Loading...
2000-07-18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ALAN ABBOTT ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH, ALTERNATE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 16, 2000: NONE May 18, 2000: NONE May 25, 2000: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 16, MAY 18, AND MAY 25, THTHTH Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 50-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED CHURCH OF THE KING OWNER: SAME MR-5 LOCATION: 685 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTY TO HOLD A SUBSTANTIAL CHURCH FUNCTION. THE EVENT WILL BE AN ANNUAL ACTIVITY FOR THE CHURCH. NEW USES IN MR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REIVEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-2.1 LOT SIZE: 1.06 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 BILL DAVIDSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 50-2000, Church of the King, Meeting Date: July 18, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes to hold an Annual Tent Meeting event that involves a 4,000 square foot tent and parking for participants. The applicant designated areas for the tent, parking, and bathroom facilities. The hours of this year’s event will be from 7:00 p.m.–10:00 p.m., July 24, 2000 to July 30, 2000. Throughout the event there is anticipated 250-300 visitors. Floodlights as shown on the drawing will light the area. Project Analysis The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The event is an allowed use within the zone as a church related activity. Site Overview The applicant has indicated that all activity is proposed to be located towards the rear of the existing building. The tent will be set up with a PA system for music and verbal communications. The event does not provide food or beverage, but trash containers will be made available. Traffic, Circulation, Parking Bay Road has wide pavement within this area and it is not congested with road side landscaping/brush, minimizing potential traffic conflicts. The existing road access appears to be sufficient for incoming and out going vehicles. Staff would suggest installing temporary directional signage for exit and entrance to assist in traffic control. The area to be used for parking is located to the rear and south side of the property. This area currently is open meadow with a gentle slope towards the southern property line. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) The applicant has indicated the parking area will be set up for fifty vehicles. The area designated appears to be sufficient for the number of visitors to the site during the event time. Demarcation of the parking area with cones and rope may assist with on site circulation. The event is pedestrian orientated to a single location. There appears to be adequate separation between the tent and the parking area to avoid any pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Utility and Stormwater review The proposal does not appear to interfere with the existing stormwater pattern or drainage facilities on the site. The applicant proposes “porta-potties” to handle the sewage disposal. No new landscaping is proposed at this time. The location of the event on the property is in an area that does not appear to have ponding or erosion problems, because the area is open meadow/permeable surface. Areas of Concern or Importance The Fire Marshal was informed of the event and has provided comments for review. See attached. Conclusions The proposal will not have a significant adverse environmental impact because of the design of the event including parking location, duration of event, and type of event, Section 179-39. However, as plans are developed for the new church, the seasonal use should be evaluated as part of the cumulative impacts on the site. Suggestions 1. The applicant verifies notification of the Warren County Sheriff’s of the event time and anticipated visitors and provides the Planning Staff with a response if available. 2. The applicant provide directional signage for entrance and exit of the property. 3. The applicant demarcates the parking area with cones.” MRS. MOORE-And he has submitted a letter in reference to the Fire Marshal’s comments, the in- staff comments which you received this evening. Do you want me to read that into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Please. MRS. MOORE-This is dated Friday, July 14, 2000, “Following the visit of Mr. Chuck Wright to the Town Center and his collection the attached items (i.e. Community Development Department Notes, and ii. Observations from Fire Marshal Jones), the following comments apply:- 1. Site Overview We confirm the details stated in this paragraph of the Community Development Notes, including the fact that there will be no food served. Mr. Wright stated to you that he is personally keen to sell food to raise funds for the Church Building Project – however the team of pastors responsible for the event don’t plan on doing this. The meetings begin soon after the evening meal hour, and the sale of food would seem redundant. We might, however, have some cold soft-drinks available for meeting goers. 2. Traffic, Circulation, Parking We note all the helpful suggestions in this section and will fully comply with same. 3. Utility and Stormwater Review We note all the helpful suggestions in this section and will fully comply with same. 4. Suggestions We will fully comply with the suggestions at the bottom of page two of your notes. 5. Notes from Fire Marshal Chris Jones We note all the requirements and will fully comply. To further clarify our situation. Have we made it clear that we do not propose to hold this “annual event” on this same property again? This is our proposed location for this year only. When the Church building is erected, this event will move to a neutral open field area. Further, although Mr. Wright may have intimated to you that a large number of Churches are involved, (thus giving rise to speculation of larger than estimated crowds) the fact is that we invite some twenty-eight Churches; about six or seven usually respond. A small representation comes from each Church and the crowd is usually around 250-300 in attendance each night. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Rev. Bill Davidson (Pastor)” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. DAVIDSON-Hi. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please? MR. DAVIDSON-My name’s Bill Davidson. I’m the Pastor of Church of the King, and that’s the Church that owns the property at 685 Bay. MR. MAC EWAN-And could you tell us a little bit maybe more about what your proposed activities are going to be up there? MR. DAVIDSON-Basically the meetings start at seven o’clock. So people would be arriving usually around about 6:30 to 7:00. As we’ve intimated in the letters, we’ll have a good team parking cars. We’ve had all the suggestions as to how to park them and then, you know, leaving adequate room and so on for entrance and exits. The meetings themselves go on to about 9:30, 10 o’clock, and people just vacate the property straight after those meetings. They’d start, as you see, on the Sunday, on the Monday evening, and go through to the following Sunday evening. This event has, in fact, 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) taken place for I think three previous years over in West Glens Falls at the Veterans Field. So basically there are teams set up that have done this for a few years now, and the same people will be involved, looking after things, plus obviously some new people coming in. MR. MAC EWAN-Now your letter says that you’re only planning on having this event held at this location just for this year? MR. DAVIDSON-Yes, that’s right. I realized in the phrasing of a letter to us from the Town that it looked as if my phrasing, an annual tent event, looked as if we were going to put it on this property, but we’re not. In fact, we were looking to put it on the same property, but with the development that’s taking place there, we then suggested, well, why not put it on our land because until we put our building up, it’s just a field. Once the building’s there, we wouldn’t be having an event like that, on an ongoing business. In fact, one of the themes of it is to find a neutral territory so people from various churches can go, not to another church property, but to a neutral property, which ours is that at the moment. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. DAVIDSON-I don’t think so, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m just concerned about parking, more than anything. I mean, I know that Bay Road, obviously, is wide, but is it going to be able to handle all those cars? MR. DAVIDSON-The room, you mean? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. DAVIDSON-We do, yes. We have, the tent is 40 by 80, and we have, I think, I don’t have the drawing in front of me, but do you have a copy of the drawing, the sketch map that I made? MR. VOLLARO-It’s 50 by 80. MR. DAVIDSON-It’s about 300, yes, actually I’d say it’s 60 by 80, but I think I heard this afternoon it’s only 40 by 80. It’s quite narrow, the tent. We have a lot of room there for parking. At first, we had thought we might have to go over to ACC, and we actually asked them for permission to have overflow parking there, but that was when our property was overgrown. Since we’ve mowed it and walked it again, we realize we do have a lot of room. MR. METIVIER-Did ACC say it would be all right? MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. They said they were fine with the idea of, and of course that top parking lot is right opposite our property, but we’re fairly confident we’ll be able to, when I say 250 to 300 people, that’s a good night. We may hit that a couple of times. Really we would be around about 150 to 200 mark, but there may be, toward the weekends and so on, a larger crowd. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MR. RINGER-When you had it at Veteran’s Field, how many cars did you get on it? MR. DAVIDSON-I’m afraid I can’t tell you how many. Obviously, that’s a very, you know, wide open ball field, and parking was very easy, but I’ve tried to envisage the number of cars that were there, and I’m pretty sure we’ve got the same amount of land being used as we used for parking. Certainly, we’re well within the regulations, so far as the suggestions of, what is it, five people per car in a public meeting place? MR. RINGER-In the event of foul weather, rain, the area that you’re going to be going to, have you made any plans on how you’re going to get to, I can’t see cars going in and out of there in any kind of heavy rain. MR. DAVIDSON-It would have to be a real very, very continual downpour to make it soggy. We’re nice and high there, and the runoff is easy. In fact, the land itself is crowned. It comes and it continues on downhill. So what we get, the people next door will end up with. MR. RINGER-The last question I have is the noise. I read where you’re going to have loudspeakers and music. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. DAVIDSON-It would certainly be no greater than the concerts we listen to in our home from ACC, which sound as if we have a stereo system in our room. The music’s usually pretty good, but it would certainly be no louder than that, but we do have a worship band that starts the evening. That would be different groups from each church, and then a preacher preaches, and our closest neighbor across the road is known to us. She’s a member of the church that meets next door to ours, in fact, at the Oneida Church. She’s a 97 year old lady, and she’d be very much in agreement with what we’re doing. The next closest neighbors are the College, and the apartments just down the way that are occupied mostly by young people and students, and I don’t think they would mind the noise either, because we also share their noise from time to time. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else, thank you. MR. VOLLARO-My only concern, I guess, is the letter from the Fire Marshal. Which I consider to be probably the most significant piece of paper in here, in terms of restrictions and so on. Now there’s a couple of things in here, like where he says any electrical system must be isolated from the public. What’s the power source going to be? MR. DAVIDSON-The power source is actually coming from the existing building, and we have a board, actually, it was set up this afternoon by somebody from NiMo, and a cable then runs along an entrance to our lower basement garage area. The public would not be in that area whatsoever. That’s an area that’s totally cut off from where the public will be walking, and it will run right to the back of the stage. Right behind that is a bank area, and the public will not have access to that area at all, either the stage or where the power source will come in. There’s a separate breaker, and the power source comes from that, and then there’s a panel board with outlets and so on that sits just behind the stage. The congregation would be coming in the other end of the tent, you know, at the various entrances and so on. MR. VOLLARO-This is a pretty healthy order he’s given you, 21 lines of things to do. Are you going to survey these yourselves, or police these yourself, and I guess I have a question for Staff. Is the Fire Marshal going to be doing any of this? MRS. MOORE-The Fire Marshal does an actual inspection. MR. VOLLARO-Of all of these items? MRS. MOORE-Of all of those items. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s what I didn’t see here, that he would actually get out and inspect those. If that’s the case, I don’t have any further questions on this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a suggestion. Just to make sure that the traffic leaves without any incident, if there’s going to be that many cars. Maybe you could just contact the Warren County Sheriff’s Department just to have somebody there at the conclusion of your evening, just to make sure that the traffic is flowing and maybe they can just let all the people out, especially people that have to go north on Bay Road. I mean, it just might be a good idea. MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. I think so, and we’d considered that, and letting them know the approximate time of the end of the meetings. I think, in fact, that would be more of a build up at the end of a meeting than the beginning. People tend to come. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Staggered. MR. DAVIDSON-In a more graduated way, but they leave together. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. DAVIDSON-So, yes, we’re going to do that. Other suggestions such as the Fire Marshal’s suggestion and so on, my comments on that was that these guidelines and suggestions we’ve had from the Town and the Fire Marshal really make a good manual as to how to run a good event. We don’t see this as an intrusion or a hardship. These are good things that we say, yes, we’ll give these to our teams, and this is how we’ll run it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. How are you doing? I’ve been up there twice, and I have your sketch plan, and I don’t have the dimensions on it. It doesn’t look like it’s proportional to me. MR. DAVIDSON-That’s quite possible. I mean, that was just really a sketch concept. MR. STROUGH-Well, so when I got up there and tried to visualize your house, a 50 by 80 or 40 by 80 tent, that may turn out to be 40 by 80, and where you’re proposing the tent behind the house doesn’t seem practical because you have a berm that runs east and west, right behind the house. The fence is going to have to be more south of the house than you’re proposing in here. So that kind of, you know, I’m looking at parking and I’m looking at possibly 300 people, and I’m think, 100, 150 cars. MR. DAVIDSON-I’d be surprised if it was that many, in previous years. MR. STROUGH-Probably 100? MR. DAVIDSON-We paced out the tent, and it came to one third of the way across the property. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not so worried about the tent, but I think the tent is going to have to be south of where it’s located. I’m concerned about the parking. I’m concerned about getting 100 cars on your piece of property. MR. DAVIDSON-The tent will actually be due east of the house. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I see that on here, but I don’t see any parking plan. I don’t see where you’re going to park the cars, how you’re going to park the cars. So I quickly looked at your plan, and the maximum I can see is looking, giving 10 foot per space, giving 25 feet per row, which is standard, about 30, 60 cars, maybe. All right. That’s a concern. MR. DAVIDSON-Well, 60 cars would, in fact, so far as Town guidelines are concerned, facilitate 300 people in a public place. MR. STROUGH-Well, the reason why I mention that, and I went up there twice, just because, you know, I want to, and I had a tough time visualizing that many automobiles being parked there, and so I was kind of pleased to hear that ACC would allow you to use their parking area, which, to me, clears up a whole lot, and I may condition this, or ask a condition, to be included in this acceptance, if that’s the case, that you get a letter of consent from ACC that you are allowed to use parking spaces over there during the time of this event. MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, has this, another thing, has this parking plan been evaluated by emergency personnel in Queensbury for accessibility? MR. DAVIDSON-All that I know is that I’ve had the responses that I’ve received from the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-John, the Fire Marshal has. MR. STROUGH-The Fire Marshal has, but I’m just saying emergency vehicles being able to get in here. MR. ABBOTT-Point B, in the letter from the Fire Marshal, aisles are to be 25 feet to allow fire department access. He took that into consideration. MR. STROUGH-Right, and that’s why I mentioned the aisles, and that’s why I mentioned the limitation on the number of cars, but, okay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think if he complies with the Fire Marshal’s requirements, that particular concern has been met. MR. STROUGH-That was my big concern, and if you can get permission from ACC to allow overflow parking, because I asked for you if you could use Bay Road for overflow parking, and the answer was no. So, ACC would be a viable possibility here. MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. They have, did they say by word or by letter that we could use ACC? We do have a letter, then, from ACC, yes, responding positively to that. Yes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. STROUGH-Good. Okay. Thank you. MR. DAVIDSON-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Your tent, which end of the tent will the stage area be at? Will it be closest to the house, or away from the house? MR. DAVIDSON-If the house sits in this direction, well, let me say, north, south, east, west, that the tent will be immediately behind the house, lengthwise running east to west, away from the house. The stage will be on the north wall of that, and the entrances will be on the south and the east wall. MR. MAC EWAN-Will the tent have sides on it or be open? MR. DAVIDSON-There will be sides, and it will have three entrances, as stipulated by the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-And as far as traffic control goes, on your property, will you have your own people monitoring, directing the traffic coming in and out, and as maybe parking spaces open up, you can put cars right into spaces? MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. We always have a team of people who, nightly, are in charge of parking. They’re there early to get the earliest people, and they’re there until the last car leaves. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. This is a question for Staff, I’m sorry, but do they need to, they’ll get a CO on this, should we approve this, right, and prior to them issuing a CO is when the Fire Marshal would make his inspection? MRS. MOORE-I’m not quite certain if it’s called a CO or not, but I know the Fire Marshal will inspect it prior to them opening the event. MR. MAC EWAN-Do they need a permit of some kind to hold this event? MRS. MOORE-I’m not aware of that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? I’ll open up the public hearing. If anyone wants to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 50-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CHURCH OF THE KING, 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: 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) 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 18 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: MR. MAC EWAN-Before we entertain a resolution, is there any discussion? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Under the resolution, there’s a comment in there that says, in reference to landscaping, that should be omitted from the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-In the resolution itself? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the “Whereas, landscaping must be professionally installed”? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you have a list? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I have some things here, and some of these conditions would be to get a letter of consent from ACC to use the parking area. MR. VOLLARO-They already have that they said. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They already have that. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve got to submit that to Staff. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, submit that to Staff. I think I might go with this proposed site plan that you’re here tonight about, for the tent structure, there’s nothing that says, in the Town’s resolution, that this would not be an ongoing thing. I think that the application, if it’s approved, should just have a duration of until December 31, 2000. MR. DAVIDSON-Fine, sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I think that’s a good idea, because it gives us a couple of opportunities here. If, for some reason, this new building that you want to put on your property doesn’t come through, and you want to entertain this concept again for next year, it gives the Board an opportunity to see how it’s going to work here this year, and maybe address next year maybe any problems or concerns that come up during this year’s event. MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. I don’t like to think that our building won’t be up by then, but I’m sure we’ll meet some time in the future about that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the thing is, like some of these things that I’ve written down are really. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you just go down the list. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I have some things like 7 p.m. you expect the meeting to start, to end around 10 p.m. You’re going to leave ample room for the entrance and the exits. It will be starting on Monday and going through Sunday evening, and you feel that the noise level will be just comparable to what ACC puts out when they have concerts, whatever, and the Fire Marshal has a handle on everything, and I thought of the suggestion to bring in a Warren County Sheriff Deputy to direct traffic, maybe. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know that the Sheriff’s will do that. I my mind everything that you have read down in that list. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, even if they don’t, at least they’re aware that there’s an event going on. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but whatever we put in a resolution has got to be something that gives us the opportunity to enforce, and is also clear cut. MR. DAVIDSON-Would it be sufficient for us to notify the Sheriff’s Department? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I mean, the fact is you can notify them. That doesn’t necessarily mean, they may feel it doesn’t warrant their being there, but at least they’re aware of it. You could just notify them. MR. DAVIDSON-Right. MR. RINGER-I’ve prepared a lot of stuff. I can make a motion if you want, with the conditions that you would like, if Cathy’s through. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Before that’s done, I’d just like to add one thing to the resolution, that it should include the memo from Davidson to the Planning Board, dated 7/14/00. It’s not on the existing resolution. MR. RINGER-That is a condition as part of it. MR. RINGER-Yes, where it says, “Whereas the above is supported by the following documentation”. That’s not on there. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, if you’ve got something drafted up, go for it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2000 CHURCH OF THE KING, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 50-2000, Church of the King. Applicant proposes to utilize a portion of their property to hold a substantial function. The event will be an annual activity for the church. New uses in MR zones require Planning Board review and approval, Tax Map No. 60-7-2.1, and; WHEREAS, the application received 7/7/00 consists of the following: 1. Application w/ drawing WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/18/00 Staff Notes 2. 7/14/00 PB from B. Davidson 3. 7/12/00 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation – NCI 4. 7/12/00 L. Moore from C. Jones, Fire Marshal 5. 7/11/00 Notice of Public Hearing 6. 7/7/00 Fax to Warren Co. Planning of application rec’d. 7. 7/6/00 Meeting Notice 8. 6/16/00 Planning Board from Rev. B. Davidson 9. 6/2/00 C. Round from Rev. B. Davidson 10. 5/16/00 B. Davidson from C. Brown 11. 5/9/00 C. Round from B. Davidson WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/18/00 concerning the above project; and 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff with the addition of the letter dated July 14, 2000 from the Church of the King to be added to that (the prepared resolution), and the following conditions of approval are: a. The applicant will notify the Warren County Sheriff’s Department of the events, times and dates and a copy of that letter be sent to Staff. b. The applicant will provide directional signage for entry and exit from the property. c. The applicant will provide cones that demarcate the parking area. d. The applicant will provide Staff with a letter from ACC permitting parking at ACC. e. The approval is good until December 31, 2000. f. The time of services will be from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 2. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning Administrator’s signature. A note shall be added to the approved maps stating the conditions of approval in the following manner: Duly adopted this 18th day of July 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. DAVIDSON-I should have said, before you went to vote, that for the Town to stipulate that we, is that saying we must finish by 10:00? I mean, our kind of service can mean that people are simply there, you know, praying with one another and being ministered to, and I wouldn’t like somebody coming along and telling us we’ve got to close this up now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, the loud noise and the bands will have terminated by 10 o’clock. MR. RINGER-I would think, the way I made the resolution, that the service will end, the official services, will end at 10 p.m. MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. Anything that would be happening at that time would not be of the boisterous nature, like at the opening. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. DAVIDSON-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. OLD BUSINESS: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SDC ASSOCIATES/VENDEE OF IDA OWNER: IDA OF WARREN WASH. COUNTIES/SDC ASSOCIATES AGENT: DENNIS J. PHILLIPS ESQ. ZONE: NC-10 LOCATION: DIXON ROAD AND POPLAR LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.63 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.38 ACRES AND 1.25 ACRES. THE DIVISION WILL SEPARATE EXISITNG OFFICE BUILDINGS TO INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. TAX MAP NO. 91-1-2.1, 2.41, 2.42, 2.43 LOT SIZE: 1.38 ACRES, 1.25 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DR. JOHN SCHUTZ, PRES. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-2000, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, SDC Associates/Vendee of IDA, Meeting Date: July 19, 2000 “Project Analysis The applicant requests preliminary and final subdivision approval of a two-lot commercial subdivision in a professional park. The Planning Board had reviewed the application at sketch plan and had directed the applicant to revise the drawings according to staff notes of June 20, 2000. The applicant met with staff to review the items to be placed on the drawing. The revised set of drawings addresses staff’s comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. My name is Dennis Phillips. I’m a lawyer representing SDC Associates, and with me is Dr. John Schutze who is a partner in SDC Associates. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you. This is essentially a confirmation of an existing subdivision of one building, which is indicated by map note number two, which happened back in 1986, and then it is a new subdivision of the remainder of the property, into two lots to reflect existing land use and development. This property altogether known as the SDC property, but part of it is a lease with the IDA, which is coming to an end, is, has three buildings on it already, Building A, Building B, and Building C. It is an existing project, as mentioned at the Sketch Plan review stage. The purpose of the subdivision is to allow the partners, SDC, to engage in some internal financial and estate planning among themselves. As far as the project is concerned, nothing changes on the ground. The only thing that happens with the subdivision is a line, a legal line, that is able to subdivide the two properties. In fact, on the tax maps, the properties are already subdivided. So, what we’re doing, as part of this project, is to allow for the legal subdivision of an existing land use and development, where, in fact, nothing changes from all outward appearances. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? It seems rather simple and straightforward. Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to get clear in my mind, there’s a lot of requested waivers here, and if all these requested waivers are granted, then this becomes, as the Chairman says, a very simple two lot subdivision. I know that there are some concerns on the part of some Board members about whether water is divided, you know, whether there’s two services for water coming in to these buildings and so on, but if these waivers are granted, then all of those things are immaterial. So I guess, should we be going down each of these waivers, or have these waivers been already granted? MRS. MOORE-You’re more than welcome to go through the waivers. That’s the Planning Board’s, you know, you’re more than welcome to look through it. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot here. MRS. MOORE-Yes, but I can address some of them. He did provide a copy of the deed restrictions and covenants, and in one of the other easements that are covered, I’m not going to read directly through it, but it comments on electrical, telephone, conduit sewer and water lines, and how they are associated with each of the tenants in the building, then how they are associated with the property itself. So it is covered, in regards to, you had questions about water, I believe. So it is covered in the deed restrictions and covenants. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. PHILLIPS-Maybe a brief answer to that is that as far as the entire parcel of land is concerned, everything you see on the map, everything that is not a building is covered by a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, which makes it a common area, and so in that common area, even though we are drawing a subdivision line here, that subdivision line is subject to the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, and the easements that relate to these properties all allow each owner of each building to access the rest of the property for the benefit of each particular building, and since Dr. Schutze is here, I’ll have him talk about the actual utilities, in terms of how they are constructed and how they service each building, if you could mention that, electrical and water. DR. SCHUTZE-Yes. We built the project as the Evergreen Professional Park, and so there is a service that came from Niagara Mohawk into a transformer. The transformer distributes to the three buildings, and those are in place. Water was brought in the same way to each building, and so we have a sprinkler system that’s common among the whole complex. All the parking lots are either connected or maintained as if they were connected. So there’s really no individual part of this that isn’t going to run by the SDC Associates, who really manages the Evergreen Professional Park. Essentially, all of our tenants, too, are occupying the buildings, and the only one that’s actually separately, Dr. Esmond in the second building, he also, for banking purposes, we subdivided the building so that he could have something that was deeded for the bank to be able to loan money to him. So, there isn’t really any separate part of this. It’s all common with the buildings being on the common ground. I think the irony is that this originally was going to be all IDA, but because the IDA stopped at a certain point, then the bank started, that’s how we began with a separate subdivision back in 1986. So it’s just really confirming what’s already there, and they’ve got telephones. The telephone company brought in a common line. So it distributes to all the buildings. Each building gets 50 out of the group of 150 that are there. MR. VOLLARO-If we were to grant the waiver that says the location and size of any existing sewers, water mains, culverts and drain pipes, electric, telephone, cable television lines, proposed sewer, water mains, if we grant that waiver, then all of this discussion is very academic, it seems to me. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s already there. I mean, what we’re doing here is basically, for all practical purposes, is a simple lot line adjustment. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-This is already existing, already on file, showing all these items. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. That’s absolutely, that’s what I’m saying. I don’t know how to handle this in the packet. When I talked to Staff about it, I sat down with Laura, and I guess the conclusion there was that we had to either grant, or we had to look at these waivers and say yes or no. That was my concern. We’ve got a whole bunch of waivers in front of us, trying to understand how to handle that packet. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Phillips, did you submit a formal letter request for waivers? MR. PHILLIPS-Only what I have on the application itself, where I’ve indicated in the margin that I’m requesting a waiver on certain checklist items. MR. MAC EWAN-The items you’re requesting a waiver on are the ones you have circled, the boxes circled? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-And the thinking was that because we had something that is not like your ordinary subdivision where we’re taking a spare piece of land and we’re building up from there. We’re looking at something that has been in existence for a substantial period of time, and has had activity before this Board on other occasions. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we agree with that. Okay. Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it, I guess. I don’t know whether I had my question answered. Are we granting all these waivers as stated? MR. MAC EWAN-If you do a motion to approve, you’ll need to put that in there, that you’re granting those waivers. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I think I’m pretty much clear, although I’m still not clear about, maybe you could just clarify. Okay, so B and C are still going to remain united in one lot, and A is the one that’s separating from the unit? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. A will be on the parcel that is subdivided by this action. MR. STROUGH-I see how it’s subdivided. Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-Actually, B is a subdivision. Building B itself is a two lot subdivision. Because if you look at the map note number two, we came before this Board back in 1986, in order to get a footprint subdivision for Building B, and so that is noted on this map, and Building B has two separate tax map parcels to indicate that they’re two separate subdivided pieces of land there. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then am I correct, it’s actually a separation of Building A from the rest of it? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, I don’t know where the main water feeds and the main utility feed are going from here, but let’s say there was a break in a utility feed going to Building A. By your agreement, does that mean Building C has to pay for the reparation of that break? MR. PHILLIPS-I’ll let the Doctor answer that question. DR. SCHUTZE-All of the maintenance outside of the buildings is under the control of the common area maintenance agreement, which all of the building occupants are part of Dr. DelSignore and I, he’s the, I’m the “S” and he’s the “D”, and then John Cifone is the “C”. We are, in this case, the majority of the tenants or owners, and so the definition of who pays for a lot has always been, it’s all paid for by SDC. When Dr. Esmond joined us, as a separate owner of the second building, second half, he also agreed that any maintenance of the outside was paid for, and that’s part of our agreement, as far as the covenants and restrictions, and how it’s set up. MR. STROUGH-So if Dr. DelSignore wanted to bring in additional telephone line, that wouldn’t be his expense, that would be SDC’s expense. DR. SCHUTZE-Everything outside of the building is common. MR. STROUGH-All right. DR. SCHUTZE-Unless we agree otherwise. MR. STROUGH-All right. That’s what I wanted to get clear, and make sure that there wouldn’t be problems down the road. DR. SCHUTZE-No, that’s why I say, I think if there were as many things organized way back in the beginning of this, 15 years ago, we probably would have spelled these out, but at the time, it was just, separate the two parcels, and so now we’re going backwards in time, in a sense, and kind of clarifying what we are. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. I’m done. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB SANDERS MR SANDERS-My name is Bob Sanders. I live at 3 Poplar Lane, directly across from the proposed subdivision. My question to the Board is, furthering the subdivision, or if there’s potential at that particular parcel of land which is directly across from my yard, if it could be, if additional buildings could be constructed there. More specifically, across from my yard there’s some wonderful landscaping by Jim Girard, and it’s good to look at. My concern is that, in the future, there may be some intent to construct a building there. MR. MAC EWAN-If they were, the subdivision that’s in front of us now is just nothing more than drawing a magic line between a shared building, so that two different individuals can retain ownership of each portion of the building. There’s no other plans in front of us tonight to further develop the parcel, and if they were to choose, down the road, to want to further develop the parcel, it would require action by this Board, again, which you would certainly be notified of, but that’s not their intent here tonight. MR. SANDERS-Thank you very much. I have no more questions. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SDC ASSOCIATES/VENDEE OF IDA, 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 18 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Discussion on the resolution? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have something, Craig. Do we have to spell out either or all these requested waivers, or is it good enough to say that we accept all waivers that were submitted? MR. MAC EWAN-Spell it out, just as I wrote them down there for you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was my question, why do we have to do that, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Because those are the requirements in Preliminary approval for subdivision. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You have to specify all of them? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s not a lot. I mean, there’s only five of them there. MR. STROUGH-Well, can we make a motion to waive those, and then go on to our other motion? MR. MAC EWAN-No, you’ll want to include them in your Preliminary motion, if that’s your choosing. We’re looking at five of them. We’re considering granting a waiver to contours, granting a waiver to contiguous property within 500 feet, delineated on the map, granting a waiver for utilities, granting a waiver to setbacks and frontage, and granting waivers to lands dedicated for public use. There’s only five of them. This is not abnormal to do when you’re doing, basically, a lot line adjustment on an existing subdivision. MRS. MOORE-And the note where you say, all parcels of land proposed to be dedicated for public use, that’s a not applicable one, and it’s listed as not applicable. MR. MAC EWAN-So then we just shaved that list down to four. MRS. MOORE-No, you have five. I mean, you’re more than welcome to just indicate waivers as requested in this application. That’s up to you, and obviously they’re very simple. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have the original application there? MRS. MOORE-Yes, do you want me to read them through? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Maybe if you could have them just date and initial that page. That will help ease things up. We’ll do it just as he put in his application. Just make sure before he leaves here he just initials it and dates it, okay? MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? All right. Go for it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2000 SDC ASSOCIATES/VENDEE OF IDA, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: The Planning Board has granted the waivers as listed in the applicant’s application, and those will be initialed in the Preliminary Stage, and this is an approval for a two lot commercial subdivision in the Professional Park. Duly adopted this 18th day of July 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a motion for Final? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2000 SDC ASSOCIATES/VENDEE OF IDA, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) The applicant proposes to subdivide the 2.63 acre parcel into two lots of 1.38 and 1.25 and this division will separate the existing office buildings into individual parcels. Duly adopted this 18th day of July 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much. DR. SCHUTZE-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t forget to initial that and date it on your way out the door. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED ADIRONDACK OVERHEAD DOOR CO., INC. OWNER: ROBERT CURTIS ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 10 SOUTHWESTERN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE THE FORMER CURTIS LUMBER SITE ON SO. WESTERN AVENUE TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ADIRONDACK OVERHEAD DOOR CO. INC. THERE WILL BE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 117-10-5, 7 LOT SIZE: 0.48 AC., 0.30 AC. SECTION: 179-26 MICHAEL RINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m going to recuse myself from this application and turn it over to Larry. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 48-2000, Adirondack Overhead Door Co., Inc., Meeting Date: July 18, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes to utilize the existing buildings to operate a construction company “Adirondack Overhead Door Co.” They will utilize one building as the office and display area. The other two buildings will be used for storage of material, equipment. Company vehicles will be stored outside. Project Analysis The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed project is an allowed use within the zone. Site Overview Three buildings occupy the site and a majority of the site is gravel. The applicant has indicated the business will be closed at 5:00 p.m. Since the business will be closed at the evening hours, there will be security lighting for the office and the storage building. The fixtures are pre- existing and were described to have downward lighting. The applicant has indicated a sign will be installed that will conform to the sign code. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The site appears to have adequate room for vehicle circulation on site. Since a majority of the site is gravel the travel lanes for company and delivery will not interfere with the parking area. Deliveries are made at least once a week by tractor-trailer. The site has two possible accesses, one from Holden Avenue or one on Western Avenue. A chain link fence encloses the site with gates on each of the streets. The main access will be on Western Avenue to coincide with the Office Building. The applicant has provided an anticipated parking plan for a portion of the site. There are six company vehicles that include vans and trucks. The existing entrances appear adequate for travel of vehicles to and from the site. The proposed project is not pedestrian orientated. Utility and Stormwater review The proposed project will not alter the existing drainage pattern or utilities on the site. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) Areas of Concern and Importance The Fire Marshal was provided with the site plan for review and comment. See attached. Conclusions and Suggestions The surrounding area contains residential, commercial uses. The proposed use is compatible with these uses because it is similar to the nearby businesses and it is screened to minimize impacts to nearby residents. The proposed project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact because of type of business and location, Section 179-39.” MRS. MOORE-I’ll read the Fire Marshal comment. MR. RINGER-Please. MRS. MOORE-“Per your request, we have reviewed the proposed new location for Adirondack Overhead Door Company on Western Avenue. My deputy and I have also spoken to the responding fire chief, Peter Flewelling of the West Glens Falls Vol. Fire Company. We have no concerns or requests at this time. Any fire safety issues will be addressed as the building process continues.” And that’s dated July 14, 2000. MR. RINGER-Thank you, Laura. Good evening. Would you please identify yourself. MR. M. RINGER-Good evening. My name is Michael Ringer. I’m the co-owner of Adirondack Overhead Door. MR. RINGER-Can you tell us a little bit about your project, Mr. Ringer? MR. M. RINGER-Well, what we’re doing is we’re trying to consolidate our business into one area, which will be, the Western Avenue side will be “showroom, office facility”, like we have on 6 Main Street already, which is a couple of blocks over, and then we will use one of the buildings, the two story building in the back, to warehouse, and there’s a building in the middle that needs a little fixing up at some point. At some time we’ll utilize that space, too. The place needs a little sprucing up. MR. RINGER-You’ll be leasing the building or buying the building from? MR. M. RINGER-I’ll be buying the site. MR. RINGER-Is that it? Okay. We’ll start with Staff. Any questions, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. First of all, it’s great that somebody’s utilizing that, and I think your operation will be excellent there. The only thing I have concern about it is, what are your intentions for landscaping and fixing up the building exterior facing Western Avenue? MR. M. RINGER-What my intentions are, Number One, to bushwhack the whole place, and get it looking pretty good. Down the road, maybe by next spring, hopefully, if the money is permitting, it should be, I want to put like some kind of steel siding or something to make it look nice all the way around. I would want to tear off that little cubby hole in the front there. It doesn’t look too good right now. It sticks out, but in time that’s probably what you’ll see. MR. STROUGH-I’m sure the adjacent property owners would appreciate that. MR. M. RINGER-Yes. I don’t know what they built that for on the front of that. MR. STROUGH-When do you plan on moving in? MR. M. RINGER-As soon as possible. MR. STROUGH-As soon as possible. Well, those are the only concerns that I have. MR. RINGER-Okay. Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set. It looks good. MR. RINGER-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. RINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just have one concern. In my Staff Notes, it says the applicant proposes to utilize the existing buildings to operate a construction company. Do you plan on doing any manufacturing on the site at all? MR. M. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. Your doors are pre-shipped in, parts and pieces? MR. M. RINGER-Yes. We get, our main supplier, Raynor Garage Doors, we usually get a trailer once a week, and we make nothing on the site. All of our work is done out on other sites, job sites, either residential or commercial. MR. VOLLARO-I would just like to make a statement and compliment this applicant on the way he presented his general Part A and Part B and Part C. You know, usually all you get is a check mark. This gentlemen explained what the check marks meant. I thought that was very refreshing, to tell you the truth, and I would like Staff to take a good hard look at what he did here. That’s all I have, sir. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve got a public hearing on this. Anyone from the public wish to address the Board on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-Any other comments from the Board? On the landscaping issue, Laura, Beautification wouldn’t look at this, or why wouldn’t Beautification become involved? MRS. MOORE-We haven’t typically sent Light Industrial applications to Beautification, and because of the location of their main building, the office building was so close to Western Avenue, we didn’t see how it would be possible for them to improve their entrance, which is typically where we see landscaping. So we did not send it to the Beautification Committee. MR. RINGER-Okay, and Staff didn’t have any recommendations as to how landscaping? MRS. MOORE-It’s screened from other, you know, neighboring properties by the fence, and that front entrance, you know, based on my observation, it would be rather difficult to, you know, anything they could do to enhance it, I would encourage them to do so. MR. RINGER-It’s just overgrown now, and I was just, you know, he said he’s going to bushwhack it down, and apparently that’s about all he can do, and I guess in the motion then we’d have to somehow get that, that he is going to clear that up. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the motion contains a statement, whereas landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained, similar to the last applicant. Do we want that to stand as it’s stated in the resolution? MRS. MOORE-You may want to remove it from there, simply because you understand that the applicant is performing the task. MR. VOLLARO-Are you recommending it be removed from the resolution? MRS. MOORE-Or you can ask the applicant if he’s going to have it professionally done. MR. VOLLARO-See, there’s a statement in the resolution that says landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained. Are you going to agree with that? MR. M. RINGER-Unless they consider me a professional, because I’ll be the one doing it. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So that really ought to be removed. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. ABBOTT-Yes, we’ll take that out. MR. RINGER-Take that out. MR. M. RINGER-I’d make a comment. There will be, in the front of the building, actually, I believe there’s a window off to the left. The trees are growing up, and we’re going to do something right there. That’s about the only thing you can do with that whole piece of property, really, that’s going to show up on Western Avenue. MR. RINGER-It wasn’t only the front, but the back of the property on the other street over there is really overgrown, and I guess really bushwhacking it is probably the only thing you can do. MR. M. RINGER-We’re just going to clean it up. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. METIVIER-I just want to make sure, though, that if you take that out, that it will still be at least maintained. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m going to recommend that we make a statement that the applicant will provide maintenance. MR. STROUGH-Just take out the word “professionally”. Just put in landscaping will be installed and maintained. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that makes sense. MRS. RADNER-Your plan doesn’t include any landscaping, though. You don’t want to have a whereas saying that you’re going to have landscaping when you haven’t required any and don’t have any in your plan. MR. STROUGH-Well, what’s the word “professionally” mean anyway? MRS. RADNER-Well, that’s why the whole thing should be removed because if you’re not going to be really including that in the planting, what you’re approving, then you don’t want to turn it into just boilerplate that shows up in your motions, even when it doesn’t apply. MR. RINGER-So you’re saying leave it out completely? MR. VOLLARO-Sure, take it out, is what she’s saying. MRS. RADNER-If you want to say that he’s required to remove the overgrown vegetation, then that’s what you should say. Don’t make it subjective. Make it clear what you’re requiring this applicant to do. MR. RINGER-Do we need to do a SEQRA on this? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, we do. MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s do the SEQRA, then. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 48-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ADIRONDACK OVERHEAD DOOR, CO., INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) 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 18 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-We’re ready for a motion, if anyone is so inclined. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2000 ADIRONDACK OVERHEAD DOOR CO, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 48-2000, Adirondack Overhear Door Co., Inc. Applicant proposes to utilize the former Curtis Lumber site on So Western Avenue to operate a Construction Company, Adirondack Overhead Door Co., Inc. T here will be no changes to the existing structures. New uses in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 117-10-5, 7, and; WHEREAS, the application received 6/00 consists of the following: 1. Application w/ checklist narrative, Exhibits 1 thru 4, letter from R. Curtis (owner) WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/18/00 Staff Notes 2. 7/14/00 L. Moore from C. Jones, Fire Marshal 3. 7/12/00 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation - NCI 4. 7/11/00 Notice of Public Hearing 5. 7/7/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/18/00 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) 1. Approved in accordance with the resolution that was prepared by Staff, and in addition, with a condition that says the applicant will remove any overgrowth and generally maintain the grounds as far as landscaping is concerned. 2. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning Administrator’s signature. Duly adopted this 18th day of July 2000 by the following vote: MRS. LA BOMBARD-Bob, do you think you should put in something to the effect that, even though it was said that there was going to be construction, in the original, that there will be no manufacturing on the premises? It was a construction company. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That was my question. I thought he answered that and said no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know that. All right. So you don’t need to put that in. Okay. I’m just covering ourselves. MR. RINGER-It’s in the minutes. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-You’re all set. MR. M. RINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED BRB GROUP OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES/NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 35.12 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO A 14 LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-1.1 LOT SIZE: 35.12 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There was a public hearing back on April 18, and it was left open, and we’ll th have one tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-1999, Preliminary Stage, BRB Group, Meeting Date: July 18, 2000 “Project Analysis The application for the BRB Subdivision was tabled at the April 18, 2000 meeting for additional information and clarification. The applicant has submitted a revised set of plans and stormwater report. The submission addresses some of the comments noted in the April 18, 200 staff notes. The revised submission identifies the following: ?? An approximate location of Old Maid’s Brook. ?? A typical building footprint location with a septic system. ?? Test pit and percolation test locations and results. ?? The entire site will be graded as proposed when the road is constructed ?? Sight distances are included on the grading and drainage plan. The applicant has explained the sight distances for direction and closeness to intersection ?? The waterline utility is proposed along the entire length of the proposed road. ?? The subdivision has been reduced to 12 parcels with lot six being the only lot to have access to Blind Rock Road. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant’s first subdivision proposal was for 14 lots that included individual lot access to Blind Rock Road. The Board and others expressed concern about site distances on the Blind Rock Road 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) section. The applicant has reduced the number of lots to 12 lots and has provided detail on a typical lot layout. Site Plan review is required for each professional office business proposed. The site is located in Neighborhood 8/9 of the Comprehensive Plan. The area is proposed to have a mix of commercial, cultural, and educational uses. The existing area contains multifamily dwelling units, senior living facility, Town Hall, residential use, and educational use. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions and Suggestions 1. Install an interconnected walkway between the buildings. 2. Provide a landscape plan for street trees along Blind Rock and Bay Road. 3. Locate all utilities underground. 4. Obtain a response from Warren County DPW for curb cut accesses on Blind Rock and Bay Road in regards to location. 5. Include the density calculation noting the amount of usable area on the Grading and Drainage Plan. 6. Install speed bumps within the proposed road to deter ACC cut-through.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? We have a couple of others, too. We’ve got Bill Remington’s letter from the County. MRS. MOORE-Yes. This is dated July 14, 2000. It appears to be a copy from George Van Dusen to Bill Remington. “I reviewed the proposed plans for the above captioned, after receiving them earlier today from Lisa. Our previous concerns regarding the three-lot drive entrance in the northwest have been addressed by combining the three lots into one, and keeping the proposed entrance toward the east. The grading and drainage of the proposed road as shown on sheets three and four of the plans are acceptable. The proposed waterline shown on sheet two of the plans is also acceptable as long as there is no open cut across either County Road. A relatively minor oversight, which could be shown, is the missing call for sight distance on sheet three at the intersection of the proposed road with Blind Rock Road, in the direction toward Bay Road. I see no reason why a Highway Permit cannot be issued when the typical insurance requirements, etc., have been fulfilled.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing the BRB Group. Okay. I guess, to address Staff comments, some of these we think are comments that might be better addressed at site plan on the individual lots. This is proposed as a professional office subdivision. The development of the lots will be with individual doctor’s offices or professional offices of one sort or another. MR. MAC EWAN-A comment there, you’re referencing the bulleted items on Staff notes? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Which items are you suggesting be? MR. NACE-Well, item one, interconnected walkway. I’m sure the Town doesn’t want a sidewalk out in the right of way, and depending on how this develops, if it develops much as most of the professional office lots around Town have developed, there really wouldn’t be traffic. It’s not like a commercial shopping center where there’s traffic, foot traffic from one lot to another, and especially with the self-contained or interior roadway, any people going from one parking lot to another would probably go in their cars, but there really wouldn’t be the need for sidewalks. Item Two, the street trees along Blind Rock and Bay Roads, obviously, just like the Town, the County does not want trees within their public right of way because it’s a maintenance headache for them. I would suggest that at time of development of each lot, when people doing their lot figure out where their building’s going to be, and how they want to present it on the lot, that would be the time to ask for, to make sure there’s a good landscape buffer between Bay Road and the individual buildings to be developed. Item Three, I presume that means simply make sure you put all utilities under ground, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. NACE-I think we have to by State law, public utilities, within a subdivision have to be buried, and they would be. So there’s no issue there. Warren County, as far as the roadways, I’m not sure, the letter from George Van Dusen, I’m not sure quite where the fits in, because we already have a 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) permit for the driveways that was issued back when we started the subdivision. That was one of the first things I did was send a set of plans up to the County, and the location of the roadways has not changed since then. So, I thought, I may have been remiss, I thought I had given you a copy of that reply. MRS. MOORE-No, I don’t have a copy of that. MR. NACE-I’m not sure what the density calculation you’re asking for on item five is. I could certainly provide, on the plans, provide a note stating how much area of each lot is up on the flat area, and usable, if that’s what you want. MRS. MOORE-What this comment refers to is, in that zone of MR-5, you could potentially develop a lot of 5,000 square feet, and last time we met, I went through a rough calculation that I performed on the site, and I can review that with you, but that was what it was in reference to, was that if you developed the entire parcel, the 5,000 square foot lots, you could potentially get more possible, more lots out of it than what you’ve proposed. So it’s just referencing the density that you’re currently using. MR. NACE-Okay. I’ll meet with you and make sure I understand exactly what you’re looking for there, and we’ll put that on the plan. The speed bumps, if it were an internal road, it might be different, but I doubt very much that Rick Missita would want speed bumps on a Town road, and this will be a Town road. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you on that, and I had asked Staff, when I went over to see them, to check on that, because I don’t think they, did you ever get a chance to talk? MRS. MOORE-I haven’t had a chance to do that. MR. NACE-Yes. I’ll be glad to talk to Rick, and if he’ll allow them, we’ll put them. MR. MAC EWAN-Has this been submitted to the Highway Department? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it has. MR. MAC EWAN-It has? Have you gotten any feedback from them? MRS. MOORE-They provided a comment last month, or the last time this was presented. MR. NACE-That’s right, they did. MR. VOLLARO-Were the speed bumps part of that submission? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-The last time this plan was in front of us, the subdivision was significantly different than what we have tonight. MR. NACE-What was substantially different? MRS. MOORE-The description of the road is the same. MR. NACE-Yes, the road’s the same place. The only thing that’s different is. MRS. MOORE-The curb cuts that existed on Blind Rock are different. MR. NACE-A couple of lots in back have been changed. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think, Drawing Three was never upgraded. I think that’s part of the problem. MR. NACE-As far as the lot numbers, yes, you’re right. MRS. MOORE-The comment that’s dated April 14, 2000, from Rick Missita says, “I have reviewed the application submitted by the BRB Group for the corner of Bay and Blind Rock Road. According to the Town of Queensbury Highway Department specifications, I have no objections to the proposed plan. However, I would like to point out that both of the curb cuts are on County Highways, and Lots Five, Six and Seven may have site problems.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. NACE-And that’s all I have. I’d be glad to answer any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set for now. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. You just might have to educate me here for a minute. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Test Pit No. 10, it says that it experiences mottling at 42 inches, and I know foundation’s got to go down at least 48. Is that going to be a problem or no? MR. NACE-No, it would not be a problem. Most of these buildings probably would not have basements. Most commercial basements, professional offices, well, I say most, a lot of them are slab on grade. The only place it would be a problem is if somebody put a basement in. You’d have to make sure that you perimeter drained the basement and put a good layer of crushed stone underneath it, and day-lighted a footing drain, and on this site, because of the relief, that could be done. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That seemed to be the only site that had that. MR. NACE-Yes, it was just one area back in there. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and my second note was, I think it’s very appropriate land use for this. Water connections. I noticed you’re connected both on Bay Road and Blind Rock Road. Is that for pressure equalization? MR. NACE-Any time we have the opportunity, the Water Department would like us to loop, so that if you have a break in one place, you can feed from the opposite direction, and vice versa. It just reinforces the general Town water system. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. I notice you had a conduit for drainage, on the proposed road exiting to Bay Road, but I didn’t see any conduit for drainage on the proposed road’s exit to Blind Rock Road. MR. NACE-Okay. There’s a distinct ditch line here. Actually, no, that’s right, this area, I need to look at that again. You’ve got a point that’s valid. Originally when I looked at it, I presumed that it was all draining this way, and everything, okay, that is. MR. STROUGH-This drains this way, okay, and Hunterbrook Road has one. MR. NACE-Yes, and that comes down, the ditch line will come down. MR. STROUGH-And this is kind of relatively flat, but I was just wondering if. MR. NACE-I’ll look at that again. The road comes down, one of the differences is we’ve got a little hump here. The road here is coming up. So any drainage from our road goes down toward Bay, and so you’ve got a pocket that forms here. Here, any drainage that’s coming this way would come on around, but I do need to look at that again. You’re absolutely right. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the only other concern I have is that I stood out on Blind Rock Road, along Lot Five, now Lot Five, you can’t access that by the proposed road, not unless there’s something I’m not seeing. Lot Five is going to have to be accessed from Blind Rock Road? MR. NACE-That’s correct. On the grading plan, it shows the proposed driveway and the sight distances, and if you stood out there presently, you wouldn’t have that good of a sight distance, because there’s a mound, this earth here along the road, creates a mound, and you can’t see around that mound, okay, but we’re removing that whole mound along the road, so that you will have a line of sight all the way down into approximately here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So the mound’s going to be removed? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. NACE-That will be removed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s the only ingress and egress onto that parcel? MR. NACE-We could certainly live with a restriction that said that that lot had to access as shown on the plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Anyhow, so I went down Hunterbrook Lane, the western one, and that was kind of iffy pulling out, but I mean it was accessible, because you’re here and you’re looking down, and you’re right, the mound’s not in the way. MR. NACE-Yes, well, actually, the mound is a little bit in the way out here, and with our grading and clearing, and some of the trees there in the corner, we will help that actual sight distance now, we’ll improve that a little bit. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Has Warren County looked at that yet, that sight distance? Does Warren County have to look at it? MR. NACE-They would at site plan approval process. Actually, you gave them the current plan to look at, right? That’s what Bill’s letter or George’s letter commented on? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. NACE-Okay. So then they have seen it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I think ideally it would have been nice to access all the lots from the proposed road, because the entrance there seems to be fine. The entrance on Bay Road seems to be fine. The sight distances are fine, and it would just seem that it would be nice if all the lots could be accessed by that. MR. NACE-I agree with you. Unfortunately, the Corps of Engineers dictates, because of their wetland. Okay. We’ve got a nice area over here that’s developable, but we can’t go through this area to get to it because of the Corps of Engineers wetlands, and to put a driveway or a road, you know, right here at the intersection to come down here, obliterates any use here, plus it’s awful close to the intersection to do that. MR. STROUGH-I see the problem. Those are the only questions I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m actually all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Give me a minute. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll come back to you. Back up to why you can’t access lots five or six, again, if you would for me. Why can’t you, where lot four is kind of like flag shaped, why couldn’t you make an access in here like that? MR. NACE-The Corps of Engineers Wetlands. With the new, Corps of Engineers has a new regulation, as of early May, one tenth of an acre. If you disturb anything over one tenth of an acre, you’re into a project specific permit. You’re into mitigation, replacing wetland. This is treed wetland, so it makes it doubly hard. Wooded wetland for use is very sacred, and if we were to try to access it through there, we would be, in fact, if you’ll look, I re-did some of the grading here. So we’d been taking almost a third of an acre of wetland before, and have re-done the grading. So now we’re down to under a tenth of an acre. MR. STROUGH-You could access it through Lot Seven, right? MR. NACE-We could, but as I said, we’d have to, first of all, it would make Lot Seven useless, and secondly, we’d be coming in very close to the intersection of their driveway. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-So Lots Six and Five you’re going to have a common driveway? MR. NACE-First of all, Lot Six disappears, okay. This is just one lot now. Unfortunately, when I relabeled this plan, sheets one and two are correctly labeled. Three is not. This is just one lot. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re proposing your curb cut some place up in here? MR. NACE-Right here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. All right. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess I want to just get some clarification on my mind what, on the C.T. Male questions. Number Five, is the intention on using site filtration devices should be noted on the grading and drainage plan. I thought you covered that, in your stormwater management plan, where you said adjacent pairs of drywells will be interconnected with a pipe to equalize flow. What their talking about is exfiltration here underneath the road. MR. NACE-Okay. The way I understood the comment, you’re talking about their last letter, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. It’s anticipated that the stormwater in each site that’s developed, stormwater from each site development will be handled on site, probably through infiltration. One of the general notes that I had on the drawing required a whole fill because of all the grading that’s going on of the entire site, required that all the fill be compacted at 95% of density. If we do that, over all the site, it will effect the filtration capabilities of the soil, okay. So what their suggesting is that I modify that note to require the 95% compaction only under the roadway. Okay. It’s a valid comment. MR. VOLLARO-All right, and then I guess on your letter of response, the third item on your letter, Lot Number Eight should really be Lot Number Six. That has to do with the fact that Number Three is, Drawing Number Three doesn’t reflect the other two drawings. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it would be Lot Six, not Eight. MR. ABBOTT-Because Sheet Two shows two Lot 12’s. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It does? It does. MR. ABBOTT-Lot 10, 12, 12. MR. NACE-This should be 11 and 12. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. Question. Will we do a SEQRA for site plan review? MRS. MOORE-For each site? MR. MAC EWAN-Each site? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Why not, well, I’ve got a two part question. We look at the cumulative impacts. Why wouldn’t we do it for the whole project? Because while we were doing this EAF, I was thinking, you know, even though we’re doing a subdivision, which is just basically imaginary lines on 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) a piece of paper, down the road, when we do site plan, yes, you’re going to disturb the soil, yes, you’re going to effect drainage yes, you’re going to effect wetlands. So are we going to have an opportunity to do another SEQRA down the road. MRS. RADNER-You’re not going to have an opportunity to do it as a group project because you don’t know what’s going to go up there, and they might not all go up at the same time. Now you can consider the cumulative impact, then, as each individual one gets added, but you’ve got to consider, at this point, the whole subdivision and development it’s likely to lead to, without knowing the particulars of the project. MR. MAC EWAN-So then we’re in agreement, though, that we’ll get another opportunity, we’ll do a SEQRA at site plan? MR. VOLLARO-On each lot. MRS. RADNER-On each lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good. That’s what I wanted to know. Okay. Do we have a second? MR. RINGER-I’ll second it. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BRB GROUP, 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 18 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MRS. MOORE-Before you introduce, do you want a discussion? Just a reminder? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-The main discussion is the referencing the drawings. There’s main points referenced in the drawings where we had errors. MR. MAC EWAN-Has someone been writing diligently? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. ABBOTT-Well, is it sufficient to say, to have them labeled properly? There’s a lot of changes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have the three conditions with the drawings, but was there anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the applicant has asked that the conclusions and suggestions that are in Staff Notes are not applicable at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Did we say we got a response from Warren County? MR. VOLLARO-We did. MRS. MOORE-I do have a discussion on Number Two? MR. MAC EWAN-Landscape plan? Is that what you’re talking about? MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to add that? My comment is, in regards to the Comprehensive Plan, this area was noted to be an essential area of the Town, and one of the comments, I’m looking at the plan, it just says consideration should be given to setbacks, parking requirements, signage and etc. I took the etc. to mean aesthetics and landscape for the Bay Road corridor, and that was my reference to why, I was looking for a landscape plan just for street trees along Bay Road and Blind Rock Road. I wasn’t looking for the entire site. I was looking for maybe beginning the corridor. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, when do you anticipate that you might be in here for site plan? MR. NACE-I have no idea, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it safe to say some time in fall? MR. NACE-That would be the earliest, surely. I don’t know that there’s any potential buyers out there at this point, for the lots. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just bear in mind and keep this on the back burner with the soon to be newly adopted Town Zoning Ordinances, which will be inclusive of architectural design for this corridor. Keeping an essential theme for the Town. We’d be looking for you to coincide with those Ordinances. MR. NACE-Okay. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, not only with Laura’s comments, but landscaping building design and theme. MR. NACE-Well, we think the developer is going to want to do that, just simply to maintain the value of those entire lots. MR. VOLLARO-We’re still in discussion mode here? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to determine whether all of their conclusions and suggestions, from One through Six, are in or out of the motion? MR. NACE-My comments, Bob, would have said that we don’t intend to comply with one or two, other than what Craig just said. Number Three, will comply with. Number Four, we have complied with. Number Five we will comply with, and Number Six we would comply with only if the Town Highway Department so desires. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s pretty safe, at this point, to figure on that the Highway Department would want those to become Town dedicated roads where speed bumps wouldn’t be part of it. The way I see those first, drop off the item six which is the speed bumps, but the first five, the five items 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) that remain, I only see it as actually items four and five being relative to this subdivision. Items One, Two and Three are site plan issues. Right? MR. STROUGH-When they put in the road, they’re going to put in the utilities. MR. MAC EWAN-Which is at site plan. MR. STROUGH-The road would go in before site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, true. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re going to keep three. We’re going to keep five. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Which ones? MR. VOLLARO-Three, four and five. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-I would draft it to say that Items Three, Four and Five in the Staff notes need to be addressed, prior to Final Subdivision approval. MR. VOLLARO-But you just said these, three, four and five is applicable to this subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I thought you said, are you saying they’re only applicable to a site plan, or are they applicable to subdivision? MR. MAC EWAN-Items Three, Four and Five are applicable to subdivision, but we’re only doing Preliminary tonight. We’re not doing Preliminary and Final. So he’s got to come back for Final. So if you craft your resolution that says that Items Three, Four and Five in Staff notes need to be addressed prior to Final Subdivision approval, you’ve got it covered. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think I’ve got it. MR. MAC EWAN-Somebody put something up. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1999 BRB GROUP, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Preliminary Stage application for Subdivision No. 13-1999 to subdivide a 35.12 acre parcel into a 12 lot commercial subdivision for professional offices, Tax Map No. 60-7-1.1, and; WHEREAS, the application received 3/29/00 consists of the following: 1. Preliminary Stage application, Stormwater Management Report dated 3/28/00 and maps 46134 – 1 thru 4 revised 3/28/00 WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 4/18/00 Staff Notes 2. 4/5/00 Meeting Notice 3. 4/4/00 Transmittal of Plans to R. Missita from C. Round 4. 4/4/00 Transmittal of Plans to R. Van Dusen from C. Round 5. 4/6/00 L. Moore from R. Van Dusen regarding prelim. plan review 6. 7/20/99 Planning Bd. minutes from Sketch Plan review 7. 4/11/00 Map prepared by staff denoting historic, stream & wetland details 8. 4/14/00 PB from R. Missita, Highway Superintendent 9. 5/1/00 Received from Town Historian - map and narrative regarding historical significance 10. 7/6/00 Meeting Notice 11. 6/28/00 Revised Information – Letter to C. Round from T. Nace, Stormwater Management Report revised 6/27/00, Maps 46134-1 thru 3 revised 6/26/00, Map 46134-3 revised 3/28/00 12. 7/18/00 Staff Notes 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) 13. 7/13/00 C. Round from C.T. Male Assoc. – engineering review 14. 7/18/00 Rec’d by L. Moore – Warren Co. DPW Permit to Work in Co. ROW 15. 7/14/00 W. Remington from G. VanDusen, Warren Co. DPW copied to L. Moore 16. 7/11/00 W. Remington from C. Round transmitting application 17. 7/18/00 Fax to M. O’Connor & VanDusen & Steves of staff notes WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 4/18/00, 7/18/00 concerning the above project (certified mail receipts received); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following conditions: (Conditions 1, 2 and 3 have to do with the drawings) 1. Drawing No. 3, the lots are mislabeled and the boundaries need to coincide with Drawing No. 1. 2. Drawings No. 2 & 3 be corrected so that the lot boundaries and numbers coincide with the subdivision layout on Drawing No. 1, 3. Drawing 2, it shows that there are two lots that are labeled No. 12, and that has to be modified to the Drawing No. 1, where one would be Lot No. 11 and one would be Lot No. 12. 4. The fourth condition – that items No. 3, 4 & 5 in the Staff Notes need to be addressed, prior to final approval. 5. That this is a 12 lot subdivision and not a 14 lot subdivision, as in the Staff resolution. 6. That the letter of July 14, 2000 from the Warren Co. DPW should be included in the resolution. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Tom. SITE PLAN NO. 49-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED TAMMY HERMANCE OWNER: TOM BOLEN ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 90 GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO OPERATE A HAIR SALON. NEW USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TAMMY HERMANCE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 49-2000, Tammy Hermance, Meeting Date: July 18, 2000 “Project Description 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of an existing building to operate a beauty salon. The applicant has submitted a drawing and letter outlining the proposal. Project Analysis The applicant had met with staff prior to submission to review the proposal. The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed project is an allowed use within the zone. Site Overview The applicant intends to lease 275 square feet of space to operate a beauty salon. There are no proposed alterations to the exterior of the site except for the proposed sign. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The site currently has access to the east of the building. There are no anticipated traffic conflicts with the new use. The applicant has provided a parking lay-out for the entire building. The existing use “youth advocacy” requires six spaces. The additional use requires three spaces. There is adequate room for visitors to both uses. Utility and Stormwater review The applicant does not propose any changes to the existing utilities or landscaping located on the site. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant is subject to compliance with a certificate of occupancy permit and a sign permit. Conclusion and Suggestions The use is compatible with the surrounding retail uses and would be a benefit to the neighboring residential housing. The proposed used would be able to provide a service to nearby residents. The proposed use will not have a significant adverse environmental impact because of the type of business, the use of an existing building, and the operation of the business (two staff members), Section 179-39.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please? MS. HERMANCE-Tammy Hermance. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your project? MS. HERMANCE-We would like to open up a salon. It would be myself and one other stylist in there working. We will both be working opposite days. She will be there two days a week and I will be there the rest of the week. We will stagger our appointments. So there will only be one or two vehicles at one time, and the back of the building is rented out by the Youth Advocate Program. They’re in the back, and there’s enough parking for them and myself there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MS. HERMANCE-I’ve also put in for a sign permit. (lost words) there used to be a real estate agent there. So I would plan on putting a sign the same, approximately, as theirs, and that’s it. I did plan on putting shrubbery along the front. The parking lot in the back is all (lost word) in, and there’s actually enough land there for parking (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Alan, I’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. ABBOTT-No, I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. In the notes it said there’s five spaces in the back that are reserved for the Youth Advocate Program. MS. HERMANCE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And you’re saying the most that you would use was two, and that’s the one adjacent to the building, on the? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MS. HERMANCE-No, there’s actually nine spots in the back available for parking. They actually only use two. There’s two gentlemen back there that work in there for office space. They do all of their work off site. So they basically, it’s just office space for them. They use two parking spots. The rest would be available for myself. MR. STROUGH-What’s upstairs. MS. HERMANCE-Upstairs is an apartment. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MS. HERMANCE-So that would be an additional spot. MR. STROUGH-That wasn’t mentioned in any of the notes that there was an apartment there as well. MS. HERMANCE-I didn’t even know. MR. STROUGH-How many people are in the apartment? MS. HERMANCE-Just one gentlemen. MR. STROUGH-So one car, and I see that you’re using a common driveway with that red house? MS. HERMANCE-We don’t use that driveway. MR. STROUGH-I see it’s being used. People are circling around. You can see where it’s worn. Do you see where I’m talking? MS. HERMANCE-Yes. The people that own that house do come in from time to time. I know that. They’ve been clearing out the house. It’s going to be sold in an estate sale, I believe. MR. STROUGH-So that may be blocked off from you using that. So you’re not accounting for that into your picture. MS. HERMANCE-No. MR. STROUGH-So you say in all there’s nine parking spaces? MS. HERMANCE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And how many parking spaces does the Youth Advocate Program usually use? MS. HERMANCE-Two, just two gentlemen. MR. STROUGH-So, and then one to the apartment, possible, two. So, that’s four. So that still leave five available spots. MS. HERMANCE-Right. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s all I have for now. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? Larry? Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Again, in the motion, I don’t know whether, she’s probably not, excepting professional landscaping in this motion. She’s just leasing this, is she? This is just a lease? MS. HERMANCE-Yes. I’m leasing it. The owner will do the planting. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So I don’t know whether that statement in the prepared resolution is valid or not in this instance. I would propose that that be taken out. I don’t think the applicant is agreeing to professional landscaping. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? You say you’re sharing the parking on here. On your drawing, you indicate 11 parking spaces. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MS. HERMANCE-Yes. I put two additional on the side of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Just in case? MS. HERMANCE-There’s space available there, if needed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The Youth Advocate Program, do they run Monday through Friday over there, that there’s people in the office? MS. HERMANCE-Yes, I believe so. Yes. Not on the weekends, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? Any other questions from Board members? Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 49-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: TAMMY HERMANCE, 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 18 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody have a motion they want to discuss, put up? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This is the discussion are on the motion, on the resolution, that the resolution, the motion should include the letter of June 21 from the applicant, should be part of the st supporting information, I would think. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I think everything else is covered. MR. METIVIER-Except to remove the piece about the professionally landscaping. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-My feeling is that I don’t think she’s in a position to speak for the building owner, and to agree to something like that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the building owner is not an applicant though here. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think so long as the lawn is kept mowed. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s the owner’s responsibility. The owner’s not in front of us now. MS. HERMANCE-That’s included in the lease, that they do all the maintenance of the grounds. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I mean, is there a little loophole where, if you feel the site doesn’t look aesthetically pleasing to your customers, you can complain to your landlord? MS. HERMANCE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-For example, that first step on your sidewalk, it looks like somebody’s going to do something. MS. HERMANCE-Yes, they’re going to fill that in. MR. STROUGH-Because otherwise somebody could trip on that. MS. HERMANCE-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So what have we agreed on, that the landscaping must be professionally maintained and installed be removed? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve all agreed that it’s coming out. MR. VOLLARO-It’s coming out. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Someone put a resolution up, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2000 TAMMY HERMANCE, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 49-2000, Tammy Hermance. Applicant proposes to utilize a portion of an existing building to operate a Hair Salon. New uses in HC zones require Planning Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application received 6/23/00 consists of the following: 1. Application w/ narrative and two maps (one plot plan, one internal layout) WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/18/00 Staff Notes 2. 7/12/00 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation - NCI 3. 7/11/00 Notice of Public Hearing 4. 7/7/00 Meeting Notice 5. 7/7/00 GIS Location map 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/18/00 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff with the following added: a. The letter from the applicant dated 6/21/00 be included as supporting documentation b. That the portion of the resolution where it has landscaping must be professionally maintained and installed, be removed from the resolution. 2. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning Administrator’s signature. Duly adopted this 18th day of July 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MS. HERMANCE-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2000 TYPE II STONE CAST, INC. OWNER: DAVID DYMINSKI ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 39 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING PERMEABLE AREA TO TEMPORARY PRODUCT AND STORAGE AREA. SURFACE TO BE IMPROVED TO CRUSH STONE UPON REMOVAL OF TOPSOIL. STORAGE YARD IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRING PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9-1989, AV 10-1989, SP 5-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING BD. – 7/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-15.3 LOT SIZE: 1.80 ACRES SECTION 179-26 TERRY KARANIKAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 53-2000, Stone Caste, Inc., Meeting Date: July 18, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of property for storage of manufactured barriers. Project Analysis The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed project is an allowed use within the zone. Site Overview The applicant proposes to lease 24,237 square feet of land to be used as storage of manufactured barriers. The “leased area” site is adjacent to the existing business “applicant 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) parcel”. The site appears to have been gravel at one time but, currently the site is meadow and scrub grass. Traffic, Circulation, Parking Access to the “leased area” will be from the “applicant parcel” along the shared boundary line. The graveling of the leased area is the only improvement proposed to the site. The proposed use does not require additional parking or enhancement to any existing utilities. Utility and Stormwater review The applicant does not propose any new landscaping to the site. The applicant has indicated the gravel area will be graded to the existing drywells on the site. A letter from the applicant’s engineer indicates the stormwater generated on site will be maintained on site. Areas of Concern or Importance The proposal may be a temporary situation to accommodate an existing overflow of the manufactured barriers. The applicant has indicated an interest in constructing a building on the adjacent west parcel (currently vacant). The proposed use would be light manufacturing or other light industrial use as allowed per the ordinance. Conclusions The area currently contains light industrial uses and the proposed use is compatible with the existing uses. The proposed use will not have a significant adverse environmental impact because of the size of the storage area, and the products stored there, Section 179-39. Suggestions Staff would encourage the leased area be kept in an orderly fashion” MRS. MOORE-And my comments, I received a final signoff from C.T. Male in regards to the whole application that’s dated July 18, 2000. “We have reviewed the revised submission for the above referenced project, consisting of a letter dated July 17, 2000, a site location map dated July 17, 2000, and a revised site plan. The submitted information addresses the comments raised in our letter dated July 13, 2000.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. KARANIKAS-Terry Karanikas, owner of Stone Cast. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your proposed application? MR. KARANIKAS-Actually, I own the property where it says applicant parcel. We’re manufacturing units there, and for one particular job, we’ve got to hold on to some of the units before they can pick them up. So my alternative was to lease this property next to my property and bring the units over there for storage until they pick them up. MR. MAC EWAN-And is this just like a short term thing that you’re going to be using? MR. KARANIKAS-Well, generally, I don’t usually store these units. I usually make them and bring them to the site. (Lost words) manufacture them and they’re brought over, but in this particular case, the contractors are (lost words) running into a little time delay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Just a couple. That’s a pretty neat idea they’ve got there. Now is that all with regular stone or is any of that pre-fabricated stone? MR. KARANIKAS-That’s real stone. I can use anything, but that’s real stone. MR. STROUGH-But even the stone you’re using to hide the seams? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Would they have to tailor that to each? MR. KARANIKAS-We usually leave enough space where you can put a regular sized stone up in there. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. STROUGH-That’s a nifty idea. The only thing that I see here, from the Kevin Hastings note, is the clearing of the drywell, where there’s debris, and I’m a little concerned about that being maintained and the drainage there. MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. Dave Diminski is supposed to keep that up. Obviously, we don’t want it to overflow. So we’ll keep an eye on it. MR. STROUGH-Have they already put the blue stone down here and everything? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So it’s all really? MR. KARANIKAS-It’s all graded perfectly. MR. STROUGH-It’s all said and done. MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. There was a problem before with overgrowth of bamboo and stuff like that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, those are the only questions I have. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything on this particular lease area. I did have a question on the parcel that you do have. Over to the east side, there’s a huge pile of looks like cement and stuff that’s left over from various jobs just building up. Is that something you’re going to outlay? MR. KARANIKAS-I have a tenant, Mr. Delapray, and one of the questions they had asked, when I bought the building, was if they could have a bigger (lost word) and seeing that that material was good for fill, I was saving it. Before that, I wasn’t. I was just having them take it away, but this block was as big as this room, that they were asking to do, and seeing as how it’s good fill, I figured I’d compile it and bring it over and use it. Since then, I’ve been doing (lost words) for that property from the other side of the Diminiski property, and build a building there and possibly have a freight terminal there. So we could use that, we’ll bring it over there now for fill. So that’s why (lost words) in that little area. MR. RINGER-It’s not part of your proposal here, but I was just curious. I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to get clear in my mind about the permeability. You’re talking about 69,696 square foot, that’s about 1.6 acres, and you say that comes from per plot plan dated 12/8/88. What I’m just trying to understand, are these parcels separate deeded parcels? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Then I don’t know how we can put them together in order to get this permeability number. Have you grouped the two parcels together, so that you’ve got 69,696 square feet added, both parcels, or is that just one parcel? MR. MAC EWAN-You lost me. MRS. MOORE-Yes. My understanding, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, the only parcel we’re dealing with is the lease area parcel. We are not dealing with the applicant’s parcel. It just happens to be adjacent to. MR. VOLLARO-And that I understand. I’m just trying get, if this parcel that we’re dealing with is really, that there’s not any coupling here. Just give me a quick answer, yes or no? The answer is no? Okay. MRS. MOORE-Okay. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-I think C.T. Male answered the questions from their first letter with their July 18 th letter. So, based on that, I don’t have any further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-No more questions from anybody? The only question I had was with the by- products, the cement chunks and smaller stones, and Larry beat me to the punch on that one. Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment to this applicant? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA? MRS. MOORE-No SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Wow. Discussion on the resolution? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have some comments on the resolution. On the resolution that was prepared by Staff, we have three additions that should go on to that, in terms of letters, and one is June 28 from Kevin Hastings. The other is the July 18 letter from C.T. Male, which we got thth tonight, and the other one is July 17, 2000 from Kevin Hastings. MR. STROUGH-Did you include in that, Bob, I may not have heard it, the updated data? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The resolution has to have three additions, June 28, 2000 letter from Kevin Hastings. There’s a June 18 from C.T. Male, which modifies their June 13 letter, and there’s a July thth 17, 2000 from Kevin Hastings. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know that, but does that also address this updated dated plan? MR. VOLLARO-That is the July 17 letter from Mr. Hastings, and of course. th MR. STROUGH-And that letter includes the plat? MR. VOLLARO-Includes the attachment, sure. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I wasn’t sure. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other discussion? MR. ABBOTT-Landscaping, it’s in here again. MRS. RADNER-I’d recommend you remove it any time it doesn’t apply. Because otherwise you’re going to just turn it into boilerplate that has no meaning. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t get the question? MR. MAC EWAN-Remove the clause for landscaping. MR. VOLLARO-That seems to be a constant theme tonight. MRS. RADNER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Just tonight. There’ll be a month there where it will play an active role. Any other comments? Okay. Does someone want to fabricate a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2000 STONE CAST, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 53-2000, Stone Cast, Inc.. Applicant proposes conversion of existing permeable area to temporary product and storage area. Surface to be improved to crush stone upon removal of topsoil. Storage Yard is a Type II Site Plan Review use in the LI zone requiring Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: AV 9- 1989, AV 10-1989, SP 5-89. Tax Map No. 112-1-15.3, and; WHEREAS, the application received 6/28/00 consists of the following: 1. Application w/brochure and map revised 4/18/99 from previous 5-89 SP file, letter dated 6/28/00 from K. Hastings, P.E. regarding stormwater. WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/18/00 Staff Notes 2. 7/18/00 C. Round from C.T. Male Assoc. – engineering review comments 3. 7/17/00 J. Houston (CT Male) from K. Hastings – response to 7/13/00 eng. comments 4. 7/13/00 C. Round from C.T. Male Assoc. – engineering review comments 5. 7/12/00 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation - Approved 6. 7/11/00 Notice of Public Hearing 7. 7/7/00 Meeting Notice 8. 7/7/00 GIS Location Map WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/18/00 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following changes: a. That Whereas, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained be removed from the resolution, b. That 3 additions be added to the resolution: 1. That the June 28, 2000 letter from Kevin Hastings be included 2. July 18, 2000 from CT Male be included 3. July 17, 2000 from Kevin Hastings be included. 2. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning Administrator’s signature. Duly adopted this 18th day of July 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. One question. How much is a section of these? MR. KARANIKAS-Come see me. They’re expensive. They’re generally designed for DOT applications, probably more than the average person needs, or requires. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re custom made, then? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re just not like a stock item or shelf item, so to speak. You deign and build them per the application you’re dealing with? MR. KARANIKAS-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But the ones we saw, there were so many that were all the same size. MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And they can be stacked, too? MR. KARANIKAS-Actually, that’s for a, it’s like a bike walk in Manhattan, all the way down to Battery Park. They’ve got a bike walk almost like the one that’s across from our property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. So you’re going to ship all that down? MR. KARANIKAS-They are. They’re going to pick them up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re going to pick them up. MR. KARANIKAS-But the walls that you’re looking at could be stacked 20 feet high. MR. VOLLARO-So, do you build these to spec only, or do you have some stock items that you get? MR. KARANIKAS-We have stock items, you know, molds that we, like you see in the brochure, that make stock items, but there’s a general, manufacturing to it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So if I wanted to do like landscaping, like gardens and stuff like that. This is really a little bit too much. MR. VOLLARO-Not for you, Cathy. MR. KARANIKAS-The (lost word) that you’ve probably seen, that are 20 feet long, just the stonework, I mean, the stone was like $900 to $1,000, just for the stone. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We were talking about how many pallets of stone you would need to put in to build one of those, yes. Very unique. I’m glad that they came up here from Manhattan instead of going down to New Jersey. MR. KARANIKAS-I chased them. I’m bringing the work up here. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody’s got the answer. You chased them. You ought to cast that in stone right up over top here. MR. KARANIKAS-We also have a product that is a Jersey barrier, stone. We had it crash tested last month, and the DOT’s going to start using it on the highways, instead of steel guardrails or wooden ones. MR. MAC EWAN-Good for you. Good deal. One other item on the agenda tonight. Because our workshop seemed to be such a success. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do you think that we learned anything from it, by the way we kind of worked tonight? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Well, wait a minute, there’s two more items on the agenda. What’s this recommendation for speed on Aviation Road? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we’ve got to do that yet. MR. MAC EWAN-That isn’t on the agenda. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s dated the 18. th 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, I’m working my way through it. I’ll get to it. So there’s two other things on the agenda. Let’s first, because Cathy says that we need to schedule things relatively early so we’ll have Counsel there, I’m proposing Wednesday August 9, seven o’clock, in the Conference th Room. Cathy’s shaking her head and saying no. MRS. RADNER-Not if you want Mark Schachner there. He can do it Wednesday the 2 or nd Wednesday the 16, but not the 9. thth MR. MAC EWAN-What about the 8 or the 10? thth MRS. RADNER-They’re not on his list. His list includes Tuesday the 29, which he thought might th work out for you guys since you’re used to meeting on Tuesdays, Wednesday the 30, or if you th wanted to move it into July, Monday the 31. st MR. MAC EWAN-Is everybody okay with Tuesday the 29, a Tuesday night? th MR. STROUGH-Of July? MR. MAC EWAN-Of August. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I don’t like that. Why don’t we do, the 31 of July, I don’t want to. st MR. RINGER-Well, didn’t they say the 2? nd MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, what about Wednesday, August 2? nd MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’ll work. MR. RINGER-Is that good for you, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-August 2? nd MR. MAC EWAN-August 2? nd MRS. RADNER-What time? MR. MAC EWAN-Seven o’clock. That’s in the Conference Room that we used last week. Next item? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll only come to this if Marilyn Ryba puts my name on the distribution list this time. MRS. RADNER-I wasn’t there, according to the minutes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, neither was I. MR. RINGER-And I’ll only come if she doesn’t put his name on the list. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’re on for Wednesday, August 2, seven o’clock in the Conference nd Room. Next item is the resolution to the Town Board recommending, I don’t have it in front of me. MR. VOLLARO-I have it here. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce it, then? MRS. MOORE-Before you do. MR. MAC EWAN-Before you do, she wants to. MRS. MOORE-Add the word “limit” after “speed”. MR. VOLLARO-What is the speed limit there now? MR. RINGER-Thirty-five. All of Aviation Road is 35. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. STROUGH-What do they want to limit it to, 25? MR. RINGER-It’s still 35, except when the lights are flashing at the School, then it becomes 25. MR. STROUGH-Shouldn’t it be 25 in front of Prospect, too, then, maybe? MR. RINGER-No. It used to be 55, until the boy was killed there, the one the little league field is named after. I forget his name, and they changed it from 55 then to 35 for the whole road. MR. STROUGH-And what are we proposing here, to change it from 35 to 25? MR. VOLLARO-When school’s in session it goes down to 25? MR. RINGER-Only in the School area, only between the flashing lights. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I got you. MR. RINGER-But that’s the Queensbury School, not Prospect School. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, this is for Prospect. MR. RINGER-Right. MR. STROUGH-Laura, what do they want to limit it to, 25? MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t want to. We want the Town Board to do that. We want to bring it to their attention that we see a traffic hazard there. We want them to look at it, and come up with a speed limit that they’re going to, see, they have to propose it to the State, right? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct, and I would be careful suggesting something if you’re not qualified to suggest it. MR. VOLLARO-No, we don’t want to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-We said very clearly we didn’t want to put a number up there. We wanted the Town Board to do that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-My only concern here is, do I, as a single Board member, and I’m making a recommendation, I want to make sure I’m making a recommendation that I agree with. I don’t want to just stamp this, because that’s why I asked, what is the speed limit now? MR. RINGER-Thirty-five. MR. VOLLARO-Thirty-five. Now, I’m not sure I’m ready, in my own mind, to change that. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know, George can chime in here, too, because we travel the road every day, several times. That’s our area, and there’s people that go from one side of that to the other. MR. VOLLARO-Then 35 may be good enough. MR. MAC EWAN-What we’re doing is going to beat this thing to death, and I don’t think we need to do that. We approved a site plan, and in that site plan, we recognized that there was a potential for traffic safety hazard in front of the Prospect School. MR. STROUGH-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-We also said, as part of our resolution, that we were going to do a separate resolution to the Town Board, bringing it to their attention that we see that there’s a potential for a traffic problem, and we want them to reduce the speed on that. Anything less than the current 35 miles an hour is a plus. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not saying that. Bob wasn’t convinced that anything less than 35 miles an hour, and I was just explaining to him a couple of the reasons why maybe something less than 35 is desirable. That’s all I was doing. MR. MAC EWAN-And I’m with you. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what he was doing. I just wanted to know what the State. MR. MAC EWAN-I want to know what you’re doing. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m doing, in my mind, is questioning whether 35 is valid or invalid. MR. STROUGH-And I was explaining to him a couple of things that he might want to consider. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Craig has cleared it up for me. If we’ve already said that in a prior resolution, then I would automatically go along with this, because we’ve pre-stated it. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anymore discussion on it? MR. RINGER-I have a concern if we put a, we’re asking for a recommendation for a speed limit to be changed in a very small area, which, you know, I don’t understand how we can, we’re looking at two hundred yards, three hundred yards. MR. STROUGH-It would just be like in front of Queensbury School. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let’s put it in this perspective. What is the speed limit from the Queensbury School when it’s in session? MR. RINGER-Twenty-five miles an hour. MR. MAC EWAN-Why couldn’t we hope that the Town Board would say the same thing for Prospect School while it’s in session? That’s all we’re asking them to do. MR. RINGER-Because they have flashing lights. We wouldn’t ask for a speed change. We’d ask for flashing lights for 25 miles an hour for a period from eight a.m. until whatever they do at school. What do they run at School, John? MR. STROUGH-Usually until 3:30, 4:00. MRS. RADNER-In order to put up a speed limit sign, they need to lower the speed limit, and as the first step, they have to pass a resolution to reduce the speed limit. The signage then follows. MR. RINGER-My concern is, to pass, I don’t see how the Town Board or anybody can have a speed limit of 25 miles an hour, a permanent speed limit of 25 miles an hour, in a very short, quarter mile distance. Whereas, in a school zone, you have flashing lights for a period of time, and I think if we’re going to ask or request for something, that would be the request, that these flashing lights be installed, as they are in the school district, and if that’s a legal thing to do. MR. VOLLARO-I think Larry has a valid point. MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, let me address this. My understanding is, DOT, or whoever the permitting agency, makes a review of what type of signage needs to be put there, whether it be lighting, flashing lights, signage or some other form of communication that indicates the speed is lowered. So referring to, you know, asking them to put flashing lights, the DOT may not determine that that’s what’s needed there. They may just put up, during school hours of 8:30 to 5:00, this area is zoned for 25. I don’t know what they’re going to do, but I don’t, I’m concerned that you would put that type of item when it’s not, it’s up to DOT to make that determination. MR. STROUGH-Well, how about if we asked the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board to review the speed limit, rather than reduce it, have them review it? MR. ABBOTT-To look at it. MRS. MOORE-And you can, the motion also describes specifically the vicinity of Prospect School. So it is, it’s specific. I understand your point was being lengthwise. MR. MAC EWAN-What I would ask us to do, let’s do this motion as it’s prepared, for reducing the speed limit, but as part of this resolution, to include the minutes of this very specific discussion we’re having right now, so that the Town Board is aware of the different viewpoints that we’re having with the membership here. I mean, are we in agreement that as our ultimate goal, we’re looking to get the speed limit reduced, in the vicinity of the school? MR. RINGER-During school hours. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we all in agreement with that? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we just pass this resolution, as it’s written, and also put an addendum into the resolution that we pass along the minutes of this discussion, so that the Town Board is aware of the end results we’re hoping to achieve. Is that reasonable? MR. RINGER-It’s reasonable to me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It sounds okay to me. GEORGE STEC MR. STEC-Could I ask a question? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know what kind of an answer you’ll get, but you’re welcome to. MR. STEC-What makes the Board feel that the speed limit has to be reduced? Have you had complaints of accidents? What’s the basis of this request? MR. MAC EWAN-In the lengthy review we did of the Prospect School expansion, recognizing that there’s going to be pedestrian traffic crossing the road from one facility to the other, and with the buses unloading now on the other side of the street as well, we recognized, during our review, that we thought that the speed limit should be reduced. MRS. RADNER-Sir, could you state your name so that we have it on our records? MR. STEC-George Stec, Butler Pond Road, Queensbury. MR. RINGER-The other aspect of that, also, George, is there’s a curb at the western most, just prior to the western most entrance to the new addition, there is a curb, and if the people slowed down, egress and ingress out of that could be helped. MR. STEC-Your discussion clarified mine, a question of mine. As a result of the study, proposed expansion of the Prospect School, I wasn’t aware of that, but while you’re talking about that, Mountain View Lane intersects with Aviation, the mobile home park there has planted cedar trees, and trees grow. It’s just a matter of time before that intersection is going to become a hazard similar to what the intersection of County Line Road and Dix Avenue. Two years ago, it was a bad intersection right there, with a building and shrubbery on what would be the southeast corner, and that was a big controversy over how can we safely clear that intersection. Well, as time went on, they took down the building, I think it was a house, and they removed all the shrubbery. It’s a naked corner. There’s nothing there. So that’s the way they solved that problem, but I can see a problem with that trailer park, those cedar trees growing to the point where people coming out of Mountain View Lane are having their view obstructed. MR. RINGER-It is a problem. Especially if you’re driving a truck, George. You just can’t see through the trees. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, when it comes to that point, can’t the DOT and the Town said that this is a hazard, we have to trim these or cut them down or something? MR. STEC-I don’t know, but I would think if they’re within 25 feet of the right of way, the highway should have them taken down. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. STEC-But I see that as a real problem. MR. MAC EWAN-All the more reason to send this resolution on to the Town Board. Okay. Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks, George. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can I make a, I want to still be in discussion here for just a minute. The Planning Board recommendation to the Town Board to examine the speed on Aviation Road in the vicinity of Prospect School during school hours. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-I would ask that the resolution just be left as prepared, with the addition of the word “reduced”. MR. STROUGH-Yes. As long as you, like Craig says, attach the minutes to it, so all these discussions kind of go into their consideration. MR. RINGER-That works for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce it, please? MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD TO REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT ON AVIATION ROAD IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROSPECT SCHOOL, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: And that the resolution also include the section of the minutes pertaining to this matter, and our discussions tonight. Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-One more item. MRS. MOORE-When we passed out “Grading your Planning Department”, those are due next Tuesday. If you have them tonight, I’ll take them tonight. MR. STROUGH-I’ve got a question, though, Laura. I don’t know any of the answers. MR. VOLLARO-Since I wasn’t there, I didn’t get a copy either. MR. STROUGH-What’s the number of employees in the Planning, can we go through this? MRS. MOORE-The things that are not applicable, it’s not necessary to fill out. If you’re interested in knowing some of those answers, you’re more than welcome to stop in and we can help, go through it. MR. STROUGH-You want these filled out though, right? MRS. MOORE-Some of the items are not applicable. So fill out, you were directed to fill out the portion that was, you know, applied to what you felt you could cover. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So just fill out the parts I know? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. RINGER-I was under the impression you only wanted us to fill out the portion that applied to the Planning Department. Nothing else. MRS. MOORE-Yes. Well, the whole thing is “Grading your Planning Department”. MR. RINGER-Yes, but not all the questions applied to, the way I read it over. I’ll re-do it. I only did about three questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-That’s all I had. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is there any word on our litigation? MRS. RADNER-Which one are you asking about? Nigro? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not going to be in front of the Judge until some time in August. Right? MRS. RADNER-If you’re talking about the Nigro one? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MRS. RADNER-We’re putting together an answer which we’re hoping to present for your review, and for signatures by early next week. I need the review, or what’s called the return, which Craig had mentioned was pretty much together. So I’m hoping that that’s ready for me to get or pick up, though I haven’t seen it. We need that to provide to the Court as well. Everything is due in the Court on the 28. Since I’m out of the office on the 28 of July, we’re treating it as due the 27. ththth You’re the one, Craig, that I’m going to need to speak to to ask the questions, because I need somebody to swear and affirm that all of the facts as I’ve put them forth are correct, and I think that you’re probably the guy to do it. So, if you have a phone number where I can reach you to ask questions, that would be great. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have another question. It has to do with the article in the Chronicle concerning the Environmental Impact Study for The Great Escape. That Chris Round had mentioned various issues and concerns that needed to be addressed, and were being addressed, or things that weren’t. MRS. RADNER-I didn’t read the Chronicle article. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Was that article in the Post Star, too? MR. ABBOTT-Yes. MRS. RADNER-There was a big article in the Post Star saying that the. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, the article in the Chronicle I thought was pretty, it’s out in my car. My question is, when are we going to get a copy? MR. MAC EWAN-When it’s actually ready for review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s not there yet. MR. STROUGH-Well, my question is, how come the Post Star gets a copy of it? MR. MAC EWAN-Because it’s a public document and they can FOIL it. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it hasn’t been approved. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t matter. It’s a public document. MR. STROUGH-Yes, it does. FOILing law says that only approved documents can be FOILed. MR. MAC EWAN-Our Counsel said that it was okay for them to have it, after they persistently asked for it. Because it’s a public document. MR. STROUGH-But it even says in FOILing law. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But how can they have it when it’s not, if it’s not complete yet? MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t get too worried about it. MRS. RADNER-Well, they filed one copy of it, which you passed a resolution saying is not complete. Now, according to Craig, they’ve addressed the items that were incomplete, so that they now need to fix it and basically re-file. I don’t know that that’s been done yet, and I don’t think that copies have been made to distribute to you yet, is my understanding. MR. MAC EWAN-We won’t probably take any action, as I see it right now, until August, that says it’s complete, and we’re opening up the comment period, and set a date for a public hearing. Which probably won’t be until September. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and I have another question, and then the Bobsled ride that they mitigated the sound by putting new track, new tracks and whatever, wheels on it. Does that have to go in front of anybody in particular before they can re-open it to the public? MRS. RADNER-That I have no idea. I believe that there’s State licensing regulations that says the safety of rides. There might be some sort of a review by a Safety Inspector, but I don’t believe there’s any review by this body. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So in other words, like my daughter said that they’ve been testing the ride for the past couple of weeks. She said, you mean their testing it because it’s supposed to be quieter? She didn’t think it was quieter at all, but anyway, if supposedly it’s half as loud as what it was originally, so they could just probably re-institute it and get it going up again, without? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. There’s no Town approvals that they need to have, but that’s part of what specifically was asked for in the review in the DGEIS. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I’m saying, so it was specifically asked. So can they start it up before we say it’s okay? MR. ABBOTT-The Town didn’t shut it down. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We didn’t close it down or anything. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it hasn’t been running. MR. ABBOTT-No, they voluntarily stopped running it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. No big deal. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a question. You said something about signatures, you need signatures on what, by members of this Board? MRS. RADNER-No. There was one signature that one of the applicants needed to sign something, and they’ve already signed it. MR. VOLLARO-I see. There’s nothing we have to sign. MR. MAC EWAN-No. You were referring to the response for the Mega Save thing. Right? MR. VOLLARO-For the Mega Save thing, yes. MRS. RADNER-I’m sorry. Yes. The way it normally works is that we prepare an affidavit of the facts. This is what happened. This is what transpired, so the Court has somebody’s sworn statement of what happened, and I prepared that for Craig’s signature. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. RADNER-I don’t believe, at this point, that it’s going to be necessary to have any additional signatures. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I was asking. MRS. RADNER-But we do need somebody to give it their official yes, this is the truth, sort of stamping, and I am working diligently away on it, and hope to have that very soon. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I second it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/18/00) 47