed at this time. There will be no exterior dumpsters, garbage will be stored inside the facility and picked up as needed. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Sitco LLC warehouse with the condition the applicant’s final plans identify Sitco as the applicant and information on the plan is to be amended to represent Sitco.” MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County approved because no one showed up at the meeting. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper and Mark Levack. I have nothing to add to that except I can answer any questions that the Board has. MR. MAC EWAN-Give us a quick spiel. MR. LAPPER-Existing building, Mark’s been trying to find a use for it for a while. It’s owned by New York State, which took it over after the bankruptcy. Pactiv is the proposed tenant, which is the resulting company from Tenneco Packaging. It would used for storing these packaging materials, Styrofoam. They’re already all over Town, leasing warehouse space to store the stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re not actually going to do any manufacturing there. They’re just going to utilize the offices, like engineering moving in there? MR. LAPPER-No. The offices are still available. It’s just the big building in the back. They wouldn’t be leasing the whole thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LEVACK-I guess I’d like to say that it’s our hope, at this point, that this deal becomes the foothold to Pactiv staying in the area. They’re month to month, in many locations. I don’t know that they’re month to month in all locations, but I do know that they’re month to month, because I’ve put them in other warehouses, and it’s kind of scary thought to have a company like that in that situation. I believe that because they’re expressing a genuine longer term commitment in this location that it’s our goal to make this scenario work long term for this company, and that’s the goal of Sitco, LLC is to make this company work long term at this location. So, it’s our hope that some day we’re coming back to you in the very near future to get manufacturing and all that involves approved at that location. MR. LAPPER-But he’s just speculating. MR. LEVACK-But I’m just speculating. MR. MAC EWAN-He holds high hopes just like I do. MR. LEVACK-Yes, I think we all do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. When it says garbage will be stored inside the facility and picked up as needed, what kind of garbage are we talking about? MR. LEVACK-Typically, they use corrugated box, and if a corrugated box rips, they set it aside. They stack them up. They put them in a dumpster, and it’s removed. They may have a cellophane wrap around a skid of boxes. That cellophane wrap may come unraveled. It’s like cellophane. They roll it up in a ball. They throw it away. MR. VOLLARO-That’s certainly not edible by rodents. I’m concerned with people who eat lunch there, you know, throw their lunch in the dumpster and close it and say, well, we’ll empty that in a month, and that’s a concern that I, storing garbage inside just doesn’t sound good to me, generally. MR. LEVACK-Well, we do it all the time, in businesses around Town. If it’s a 55 gallon drum, a normal tote, I don’t envision that their garbage, that their warehouse employee refuse is going to be any more than a normal household container of garbage, which would be taken out once a week when the trash company comes to take it away. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) MR. VOLLARO-Is there a reason why you don’t want an outside dumpster, or is it? There’s no need for it? MR. LEVACK-They won’t be generating trash at that location. It’s a very clean operation, if you’ve seen any of their warehouses, they’re very tidy. Everything is spit polished. Really the comment was that they weren’t going to be producing any trash. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have no further comments. MR. RINGER-This is the old Valcour company? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. LEVACK-If you go back to the very beginning, yes. Everything spun off from Valcour, right. MR. RINGER-How many employees are they going to have in there? MR. LEVACK-They’re saying four to six. MR. RINGER-The four to six deliveries, that’s tractor trailers, 48 footers in and out of there? MR. LEVACK-Correct. MR. METIVIER-Is this a long term lease or a short term? MR. LEVACK-We consider it to be a longer term lease. MR. METIVIER-And there’s still office space available. Would you be able to attract other people to that, or they going to utilize the whole thing? MR. LEVACK-It’s our goal to offer it to Pactiv, but if they’re not immediately in the position to take advantage of that space, it’s our goal to offer that to any third party that chooses to lease it, and right now because that building is a detached building, it lends itself very nicely to a co-habitation with another tenant, totally detached from the other building. MR. METIVIER-And you will pursue that, right? MR. LEVACK-Sure, in the best interest of the economy, in the best interest of Sitco and the best interest of New York State, we’re absolutely going to pursue trying to get another tenant in. We prefer to pursue Pactiv, but to the extent that they’re able, they’ll only take it if they’re so inclined. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question here regarding SEQRA. Because this was already an approved site plan, even though we’re changing a use within an already approved site plan, can’t we just make a SEQRA determination that? MRS. MOORE-This is a new site plan. I would consider it an Unlisted Action. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What did you supply with the application, a long or short? MR. VOLLARO-Short. MRS. MOORE-It’s a Short. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 68 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) RESOLUTION NO. 17-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SITCO, LLC, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 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 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2000 SITCO, LLC, Introduced by Alan Abbott who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As prepared by Staff. The final plans shall identify SITCO as the applicant and information on the plan is to be amended to represent SITCO. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 17-2000, Sitco, LLC. Applicant proposes replacement of an existing warehouse space (52,000 sq. ft.) in the former AMG building with a new tenant – SITCO, LLC. The proposed use requires Planning Board review and approval for a new use type in the LI zone; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 2/4/00 , consists of the following: 1. Application w/cover letter dated 2/4/00 from J. Lapper, w/maps SP-1 dated 5/23/93 and Grading Plan dated 9/29/93 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 2/22/00 - Staff Notes 2. 2/4/00 - Meeting notice letter 3. 2/4/00 - Transmittal of application to Warren Co. Planning 4. 2/15/00 – Notice of Public Hearing 5. 2/9/00 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution – Default approval due to lack of quorum Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/22/00 concerning the above project; and 69 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/00) Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and/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. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any further business before the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Getting information late like this. MR. MAC EWAN-That will be addressed Friday morning. It’s an ongoing problem. I’ll introduce a motion to adjourn. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Craig MacEwan, Chairman 70