Loading...
2000-03-28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT PALING JOHN STROUGH (ALTERNATE) ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO MEMBERS ABSENT ALAN ABBOTT LARRY RINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-Mark Schachner STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 15-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OWNER: SAME AGENT: C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: NE CORNER BAY & DREAM LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 20,000 SQ. FT. CHURCH, CLASSROOM AND MEETING ROOM WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND UTILITIES. CHRUCH IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE RR-3A ZONE AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 89-1993, AV 16-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 2/7/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 51-1-35.1 LOT SIZE: 17.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-15 FRANK FAZEO & ED GODDERT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on February 22 was tabled. nd Staff Notes: Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-2000, Bay Road Presbyterian Church, Meeting Date: March 28, 2000 “The application was tabled at the February 22, 2000 meeting for additional information on lighting, landscaping and to address Rist Frost Associate comments. Landscaping The Beautification Committee recommended approval of the landscaping with additional plantings for the northwestern corner of the parking area. Staff would recommend additional landscaping be added to the western parking area and driveway. The proposed building is located in an open meadow with substantial grading proposed. The additional landscaping would break up the view of paved area and building size. Lighting Access drive – The lighting is not even, and spills over to the south of the drive, probably due to the grade. Shielding is needed to direct light more equitably over the entire drive, not just the south side. Poles are 20 ft. and lamps are 250 watt metal halide (a white light). Lowering poles to 18 ft., and lowering wattages to provide the lighting effect desired is recommended. Site – The applicant noted the average lighting for the entire site is 3.0. Using the recommended uniformity ratio of 4:1 and the IESNA 0.2 minimum foot-candle level for church parking lots, the resulting average level of lighting should be 0.8 foot-candles. The lighting proposed is excessive. Parking The site plan demonstrates 124 parking spaces divided between upper and lower level parking. The parking requirements for a Church or Temple is one space for each five seating spaces in the main 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) assembly, as per section 179-66 of Town Code. The information submitted with the application indicates there will be 350 seats in the main assembly room. Staff would request the number of spaces be reduced to 70 spaces. The applicant should be asked about the need for overflow parking. Class room space The plans identify 2,308 square feet of classroom space for the proposed church. Staff would request additional information about the classrooms. Does the church propose a daycare or a nursery school operation? Will the classrooms be used for weekday or weekend care or school facilities? The answers to these questions may impact parking and circulation needs. Existing Church Facility Staff would request information as to the intended use of the existing church located across Bay Rd. from the proposed facility as the use could impact traffic amount, flow, access, and circulation. Fire Safety Churches are exempt from providing sprinkler systems. Recommendations: Staff would request the applicant provide additional information as requested by staff and Rist-Frost prior to the Planning Board's decision.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Do you want me to read Rist-Frost’s latest comments? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. You can summarize them if you want to. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Under Rist-Frost of March 28, 2000, I have, “Rist-Frost has reviewed the additional information and updated site plans dated March 24, 2000, submitted by C.T. Male, and we have no further comments at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening, gentlemen. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. FAZEO-My name is Frank Fazeo of C.T. Male Associates. MR. GODDERT-And my name is Ed Goddert, from Bay Road Presbyterian Church. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We tabled this last month, regarding these outstanding issues that Staff just summarized. Do you want to go over your letter and your responses, start there? MR. FAZEO-Yes. We met with the Beautification Committee last month, and they requested that we add three additional trees in the front, which we did do, on the northwest corner there. You’ll see we added three more on the front of, that basically was their comment on it. They were in acceptance of everything else on the site plan. So we just modified that by adding the three trees. As far as the lighting goes, we did revise the lighting, to reduce the amount of glare. We added a pole in the middle of the parking lot, and with that, we were able to reduce the wattage from 400 to 250 watt bulbs. This produces, I guess, a more uniform lighting pattern for the parking lot area. I do not believe it is excessive, because we are running, underneath the light pole, roughly in a range of six to ten foot candles, but as you step away from that, 20 to 30 feet away, it drops down to six, then to three, then to two. So on the perimeter of where the cars park, we’re running down to one to two on the perimeter. We want to maintain at least a minimum of one, one and a half, throughout the parking lot, for safety purposes. In order to get that more uniform up to the three, we’d have a forest of light poles out there at that point. So we do have three, at this point right now, in the parking lot, and this is typical of our lighting plans, for a parking lot that size. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if the parking lot was reduced, it would reduce your lighting plan, too. MR. FAZEO-Yes. That’s the next issue, I guess, the parking, and I think we mentioned at the last meeting that the services usually require approximately 70 parking spaces, 70 to 75 parking spaces. The service area, congregation area is in the upper level. This is a two level church. The upper level Is where the worship hall is, and that’s where all the services would be held, and we’d like to have that parking be sufficient for those services during those times. The other spaces would be used in the back, when there’s a function in the rear, for kitchen facilities, or the assembly down below, for meetings, and again, the 70 is for the services, should there be requirements for overflow, which they experience right now, they’re parking on lawns. We’d want enough parking for that. The additional parking is located in the rear and along the side, and we’d have the road access to the rear anyway. So all we are adding is a row of parking along the road access to the rear of the site, and we would 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) have to have parking in the back rear anyway, to service that location for handicap parking. So we’re feeling that the parking right there now is adequate. MR. MAC EWAN-The drive aisle that you have, that takes you from the upper parking area down to the lower one, to the activities area, the parking that you have perpendicular along the edge of the road, I mean, that drive aisle, how wide is that? Is that a two car wide drive aisle? MR. FAZEO-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-So cars can go in and out? MR. FAZEO-It’s 24 foot wide, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What would be the problem just eliminating the parking places on that section of the road? MR. FAZEO-Well, there are periods where they get more than the people that handle in the upper level for the services, and there may be a secondary function or classroom function going on down below which would require people to park also. So rather than have people parked on the lawns, it would be preferable to have additional parking, and that’s what the parking lot in the rear is for, for the lower level for the classrooms and the meeting hall, should there be a dual function going on. MR. GODDERT-May I just indicate here, that, three years ago when we started this process, we traveled as far as Syracuse and Massachusetts, checking on other churches, in the process of deciding what we were going to do in the way of design. We also got a lot of different planning consultants that wooed us, tried to get us to come on board. They supplied us with a lot of handouts, and we also went on the Internet, and what we found is that of all the churches and the companies that we talked to, they all stated that the two biggest problems with churches is they did not put in enough parking and they did not put in enough storage space. Apparently with churches, because of the numbers of people who will take two cars from one family to go to church, because maybe the wife’s the organist and the husband goes home, or the husband takes the children home and the wife stays for choir, that they say you have to pretty much double the number of parking from what you would normally include for a building that size, with that type of clientele, and we found that true at, every church that went with the usual type of formula found out that they were, they did not have enough parking and that they had to add it additionally after the original construction, and secondly, I’d like to say that we deal with a lot of handicapped and a lot of elderly people, and we need to have a paved parking and access. We also need good lighting, because a lot of our functions are at night, and this may be the only time that these elderly people will go out at night. They will not go to other functions in the evening. So we found that this is extremely important for the success of our particular type of endeavor, to be able to serve the people who go there. MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, I appreciate that position. The one thing that I am thinking of, from a lighting standpoint, is the very rural aspect and the setting that that church is going to be in. It’s not like it’s right off Quaker Road here in Queensbury. I mean, that’s out on Bay Road, and it’s a very, very rural setting, and I think where Staff is trying to go with this, and I think I share that position, is that you want to keep lighting to a minimum, to serve the purpose, but yet not be, you know. MR. GODDERT-But there are streetlights along that roadway, and they’re very high on the poles there, the regular fixtures that are way, way up. So there’s a lot of lighting that is probably more annoying than whatever this would be right now that already exists along that. MR. MAC EWAN-Unfortunately, that’s something that’s, the County’s. MR. GODDERT-No, but I’m saying that I don’t think you’re going to notice any increase in spillover lighting, because it’s going to be completely drowned out by whatever lighting’s already there, as far as off the premises. MR. FAZEO-If you’ll notice on the revised lighting plan we submitted, we do take the point by point figures out to zero. You can see, even before you hit Bay Road, we’re at zero. So there will not be spillage from these lights onto Bay Road. MR. VOLLARO-Is your March 3, 2000 drawing, is that the one you’re referring to? MR. FAZEO-We have a revision date of March 24. th MR. VOLLARO-See, I’m looking at March 3 here, SL. MR. FAZEO-No. We resubmitted a set. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-Because I don’t have that. MR. FAZEO-Yes, we resubmitted a set. We sent another set in to Staff last week, and also to Rist- Frost. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I don’t have one in front of me. I just was asking what, because I’m looking at the one dated March 3, and it’s the one that’s got, I guess,. rd MRS. MOORE-I’ll interject and indicate that the March 3 plan is the same as the March 24 plan rdth that I have in front of me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the data is about the same? MR. MAC EWAN-Where abouts did you make the revision to the landscaping? MR. FAZEO-When we met with the Beautification Committee, we added three, in this location. They wanted to break up the front a little bit. We do have a hill there. So it’s tough to place a lot of landscaping there, because of the slopes, but we were able to get several trees in that location there, and they were satisfied with the remaining landscaping that we proposed. MR. MAC EWAN-Did we require them to go back to Beautification? MRS. MOORE-Yes, we did. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. PALING-The fixtures that you have, the Laconia, are they box type? MR. FAZEO-They’re shoebox, and they’re down lighting. As you can see the way they would throw, all the ones that are along the perimeter, that you see on the access drive, will throw the light toward the access drive only, and not to the rear. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have for now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a few things. I guess, I looked at this drawing quite a bit today, and I tried to take a look at changing the front access. The reason I looked at it that way, Bay Road, essentially, is a travel corridor with a 75 foot setback, and we’re trying to keep those travel corridors as clean as we can, and I don’t see any reason why we can’t take a look at an alternate access off Dream Lake Road. I haven’t seen that in any of your proposals, but there seems to be plenty of room there. What are we talking, what, 17 acres here, something like that? MR. GODDERT-We looked at that, originally, and there’s two things that we’ve considered. All of the land that’s to the right, your right, of the facility we want to use for play areas, softball field and other fields. Secondly, coming out of Dream Lake Road, the number of times I’ve come out, working on that property, it’s very difficult to see traffic coming down the hill. There’s a lot of trucking in there, a lot of high speed trucks, and we’re extremely concerned that if we have a lot of traffic coming out of there, there’s a potential for. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking the intersection of Dream Lake and Bay? MR. GODDERT-There’s a huge hedge there, it’s practically trees, that comes right out to the property line. It is cut back, but it still makes it difficult, because there’s a slight bend in the road there. So you have a lot of traffic coming down that hill, past the old County facility, there, and they pick up quite a bit of speed going through there, even though it’s only 45 miles an hour, and we’re concerned, again, with having our parishioners leave, and having somebody misjudge and pull out in front of a high speed traffic. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the compromise on that, just looking at the fact that you’ve got 124 spaces in there, and the Code talks to roughly 70, and just looking at that, what I did is I took out 11 spaces up front now. This is the spaces to the west, those 11, and 23, left the 17 that are closest to your canopy. The 39 that are in the back, and the 14, that gives me exactly 70 spaces. Moving the spaces off the front would help preserve the intent of the Bay Road corridor a little bit, I think, and it would be in keeping with our Code, because I appreciate what you’re saying, that you feel that a lot of churches don’t have enough parking space, but our Code talks about 70 spaces, and I thought maybe using the Dream Lake Road as another possible exit could help this thing out considerably, and build your greater parking lots in the back, and try to keep as much, because you know you’ve absolutely 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) cut right to the travel is 75 foot setback on a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. That parking lot is right there. It’s right on it. MR. GODDERT-Are you familiar with the current Church, the parking lot behind the Church? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve been up there a couple of times. MR. GODDERT-Okay. I just wanted to point out, I believe that this is an optical illusion here. If you look at the distance between here and here, it’s exactly within a foot of the same distance of our parking lot that exists now behind building, and if you measure from the curb out here, the end of your sidewalk to the back of your parking lot, this is 30 feet narrower than your parking lot is back here. I mean, you know, someone made the comment at our first hearing that that was a sea of asphalt. It’s really basically a wide driveway. It’s an optical illusion because it looks so much bigger than the building, but all I can say is that this is like a wide driveway and this is like a wide driveway. It appears to be more than it is, and if you drive by here and you notice that this is quite a steep hill here, you’d look right over that. You won’t see that, even without the trees there, it would be difficult to see that. What you’d do is you’d be seeing the front of the building, and your eye would go right over top of the parking lot because it’s below that. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a topo map in here somewhere. What is the elevation right next to Bay Road? How high is that berm? MR. FAZEO-There’s approximately a 15 foot drop, but let me give you the numbers here. Right in front of the middle of the site, of the parking lot, the elevation at Bay Road is approximately elevation 98 to 99. The parking lot elevation is 88. So there’s a 10 foot drop there. From the road elevation to the parking lot, is 10 feet lower. MR. VOLLARO-I’d still like to see those, at the minimum, see those 23 parking spaces up front. You could possibly leave the 11, but I feel I’d like to see as much parking backed up toward the Church as it could possibly be, or if necessary, pick up additional spaces in the back, but we won’t, you know, I won’t belabor that point. Other members here have things they want to say. I just looked at some of your calculations, by the way, on your site development data, and I think you’ve got that backwards. Take a look at that under site development, I think your percent non-permeable is not 91 non-permeable. I think it’s more like .086. If you get into site development data, you’ve got 752,728 square feet. That’s 43,560 times your acreage. MR. FAZEO-Yes, because building area is approximately 1.4% of the entire property. This is the entire property, this is the entire property now, and the paved area is about 7.3% of the site, which results in a green space area of 91.4%. MR. VOLLARO-We’re talking about percent non-permeable. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. You guys aren’t on the same page here. He’s saying, you said your figure was 91%. MR. FAZEO-91.4% green space. MR. MAC EWAN-Which is permeable area. MR. VOLLARO-Which is permeable area. MR. FAZEO-Non-permeable. Permeable, you’re right. MR. VOLLARO-It’s permeable area. MR. FAZEO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And what we have down here is percent non-permeable. That’s what you’ve got to fill in. I’m saying that your. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s got his info in the wrong box. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Just a point that, you know, I like to see the numbers in the right place. 91.4 is incorrect. Just take a look at it. MR. FAZEO-I’m not following you what box. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s looking on the data sheet that you submitted with your application. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-Site data development. MR. FAZEO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You just have your numbers transposed in the wrong boxes, that’s all. MR. FAZEO-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask one more question of Staff, and then I’ll get off this box a minute. Where did we come up with the .8? I see how you’ve done it, four to one against the IESNA. MRS. RYBA-I was looking at some of the recommendations for our Zoning By-Law revision and performance standards. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s where this came from? MRS. RYBA-That’s where the information came from. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because there’s quite a bit more than .8 foot candles, when you take a look at just a quick summation of some of the numbers I see on the chart there. It’s way over .8. MR. FAZEO-Is that number you’re saying .8 a minimum? Because we would never design a light level less than .8. MR. VOLLARO-No, it was average. MRS. RYBA-It was an average. MR. FAZEO-Yes. We would not design something at that average. MR. VOLLARO-If I took all your zeros in, I could probably get it down to .8. MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn, where did you draw those numbers from, where you based your position from? MR. FAZEO-That’s not very bright. MRS. RYBA-I got this information from performance standards that are being put together by Chazen, as well as a number of publications, but for example, and maybe the applicant can give us some idea what this brightness or average illumination would compare to, with another development in the area. MR. FAZEO-Typically, we try to attain one foot candle, one to one and a half, near the buildings, which is what we’ve attained by doing this. Obviously, you are going to have brighter areas underneath the poles. There’s no avoiding that, no matter how many poles you put up, you’re going to have bright areas underneath the poles. MRS. RYBA-Because I think it was the last session I asked what the average was, and I was told it was 3.0. For example, in this information that was given to Staff by Chazen, it has, for a community shopping center, 2.4 average, neighborhood shopping, 0.8 average, churches, educational facilities, high would be major league athletic events, 3.6 average. So this is what I’m using for a comparison. MR. MAC EWAN-And what were the readings for churches and educational centers? MRS. RYBA-0.8 average. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re sitting at what right now? MR. VOLLARO-3.0. MR. FAZEO-I think we said around 3. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s quite a difference. MR. FAZEO-We will not stamp a drawing with .8 average. It’s too low. MR. MAC EWAN-Where she’s gathering this information from is the new Zoning Ordinances that are soon to be adopted by the Town. So any new development coming in to the Town will have to conform with these standards. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MRS. RYBA-Well, part of the situation is that it is a rural area, and so that’s why the Town’s trying to be, I think, especially careful here, even though the standards haven’t been adopted yet, and plus the fact that there is the 75 foot setback overlay. MR. MAC EWAN-And we’ve already started making grounds toward implementing some of those new standards, and some of those new ideas into some of the commercial sites that we’ve approved here, or worked on, I should say, in the last few months, including design standards. MR. FAZEO-Some industry standards are .5 to .8 minimum. That’s minimum lighting. To get an average of .8, that means you have to have a lot of areas of zero within your parking area, which is dark. MRS. RYBA-Well, it should be, at a minimum, using IESNA standard of 0.2 minimum, at the edge of your parking lot, and here some of the information is at the outside of the parking lot, at 0.2, outside of the boundary. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, this Board would be looking toward you maybe not necessarily hitting that .8 figure, but, you know, you’ve got to come down from that 3.0 figure you’ve got, too. Personally, for me, I wouldn’t have such a problem with it if it was somewhere right along Quaker Road or the Route 9 commercial corridor, but we’re not talking that area of the Town. We’re talking a very rural area of the Town, and it’s important to keep that rural character intact out there, and to have light pollution, which is a major concern, that’s one of the thrusts in re-doing these zoning ordinances in Town. We take the input that the community gives us and things that they’d like to see implemented and changed, and light pollution is one of the major factors that’s been a gripe of people. MR. FAZEO-We appreciate that, and like I said, in order to get the values, what we need a the perimeter, I mean, we did drop the wattages down so it wouldn’t be as intense. The poles are 20 feet tall. Where in shopping malls, when you see those, they’re 30 or 40 feet tall. So we do have lower fixtures. We do have to be concerned with people parking at night and going to the activities, elderly people. We do want it safe and lit for them. MR. MAC EWAN-We appreciate that, too. MR. GODDERT-And we plan on turning them off at midnight. I mean, we couldn’t afford to run these things all night. We currently have them on a timer. MR. MAC EWAN-But that still doesn’t get us over the hurdle of the excessive brightness. MR. FAZEO-Okay. I would have to consult with our lighting designer, but he’s usually pretty adamant about making sure we have at least .2, .5 at the edge of the parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Trouble is, he’s there, we’re here. We’re going to live here. He’s not. MR. FAZEO-I mean, I’m talking this is a standard. This is an industry standard. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m telling you that I’m leaning you toward the new Town standards that are going to be enacted here within the coming couple of months. Okay. MR. PALING-How did you calculate average, could you tell us that? MR. FAZEO-I’m not familiar with the entire program, but it’s based on the intensity throughout the site that we lit. I mean, those zeros you see out there aren’t used in the average. MR. PALING-But just looking at drawing and looking at all the numbers, it just seems like your number’s awful high, just eyeballing the numbers. MR. FAZEO-You mean the lighting numbers? MR. PALING-Yes, these lighting numbers, just by observation, look lower than the average you’ve come up with. MR. FAZEO-What brings up the average is the area directly underneath the poles. MR. PALING-I understand that. MR. FAZEO-And those you see are six or seven, something like that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. PALING-Do you do it by area? MR. FAZEO-I’m not entirely that familiar with the program myself, but I know it takes into account the area that’s lit up. When you see all these zeros way off to the perimeter, those aren’t brought into it. MR. PALING-They are not? MR. FAZEO-They are not, because otherwise we’d have a very low lighting average. MR. PALING-But any of the numbers above zero are brought in? MR. FAZEO-Yes. MR. PALING-I can’t see how you got that high a number. MR. STROUGH-I’ve got a few things. Looking at the proposed location of your sign, I was just wondering if that’s the best location for the sign. Visually, you’re coming in the road, and realistically, the traffic is traveling 50 miles an hour. Your sign’s located roughly in the middle of your church, and not near your access road. Now, a lot of people will recognize the sign after they’ve passed the access road. I might suggest you move the proposed sign closer to your access road, so that people recognize. MR. GODDERT-That’s a possibility. We’re kind of flipped on that, because you could put it by the road, but when you’re by the road, you don’t see any facility. You could put it by the facility so you could identify the facility. MR. STROUGH-But I’m saying it should be by the road and by your access point, so people recognize the access point and the sign at the same time. Because they are traveling 50 miles an hour. MR. GODDERT-Yes. If you’re attending a funeral and you’re in a strange town, and you want to find a church, that’s one thing, but we’re also hoping that people will drive by, see the building and say what is that, and be able to see the sign as they see the building, and know that that’s a church. MR. STROUGH-It’s not a major issue, just a suggestion. MR. GODDERT-No, I’m just saying that there’s two schools of thought. We could always put two signs in, but that wouldn’t be a good idea either. MR. STROUGH-Just out of curiosity, what’s the significance of the wooden cross in the rock outcropping? MR. GODDERT-Well, when we purchased the land, we had our first Easter sunrise service there. So we placed a cross down there, and that’s simply put on there to indicate so that people can visualize where the building is, in relation to the cross that’s already there, and there’s a piece of rock. So the minister stood on the rock, with the cross behind him, and we’ve had our sunrise services each Easter since we’ve owned the land. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Fair enough. The two accessory structures, the wooden shed and the aluminum sided barn. MR. GODDERT-They exist. They were there. MR. STROUGH-Do you have any future plans for those? MR. GODDERT-The aluminum shed, we use it for storage for our lawn tractor. We had a square dance in there, in the fall. We’ve had picnics down there. We keep our picnic tables inside there. We have a volleyball court next to it, and we also have a rough ball field which we’re using, which basically is, nothing has been developed. It’s just, we decided where the bases were. MR. STROUGH-How do you access those sites, from Dream Lake Road? MR. GODDERT-Correct. MR. STROUGH-You’re proposing a detention basin on the east side, and you also want to remove the trees to put the detention basin, and the detention basin, I couldn’t find a scale, I determined it was about 60 feet. Is there any chance, or any reason why that detention basin couldn’t be located closer to the eastern parking lot, so that you could keep more of those trees up in that area? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. GODDERT-That’s mainly based on the storage volume we need for the basin. So the grading in the back there, because that site does drop off, and we want to get that to work into the site, so we have proper grades from the parking lot to the basin, so it’s not real steep in there. MR. STROUGH-So realistically, it wouldn’t be functional to bring it closer to the parking lot, then? MR. GODDERT-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And the lighting, the Staff recommended lowering the pole heights to 18 feet. Was that considered? MR. FAZEO-We can run numbers for that. That does effect the lighting a little bit. It makes it more intense underneath the poles, and reduces the throw. That may actually result in less light at the perimeter of the parking lot. Where we’re showing .3 or .4, we may end up with .1. That is something we could look at. It’s a two foot difference. MR. STROUGH-So it looks like you’re going to be re-looking at the lighting. Maybe you’d want to consider that. It’s a Staff recommendation. Will schooling be conducted there during evening hours, as well, you know, seven o’clock? MR. GODDERT-Yes. There are meetings that are held at night. There are bible studies. There’s films. There’s dinners. There’s all kinds of different events and services. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Where I’m going with this eventually is that I see some of the lighting near the access areas isn’t as bright as I’d like it to be. Just the access areas. I don’t want to get in the way of what somebody else is going on, because I notice, if you notice some of the lighting there, some of the foot candle ranges are relatively slight. I was just wondering if we could improve the lighting in the access areas. Especially, are children going to be attending the schooling at night possibly? MR. GODDERT-Probably not schooling, but they would come with their parents to events, and we also have youth groups that meet there, but they’re the junior high and senior high. MR. STROUGH-Will there be a day care service offered during the night? MR. GODDERT-It depends on the function. MR. STROUGH-So it’s a possibility. MR. GODDERT-Most of the functions children are invited. If they’re not invited, normally, they don’t come, and, yes, there might be a room for kids that need. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s my concern. If kids are going to be there on a frequent nature, at night, then I’d like to see better lighting, especially around the access points, and I assume that the lower area is the education center. MR. GODDERT-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And so that would be the area where maybe I should focus. MR. FAZEO-Are you saying the access into the building? MR. STROUGH-Yes, the two bottom. MR. FAZEO-We’re not showing, there’s going to be door lights. The typical light you would see on a house. MR. STROUGH-So that would go into the foot candle picture? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, how come they haven’t been indicated on your lighting plan? MR. FAZEO-The building isn’t designed yet with all the lights, but the light we’re talking about is the typical light you would have on the side of your door at your house. It just has a 75 watt bulb in it. MR. STROUGH-It’s pretty dim right next to the two access ways. So if you do put your wall lighting in there, that will improve it. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. FAZEO-They’re not real bright fixtures that we normally would put into the formula, at this point. MR. STROUGH-You did update your stormwater management plan to a 50 year design? MR. FAZEO-Yes, we did. MR. STROUGH-But that has yet to be? MR. FAZEO-We submitted it to Rist-Frost last, I think it was last Thursday or Friday. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but we didn’t get any? MR. MAC EWAN-They signed off on and said that everything was fine. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So it’s been approved? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I see where Staff Notes say that churches are exempt from providing sprinkling systems, but I just wondered about the educational part of that. I mean, are the schools exempt from sprinkler systems? MRS. MOORE-The Church itself is exempt from sprinkler systems. MR. STROUGH-So that means every function, every part of it? MRS. MOORE-That’s my understanding. MR. STROUGH-Especially if there’s going to be areas where kids are going to be and all that, public at large? MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that churches are exempt. MR. STROUGH-Do you have any plans to put a sprinkler system in your educational center area? MR. GODDERT-We hadn’t really thought about it. As he mentioned, we haven’t really designed the building. MR. STROUGH-Is there going to be a kitchen area in there? MR. GODDERT-Yes, there will be, and that will have its own, probably an ANSIL System. MR. STROUGH-But you don’t currently plan on putting any kind of sprinkler system in the education area that would include a kitchen? MR. GODDERT-We haven’t even talked about it. MR. FAZEO-I’m not sure we can get the water production without doing some test wells, until we get to that stage of it. We know we could probably at least get enough to provide the service, but to provide a fire flow out of a well would probably be difficult, without a storage system of some sort. MR. STROUGH-There’s just nothing we can do about it, right? The septic system laterals are now designed to be parallel with the contour. MR. FAZEO-Yes. It’s more of a little bit, we had to tweak it a little bit, that’s all. MR. STROUGH-And what is the status of the curb cut on Bay Road. Has it been reviewed by the Highway Department and the County? MR. FAZEO-We have not made submission to the County yet, no. MR. STROUGH-So we don’t have that. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you been to County Planning? MR. FAZEO-We went to County Planning, yes. They signed off. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. STROUGH-The pipe going to your septic tank, I see it’s listed as four inch. Isn’t that supposed to be six inch pipe going from the building to the septic tank? MR. FAZEO-It should be six inch from the building to the tank, and then from the tank out can go to four inch. MR. STROUGH-This says four inch here. MR. FAZEO-Okay. Actually, typically, you can run four inch out of a building, and then as you get to a public right-of-way, to a Town system, it goes to six inch, but we typically put in four or six inch from the building itself. MR. STROUGH-I’ve noticed on the other designs, a lot of the others have gone with six inch leaving the building. MR. FAZEO-Yes, four inch is adequate, but we do put, we do use both, four or six. We could change that to six inch. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That just about does it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Last meeting we talked about a berm, a landscaping berm. I don’t see it on your revised drawing or on any other drawing. MR. FAZEO-We looked on, as we stated, we already have a hill. To put a berm across the edge of the parking lot along the west side wouldn’t serve anything, because you’d be looking over it anyway. We did discuss that with the Beautification Committee, and they agreed with that, that they liked the idea of what we did with the landscaping on the southwest corner, that that would provide the screening, and typically, with some type of berms, and as we discussed with the Beautification Committee, sometimes you end up losing your plantings on berms when you try to put trees on hills. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else from Staff? MRS. RYBA-Maybe there’s an opportunity, rather than trees, to put some kind of low flowering plants, or some kind of bushes, on the embankment, instead. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just quickly looking back through last month’s minutes, here, and trying to get a handle on specifically where we were talking the berm. We were looking for a berm parallel to the Bay Road and your access road in. So right in this corner area right here. That’s where were looking for a berm. Had you been, had they been to Beautification before they came to us last month? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. FAZEO-No. We were here last month, and then went to Beautification, and that was last month, and now we’re, at their request, we added that to the drawings and resubmitted them, and like I said, their only request was the three trees. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s why I’m getting confused, because we didn’t refer you back to Beautification, and usually applications go to Beautification before they make application to come here. MR. GODDERT-We got notification of the Beautification Committee the day of the meeting, and we asked to be postponed on that because we weren’t ready for it. MR. FAZEO-You mean we need to go back to Beautification again? MR. MAC EWAN-No. I think, in my mind, the only outstanding issue here is try to resolve this lighting, the lighting plan. MR. PALING-I feel the same way, and I’d like to make two comments in that regard. As you point out earlier, Craig, the standards are being rewritten right now, for lighting standards, and I think the way that this is laid out poses some interesting questions in regard to church lighting, and that this should be transmitted to the Steering Committee as soon as possible, and get specific comment on t this, because I’m not sure we’re all right in this situation. MR. MAC EWAN-No, the 13 is the next meeting. th MR. PALING-And we should look at this to see, and the only other thing I think, and the access, I’m looking at the entrance. The light inside the entrance is dimmer than the light to the entrance, 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) and especially senior citizens going into entrances like to see the bright light on the street to get them in better, and I think you should consider bringing the pole closer to the road, so that that bright light is focused on the entrance and not inside. MR. FAZEO-As I indicated, there are some pole, the phone poles, the electric light poles outside. Some of those have street lighting on them. So there is, Bay Road is quite well lit. MR. PALING-If you take a look at it, because that is dim. I think you could easily correct it by pulling that pole out. (Discussion ensued) MR. FAZEO-I don’t have the exact location of poles, across the road, I think, at one point, where they’re on this side, then this side, but there are some very high lighting along there, street lighting. MR. STROUGH-I, too, am in agreement with lowering the light poles and the rest of it. My only concern was the access areas. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. You look at this lighting plan that they’ve got here, and the numbers they’ve run. Consideration wasn’t taken in for any kind of lighting on any of the entrances and exits to this building. The way you ran your numbers totally left out any lighting over entrances. So you’re going to need to re-run your numbers to take in the whole picture. MR. FAZEO-When we run the numbers for the street, for the lighting in the parking lots with the pole lighting, they’re a higher wattage. We run those numbers for that, we usually don’t take into account building lighting. We do by judgement. What we see at this point right now, that we know when we add entry doors, lights, that that is sufficient for those, because their lighting levels are close for the entrances, when you put an entry door light up, that would light up the immediate area around it. It doesn’t throw a lot of light into the parking lot, as you have in your house. Those lights only light up an area that’s maybe five, six feet away. So they really, to put a 75 or 100 watt bulb, incandescent bulb, into this mix, really doesn’t work with this program that’s set up. It’s set up for pole lighting. You put all the fixtures at a certain height, 20 feet, and to throw, unless we put wall packs on or something like that, that has something that has an intensity, it wouldn’t show up very well. MR. MAC EWAN-Does the program have variables set up in it, so as to know where this proposed structure is located, whether it’s in an industrial area or an urban area or a commercial area or a rural area? MR. FAZEO-No. It runs the foot candles, then you would apply what you get on your readings to what you would want to see in the typical area. Like, again, if you were doing a football stadium, you’d want 40 or 50 foot candles. You would apply those rates. If you’re in an area where you want very dimly lit, you would apply those rates. So it depends on what your application, it depends on your application. We designed it based on pole height and based on wattage and number of poles. For us to get a .8 average across the site, we would end up putting a bunch poles up all over the place of very low wattage, and it would be a forest of poles. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, too, I understand the methodology behind running a program to help you calculate what the lighting needs are, but you have to, you know, look at things in the real world aspect where, here’s a unique situation where, although given it’s a church, and it’s going to have a lot of people going in and out of it, it’s going to be an active building. You have to take into consideration where the building’s located in this case, too. MR. FAZEO-We’ll look at them again, but as I stated, we have to feel comfortable. We do the lighting design. If somebody gets injured because the lighting levels are low, then there’s lawsuits involved, and we have to be sure we follow industry standards, and that’s what we apply in this, and we typically, as a very bare minimum, have .5. MR. MAC EWAN-And maybe what we could do is refer this particular situation back to Stuart Messinger from Chazen, and ask him to maybe look at this, and how it reflects in with the proposed new Ordinances, and maybe see if he has some suggestions. Now when you bring, you submit your new information, you will also have manufacturer’s specs for lighting that you’re thinking about for this that you could submit with it as well. MR. FAZEO-We did include that. There is a table. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. There was a table there, but I guess I’m kind of looking more for a very specific, you know, whether you have a catalogue item or something like that, that would maybe help us a little bit more. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. FAZEO-Well, we do. We have the manufacturer’s name on there. The catalogue number’s on there, the description of it, the lamp, what type it is. The luminar schedule at the top left corner. The Lithonia. That’s the actual catalogue number. MR. VOLLARO-One thing that you might look at to help you out, I notice you’ve got, in that front parking lot, you’ve got two lights together. In some cases you’ve got 10.8 and 10.5 candles, sitting right underneath those, and the one in the middle, you’ve got 11.3, and on the end you’ve got 10.3. If you made that one fixture, that could possibly help you, instead of having two fixtures side by side there. MR. FAZEO-That’s one pole with two heads on it. MR. VOLLARO-With two heads on it. I’m saying put one pole with one head. MR. FAZEO-Then we wouldn’t have enough light to throw to the perimeter of the parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’d have to change the box, so you’d get a little more spread. I think you’ve got to get a little inventive in this lighting program. MR. FAZEO-Well, each one of these heads have certain throw patterns. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. I know what the throw patterns look like. You can change head and get different throw patterns, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else from the Board members? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I have one thing. Just clarify this. Is that the Church you’re going to build? MR. GODDERT-Yes, that’s the footprint of it, yes. We have the floor plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. You do have the floor plan? MR. GODDERT-Yes, we have the floor plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, I just didn’t understand that comment you made about, you didn’t have everything ready to go. So you have everything ready to go. MR. FAZEO-Well, the building’s not designed yet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I don’t understand. What do you mean the building’s not designed? That’s the building. MR. FAZEO-Well, construction drawings, to be able to build it, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see, all the blueprints? MR. FAZEO-Yes, structural drawings, electrical drawings, yes, heating, plumbing, all those have to be done. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I thought we had seen the (lost word). MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, will that have to come back to us, the regular, all the prints? MR. MAC EWAN-No. The next stop, if they got their approvals, would be Building and Codes. The next question is, do you anticipate having a pre-school/daycare center? MR. GODDERT-We have one now, so we will probably have one, and we considered it in this facility. Usually, it’s about two classes, about 10, 11 children in each class. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking like during the week. MR. GODDERT-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any other additional requirements that should be considered for daycare? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. GODDERT-This isn’t daycare. It’s a pre-school, and that’s why it qualifies the way it does. It’s a couple of hours, two days a week. MRS. MOORE-If we’re going to table this application, I can look into that. I don’t think there’s any additional requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. GODDERT-Because it’s not daycare. We don’t keep them through a meal. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does the Board feel they want to move this and table it? Okay. We have a public hearing open on this application. We’re going to continue to leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to table this application. If anybody wants to come up and speak on this application, you’re welcome to do so, but we’re going to hold it over for one more month. Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. PALING-All right. I’ll make a motion to table Site Plan No. 15-2000 for the Bay Road Presbyterian Church, until, could we say the first meeting in April? MR. SCHACHNER-April 18. th MR. PALING-Right, April 18. th MR. MAC EWAN-We can, if, so that they’re aware, submission deadlines are 4:30 tomorrow afternoon for April. MR. FAZEO-The outstanding issue is, what, just lighting? MR. MAC EWAN-Is your revised lighting plan, and I think it was just, the only other thing I recall that stuck out, I don’t know how important it was, was to revise the plan to show a six inch pipe going from the building to the septic. MR. STROUGH-Not only that, don’t we have to get the Highway Department, the County Highway Department, to look at the curb cut? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. STROUGH-How about the issue of the 18 versus 20 foot pole? Is that an issue? MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s all part of them revising their lighting plan to come up with a less obtrusive plan. MR. VOLLARO-The other thing is, are we going to leave 124 parking spaces here? Have we decided to do that? MR. GODDERT-If I could speak one more time about that, without belaboring it. As some of you have said, you’re familiar with the current parking we have now behind the building, which is exactly the same width as this, except it has one more row of parking, in other words, we park angled, so you have one, two, three, and four, and we currently have two services, and we fill it at both services. We want to go to one service here and we want to expand. I mean, if we weren’t planning on getting more members, we wouldn’t have to build the new church. So at our current capacity, which is less than half of the capacity of this sanctuary here, we’re currently filling the parking like that twice a Sunday. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. I’m just trying to take a look at that versus what’s in the Code. We’re taking a look at, Code right now talks to 70 spaces. We’re talking 124, and I’m just trying to help the Bay Road situation by pulling 23 spaces out. MR. GODDERT-Right, and in years past, the Church, of course, is located over here now. They parked along Bay Road, the overflow parking, and I’d hate to see that happen now. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s not good. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my thoughts on that is that my concern with the size of the parking areas was being able to see it, and with the buffering, I think that we’re getting there. The fact that the 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) parking lot’s a lower grade, I mean, considering it’s a church and that they’re going to probably be mobbed there on one day of the week anyway, with parking, I don’t see the parking, in my mind, being as big an issue with me as the lighting is. MR. VOLLARO-So long as everybody’s agreeable with 124 spaces, I don’t have a problem. MR. PALING-The only issue I have is the lighting, and we are asking that this be reviewed by the Steering Committee, or at least by Chazen, as to the input on that, and I’d really like to see that done, before we see it again, that is the lighting plan. MR. GODDERT-Do we know when they’ll review this, so we can make the next meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-As soon as you make your submittals, it’ll be forwarded to them for their review. MR. FAZEO-Well, if it’s going to them, I would like them to review the layout we have and make comment on that, if that’s, if that would be all right, because I can design these things five, ten different ways, but we feel comfortable with this layout that is there right now. We feel it’s safe. It adequately lights it. We don’t feel it’s a big glaring issue. The only place, like I say, that would be glare would be directly underneath the pole, but as you get away, it spreads out to a more uniform. That’s one of the reasons we added another pole and we reduced the wattage from 400 to 250. MR. PALING-We should be able to get Chazen to look at it pretty quickly, shouldn’t we? MRS. RYBA-I would think so. I think I had asked earlier if the applicant knew of an example, locally, that would have the same type of lighting as what’s being proposed here, because that might help everyone visualize or compare, and I’m just wondering if the applicant does have any example to give. MR. FAZEO-And also, if you have 18 foot poles in the parking lot, from Bay Road, those poles will appear to be eight feet tall, because you’re now 10 feet above looking down on them. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true, but I’m visualizing a parking lot at night, and how bright it would be, but Mrs. Ryba asked a good question. Do you have another development here in Town that you can make a comparison to, that you think? MR. FAZEO-I mean, we can compare it to, we typically do commercial sites, but those are taller poles, but I can try to get those light levels that we designed those for. They’re probably very similar to this. They’re probably a little bit brighter, because actually we did, near the building they’re very bright. We usually try to attain two to three foot candles, and that’s the request of the tenants of those buildings. They want the front very well lit up. MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re saying that this is closely designed to some of the commercial projects you’ve done, you’re bolstering my position. MR. FAZEO-No, what I meant was, when we do the application of lighting on it, we want to make sure we get adequate lighting in the lot, so people can walk through the lot and not have dark spots, and we try to keep it as even as possible. It is very difficult, when you have low poles on it, because you do get bright spots underneath it. That’s why you’ll typically see shopping centers with 30, 40 foot poles, to get a better spread on that. As we lower the poles, the intensity near the poles is high, and that’s, there’s really not going to be any way around that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, would you like to do your motion one more time? MRS. MOORE-Before he continues his motion, I have five things that the Board had requested. Do you want me to read through them before you make your motion? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have one, and this is in regard to the Bay Road lights, it would be helpful if he included existing lighting foot candles for the existing Bay Road lights, or Dream Lake Road lights, with the proposed lighting. Because that’s where Mr. Paling’s concern is that the existing, the proposed lighting that you’re showing doesn’t account for the existing Bay Road lighting, and this may assist, saying it is brighter. MR. MAC EWAN-Or proposed building lighting, too. MRS. MOORE-I have that continued. I have, Number Two, I have identify building light locations. If you can identify the type of fixture, that would be helpful, or the type of wattage or foot candles that will produce, and actually, four, Staff will refer the lighting plan to the Chazen Company for 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) comment, and then I have one additional informational question was, manicured lawns versus open fields. Right now, it’s an open field. Will it be a manicured lawn? Okay. It will be an open field? Okay. I was going to say, this gives me a representation that it’s a manicured lawn and not an open field. So some type of notation needs to be noted on the drawings to indicate that you’ll have wooded as well as open meadows, I guess we’ll call it. MR. PALING-That was four, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’m sorry. My fifth one was in regard to the classroom, the school, and I think we’ve identified that already. MR. MAC EWAN-And Staff was also going to research if there was any other provisions that you need to have for a preschool, daycare center, whatever. I know they said that. MR. PALING-We’re running a risk, if we try to put April meetings on here, with tomorrow being the submittal date. Can I put either April or May, leave it open? MRS. MOORE-If the applicant is able to provide this information by tomorrow by 4:30, then we can attempt to schedule him for an April meeting. MR. PALING-Okay, and then I’ll make it an alternate, and if not, then it’ll go into a May meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-The May deadline to be on May’s meeting schedule is April 26. th MR. PALING-Right. Okay. MR. FAZEO-So for the April meeting, the deadline is tomorrow? MR. MAC EWAN-Tomorrow, the 29. th MR. FAZEO-Without you getting referrals from Chazen, and me coming up with a design, I doubt we’ll make that submission tomorrow. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Unless you gave him the present plan and he reviewed it. MR. FAZEO-That’s what I would like. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking for an alternate plan, though. I think we all feel comfortable, we’re looking for an alternate plan. MR. PALING-All right. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2000 BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Until the April 18th or 25th meeting depending upon obtaining the following information (by the deadline date of March 29, 2000) and meeting with the Chazen Company. In regard to the Bay Road lights, include existing lighting foot candles for the existing Bay Road lights or Dream Lake Road lights, with the proposed lighting; identify building light locations, identify the type of fixture, type of wattage and foot candles that will produce; Staff will refer the lighting plan to the Chazen Company for comment; Some type of notation on the drawings that indicates that they’ll have wooded as well as open meadows; Staff will research is there’s any other provisions that you need to have on a pre- school/day care center. Should this fail (submission of information by March 29, 2000) then the meetings will have to be held either May 16th or May 23rd. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. We’ll get there. MR. GODDERT-Thank you. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) SITE PLAN NO. 12-2000 TYPE II KEVIN & MARYBETH MASCHEWSKI OWNER: JAMES & ROSEMARY DAVIDSON ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT SEASONAL DWELLING INTO A FULL TIME RESIDENCE. THE PROPOSED ADDITION INLCUDES A 400 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR GREAT ROOM, A 350 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO MASTER BEDROOM AND A 595 +/- SQ. FT. DECK. CONVERSION OF A SEASONAL DWELLING UNIT AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA BOTH REQUIRE BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-69, 179-79 KEVIN & MARYBETH MASCHEWSKI, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on February 22 was tabled. nd Staff Notes: Notes from Staff, Site Plan No.12-2000, Kevin & Marybeth Maschewski, Meeting Date: March 28, 2000 “The application was tabled at the February 22, 2000 Planning Board meeting pending the Zoning Board decision. Since then the applicant has received an area variance for setback, floor area and height relief. The existing home was built in 1935 as a seasonal camp. The camp's septic system was upgraded (3 bedroom) in July of 1999, Building Permit 99-142. The applicant has applied for an area variance for the expansion. The applicant's proposal is in compliance with the zoning code requirements of Section 179. Upon a site visit it was observed the plans did not identify landscaping on-site. There are several trees that may need to be removed to accommodate the addition. These trees provide screening for the neighbor to the south, and should be preserved to the extent possible. A large birch tree near the southwest corner of the property may not need to be removed. The applicant should be asked to further explain landscaping intentions. The deck addition appears to be at the same line of sight from the back entrances of neighboring buildings, so there should not be any view impacts on neighbors. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the residential expansion, conditioned upon the final plans identifying existing vegetation on site, noting vegetation to be removed, and noting vegetation to be added.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Good evening. Kevin Maschewski, the property owner. MRS. MASCHEWSKI-And Marybeth Maschewski. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Sure. As we got in front of the ZBA and proposed an addition, what we want to do is convert the seasonal camp to a full time residence, and add the little bump out addition going out toward the water, and a deck, and put a second floor up above, there’s an existing flat area off of the north side, put a second floor up above that. It’s basically just convert the camp into a full season house. There was talk, with Laura, in reference to the landscaping. What I had anticipated, and I don’t have a landscaping plan. I really wanted to see what, the previous owners were an elderly couple, and she has quite a bit of landscaping already there, and I’m waiting for it to pop up, start growing, but what I anticipate doing is the stone wall, if any of you folks had gone on the site, you actually step down into a little area before you get to the front of the house. I anticipate on landscaping that entire area there, just having a professional landscaper come down, cut in a new sidewalk, and just mulch it and landscape it. So it would be kind of like its own little nature preserve atmosphere down in that little recessed area. The white birch, Laura did indicate, Chris Crandall had put a septic system on this property, back last summer, and Chris is a local excavator. We looked at that tree, and, yes, the anticipation is to save it. I do not want to have it removed. It’s a beautiful white birch, and it’s been there for quite a bit. So what we’re going to try to do is work and save those roots, because it is about four to five feet from the house. The only existing tree I expect to move is right about where the deck is going to be, and it’s an eight inch diameter maple tree, and that is over toward the north property line. Other than that, the landscaping’s going to basically stay the same. Do some upgrades to it. The front lawn needs quite a bit of work, but for the most part, not have any removals, just one tree and a little bit of cluster of bushes where the new deck’s going to be. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, that’s about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-I have just one. The septic system, and this will go to the heart of what we were talking about a little while ago. The drawings are nicely done, by the way. You did a nice job. The only problem I have with them, it doesn’t have a professional PE stamp on them, and it doesn’t have to, but for this particular reason, the septic system that was on a building permit on 99-142, the septic system was put in for the then existing building, and what I want somebody to do, like our Building Inspector, is to say that this septic system that was put in before is now adequate for this new construction, and that’s all I need to know. I don’t need to know any details. I don’t need to know anything else about it, other then I’d like somebody to be able to tell me, now, if this was stamped by a PE, I would kind of go along with it. MR. MASCHEWSKI-When you say “this”, what? MR. VOLLARO-The drawings. MR. MASCHEWSKI-They are stamped. The ones in front of you are not. The package submitted to the Building Department did have a PE. That was subsequent to that. MR. VOLLARO-I can only look at what I’ve got. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, that’s all I have here, and I had a conversation with Staff today about this very same thing. I’d like our Building Inspector to say, yes, this septic system is adequate for the new construction, period. MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Don’t need anything else from him, and I don’t have to talk about it anymore. MR. MAC EWAN-When was this system upgraded? MR. VOLLARO-’99. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Last July. It’s for a three bedroom, and we’re proposing a three bedroom. So I don’t think that would be a problem. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it’s a problem, either. I just would like to know from our Building Inspector that it’s adequate. Because the ’99 upgrade was for that other building. Now that upgrade is going to be applied to new construction, and all I want somebody to say is that it’s adequate. That’s all. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know, Marilyn, whether you had any success with that today or not. MRS. RYBA-The situation is that it was built for a three bedroom residence, the septic system that is, and when the Building Inspector does the inspection for this approval, when all of the changes are made, he’s going to also be ascertaining that that septic system is adequate for the new residence, or the full time residence expanded in full time residence, which is also three bedrooms. So, also the septic plans from last year were stamped as well. So it really is covered, in other words, it’s being inspected again. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that will be inspected after, when the Building Inspector goes to the construction site. He should be able to look at these drawings and tell me, based on the design, on Building Permit 99-142, that that septic tank is, in his opinion, adequate for the new construction. He’s better qualified than I, or than anybody on this Board, to say that that’s going to be adequate, and if this was stamped by a PE, I would say, yes, that’s adequate, but it’s not. Now you’re saying the drawing is stamped, but. MR. MASCHEWSKI-You’re right. You’re correct, not the one in front of you. MRS. MOORE-I’ll add that the building plans that are being submitted will be inspected prior to construction. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I don’t have that. I’m sitting here on the Planning Board trying to make a determination of yes or no, based on the drawings that I have in front of me. MR. MAC EWAN-But even if you didn’t have the drawings for a septic system in front of you, and even if you didn’t have an engineer’s stamp, per se, that the septic system is adequate, there’s going to be a field inspection done by the Building and Codes Department to determine whether the septic system is going to be adequate, no matter what approvals they may or may not get here tonight, if they should advance and do get an approval, and they’re going ahead with the building permit, Building and Codes is going to make sure that that septic system is adequate to service the new addition on the house. MR. VOLLARO-Should that be in our motion, that that’s a condition of the motion? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a condition of a building permit. MR. PALING-Craig, remember, we went over this thing I think two meetings ago, and we decided to do what Bob is asking us to do. We wanted to step away from septic system approval because we’re not qualified to do anything. MR. MAC EWAN-And we are. MR. PALING-But we are asking assurance that it is adequate for this application itself, and that’s all I think we said then, and I think that’s all Bob is saying now. MR. MAC EWAN-And I agree with it. All I’m telling him is that there’s a mechanism already in place that, regardless of whether these people came in front of us tonight for approval, there’s a mechanism already in place to assure than any additions or renovations to a house, existing house or new house, that the septic systems meet Code, and that’s done through the building permit process. MR. PALING-And we shouldn’t touch septic systems, then. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and I thought that’s what we were steering away from here. MR. PALING-We’re trying to, but we want assurance that it is, somebody’s doing it. MR. MAC EWAN-Building and Codes, and if I’m wrong on that, somebody jump up and tell me that. MR. VOLLARO-It’s Building and Codes all right, but they’re not here to tell me that. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Excuse me. I believe, and I may be wrong, but I believe that once the Certificate of Occupancy is achieved and then I think what you’re saying is it’s been approved. I think you’re not allowed to get a C/O unless you have that septic system in place and adequate, and that C/O goes in line with the building structure as well as the site sewer system. MR. STROUGH-And aren’t septic systems based on the number of bedrooms, not the square footage of the house? MR. PALING-No. MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s another change. It’s area, I understand that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What is the square footage of the final plan? MR. MASCHEWSKI-The square foot of house is 2430 square feet, to be exact. MR. SCHACHNER-None of the people at this table have any idea what the three Board members were just referencing when you said that, in response to Mr. Strough’s question or comment that septic systems are not designed in accordance with number of bedrooms. MR. VOLLARO-I always thought they were, and I don’t know where that’s changed, but I understand that the new Board or the new committee that’s working on that is looking at square footage. MR. SCHACHNER-When you say a new committee is looking at square footage, that’s all well and good, but that’s different than saying their criteria have changed as we sit here. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. PALING-No, that’s not correct, and the source of that is me. At a Steering Committee meeting, I made the statement concerning septic systems that it was based on the number of bedrooms. Now members of the Town Board who were present said no, we don’t base septic systems on bedrooms. We base it on area, and we brought it back and discussed it and said, yes, it is area, and we no longer use bedrooms, as I’m told we should never have. MR. SCHACHNER-Who’s the “we” that brought it back and discussed it and said we no longer use bedrooms? The Planning Board? MR. PALING-I brought it back to this Board. MR. VOLLARO-No, no, not this Board. MR. SCHACHNER-He’s saying, yes, I brought it back to this Board, and you’re saying, no, not this Board. MR. PALING-I brought the comment from the Steering Committee meeting back to this Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and it was discussed by this Board, you’re saying. MR. PALING-That’s right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I wasn’t in on that discussion. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. Whenever I’ve built a house, and Bill Threw has put the septic system in, we’ve just gone by the number of bedrooms. MR. PALING-Well, okay, peace. We did it for six years, too. I’m told it’s not the right way to do it. MR. STROUGH-Well, maybe not, but I think, traditionally, they have done it. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Excuse me. If I could interject. I’m a Civil Engineer, and I do all my engineering and my predominant experience is site development, sewer, septics, New York State Health Department goes on bedrooms. I don’t know who has the prevailing jurisdiction, if Queensbury is higher than New York State Health Department. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve not known of the change here, either. MR. PALING-Well, let’s defer it, let’s go back to the Town Board. Staff, I think, ought to go to the Town Board and ask them. That’s what they told me at that meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Was that an elected official who told you that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyway, back to our issue here regarding the septic system, I mean, I’m comfortable with the process is, that when they go to get a building permit, that goes through it’s channels of checking to make sure that the proposed system or the current system is adequate to what they’re planning on building. Is everyone else comfortable with that? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Why aren’t you comfortable with it? You said you didn’t want to get involved in reviewing the septic systems. MR. VOLLARO-That’s absolutely right, Craig, but when it’s on here, I want somebody else to say, yes, it’s adequate. Not me, somebody else, like somebody from the Building Department. MR. MAC EWAN-And they will, when he makes application for a building permit. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that’s not tonight, Craig, that’s after the fact, as far as I’m concerned. Now, that’s where I stand. MR. SCHACHNER-If you want, I’m not suggesting you need to this, but if you want, you can certainly make any approval of yours conditioned with no building permit will be issued until the Building and Codes Department has signed off on the adequacy of the septic system, if that gives you anymore comfort. MR. VOLLARO-That would be fine with me. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and in fairness to the rest of the Board, I think all the Chairman is saying is that that’s true whether you say it or not, but if that gives one member additional comfort, you can certainly do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, sir. MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m confused. You say you’re converting, but I just don’t see how. Are you actually just building an addition, or are you going to tear down and rebuild? MR. MASCHEWSKI-We just had recent conversations with Dave Hatin, and we had Dave Hatin over at the property, and we did an inspection of the structure with the floor system, and as it’s built now, it is not adequate for New York State Building Codes, and it won’t pass any inspections. So in talking with Dave, talking with Craig Brown, we’ve come to the consensus that we going to actually have to bring it down to the existing floor level, because the walls, and some of the floor, isn’t up to Code. A lot of rot over the years and just poor construction. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to be building on the existing footprint, is that what you’re going to do? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So this is not an addition. This is really a new building, in a sense? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, with an addition. The foundation was inspected and found to be structurally sound. It’s a sound foundation. So that’s basically the footprint. Zoning has already reviewed that part of it. MR. METIVIER-The height of the new building, is that going to be the same as it is now, about? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, and that’s conditioned upon the ZBA approval, yes, from the lowest point grade to the peak. MR. METIVIER-So really just, if you were to visibly look at it now, you’d say you were just adding a second addition on to this square part, but really you’re not. You’re going to be, tear it down and do it over. Yes, okay. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. METIVIER-I’m set. Thank you. MR. STROUGH-The ZBA, I read the notes, and you were going to reduce the height of the building to meet the 28 foot requirement? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Twenty-eight foot, ten was what was, originally, we had been in front of the Zoning Board for about 32 feet, actually, a little over 31. So a little over three feet. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The house can be 28 feet 10 inches? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. So that’s going to be different from these plans? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. Well, there was a. MR. VOLLARO-We’re not looking at the same thing, in my opinion. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We have an updated? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Eleven by seventeen, yes. That’s the updated one. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the big one is out? MR. MASCHEWSKI-The big one is out. That’s an old drawing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re really looking at new construction here. Is really what we’re looking at. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So a lot of the information in a lot of the Staff Notes that talk about an addition are no longer applicable. We’re talking a brand new building. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not an addition, either. MR. STROUGH-Toward the lakeside elevation, I see a lot of roof area being focused in that one valley. That’s a lot of water. Now are you going to be putting up gutters? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And where are they going to drain? MR. MASCHEWSKI-That hasn’t been determined, but my understanding, and I’m not sure if, in dealing with Lake George, I’d been looking at property over there, somewheres into a French Drain or a wet well. MR. STROUGH-Not right down into the lake. MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. MR. STROUGH-Just a suggestion, you’ll avoid a lot of problems if you put a cricket up between that chimney and your roof. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. There is. I had to, actually, I drew those elevations over a weekend, and subsequent to those, there had been changes from the Zoning Board, and the revised, actual full engineered set of drawings have been submitted to the Building Department, and the cricket is shown. MR. STROUGH-Yes. The only other question, probably for Staff, too, is, since I don’t know, how are covered decks treated? Are covered decks the same as decks, or do we consider that floor space of the floor plan? Covered decks. MRS. MOORE-There is a sheet in his application that goes through what identifies floor area, it’s called Floor Area Ratio Sheet, and it’s listed whether it’s covered or uncovered. So that is discussed. MR. STROUGH-Well, part of this is a covered deck, you know. MRS. MOORE-I’m aware of that, but I’m saying it was addressed in his application. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see it addressed in there. He has a first floor and second floor only in the floor area ratio worksheet. I don’t see any, there’s no covered or enclosed porches or covered decks figured in to the total allowable, to the existing floor area. See, when you go from adding to a building to a brand new building, that whole thing, in my mind, changes the complexion of what we’re looking at here. Because all of the data that I have here on the site development data, and that which talks about the floor area, all of this is different. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Actually, it all is, quantities, are all the same. MR. VOLLARO-I know what you’re doing. You’re going to build to the footprint, and you’re going to keep the square footage of this first and second floor within some envelope. That’s how you’re planning to do it. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I didn’t have a problem with a covered deck, but I didn’t know if it was treated accurately with dealing with square foot, and I just asked Laura if it was. MR. MASCHEWSKI-The actual revised drawings that have been submitted eliminated the roof, shingled roof on that back side of the deck, and it was only a second floor deck. MR. STROUGH-Like I said, I didn’t have any problem with it. It was a nice feature, and you provide, it looks like you have access from the second story. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, a French door going out. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. STROUGH-I like that feature. I just didn’t know, it was a technical question. The only other question I have is, if my memory serves me, you’re going to backfill the front end, or the area toward the lake? It shows here under the deck, it shows backfill. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Now don’t you have an access point in that cellar. Isn’t there a dip? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. There’s a walk-out basement that’s going to be eliminated, because actually what happens is the two adjoining properties, north and south, let’s say are at this elevation, and the back yard just dips right to a big hole, and that hole’s going to get backfilled in. I’m not going to have a walk-out basement. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s a shame, because that’s the kids, that’s where they throw all their stuff. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s a utility basement. MR. STROUGH-I was just curious, because I see the backfill, and I didn’t expect to see it, but I wondered if you put the backfill there to maintain your height, or? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, that also lends to a nice, wet basement, which, there’s a lot of reasons why the structural aspects of, it’s just been damp for 60 years. So we’re eliminating that moisture problem. MR. METIVIER-Where’s your driveway going to be? MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s existing. It’s asphalt right now. MR. METIVIER-In front of the square part, correct, in front of the existing structure? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. That stays the same. MR. METIVIER-There’s not much you can do there. MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. MR. METIVIER-The unfortunate thing, you don’t have any land to, okay, so you’re just not going to plan on a garage or anything. You’re just going to make do with what you have. MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. The budget doesn’t allow it. The land doesn’t allow it. It’s a pretty small piece of property. MR. STROUGH-I’m done. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. A question I’ve got, and I guess I can gear it toward our Attorney. You got a variance for setbacks to put this addition on, but you’re not putting an addition on. You’re taking it right down to the subfloor, the floor joist, right, you’re going to start building it up again. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Were there provisions, and I’m looking through the Zoning Board’s resolution, and I don’t see provisions in there that say that you have to stay on the same footprint, but you intend to stay on the existing footprint? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, there is, and that’s what I was going to say, but I didn’t want to interrupt you. There is an addition area that was always proposed and will still remain, and that’s an eleven foot bump out toward the water end of it. So that is still an addition to the existing footprint. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re not going to build to the exact footprint. There’s another bump out on? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. There was a bump out toward the front water. MR. METIVIER-You’re not going on either side? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, and that was the critical points. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else from Board members? Staff? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MRS. MOORE-I can provide comment back to John Strough’s question. In the site development data, it does address that he has a deck. It’s not, my understanding is it’s an open deck. It’s not a covered deck. So it’s not considered in the living space calculation. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, there was another situation, too, about a year ago, where someone had come before the Planning Board, and there was a covered deck question, but I can’t remember, so we don’t treat them any differently? MRS. MOORE-If it’s a covered deck, and it’s calculated in the floor area ratio sheet, then it’s calculated as floor area. If it’s an open deck, it’s considered, you’ll address it in the site development data as being an open deck. Does that address your question or not? MR. STROUGH-So, it was considered part of the floor area of the house? It’s a covered deck. MRS. MOORE-Not according to the plans that I have. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ll work it out. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the 595 we’re talking about? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s worked out. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s in the site development data, but it’s not in the floor area worksheet. In other words, it’s not in the floor area ratio. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-It’s in one and it’s not in the other. MRS. MOORE-And it’s not considered part of the floor area. It’s not considered living space. MR. STROUGH-So if I build a deck on my house, and covered it, I don’t have to get? MRS. MOORE-My understanding, it’s an open deck. MR. STROUGH-Okay. It’s not a big issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move along. Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. VOLLARO-Do we have, this is a Type II, we don’t need to do a SEQRA. Not I. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2000 KEVIN & MARYBETH MASCHEWSKI, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 12-2000, Kevin & MaryBeth Maschewski to convert seasonal dwelling into a full time residence. The proposed addition includes a 400 sq. ft. first floor great room, a 350 sq. ft. second floor addition to master bedroom and a 595 +/- sq. ft. deck. Conversion of a seasonal dwelling unit and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA both require Planning Board review and approval. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) Whereas, the above mentioned application received 1/00 consists of the following: 1. Application w/Warranty Deed dated 10/28/1975 and maps E-1 dated Jan. 2000 and SP-1 dated Jan. 2000 2. 1/26/00 – Letter of Authorization from J. Davidson, owner Whereas, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 3/28/00 – Staff Notes 2. 3/2/00 – Meeting Notice 3. 2/22/00 – Staff Notes 4. 2/16/00 – Elevation drawings rec’d 5. 2/16/00 – ZBA from LGA re AV 9-2000 6. 2/15/00 – Notice of Public Hearing 7. 2/14/00 – L. Moore from M. Grasso 8. 2/9/00 – Warren Co. PB 9. 2/4/00 – Meeting Notice 10. Pictures taken by staff Whereas, public hearing was held on 2/22/00 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: The applicant is subject to the following conditions and notations: 1. With just a note there that we realize that this really isn’t an addition, but they’re taking the house down to the foundation and they’re going to build it on the original footprint, with the additions that are noted in the site plan description. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit and/or a CO, that the existing septic system built in 1999 be determined to be adequate for the new construction, by the Building and Codes Department or a Building Inspector. Duly adopted this 28th day of March 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Could we make another request of Staff that we get clarified for sure bedrooms versus area on this thing? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 20-2000 TYPE II TERRIE & BILL MANSMANN OWNER: SAME AGENT: THE MC KERNON GROUP ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 19 CHESTNUT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 775 +/- SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION FOR THREE BEDROOMS ANDBATH AND A 14 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE MECHANICAL ROOM. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) IN A CEA REQUIRES BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEPTIC VAR. 2/28/00 AV 20-2000 TAX MAP NO. 39-1-17 LOT SIZE: .226 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-69, 179-79 CARL SCHODER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT Staff Notes: Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-2000, Terrie & Bill Mansmann, Meeting Date: March 28, 2000 “The applicant proposes an expansion of an existing dwelling located in a critical environmental area in a waterfront zone. The original structure was constructed in 1935 as a single story dwelling. The Zoning Board indicated that some of the neighboring homes were two story dwellings. The applicant has received variances from the Town Board of Health for sewage disposal and a variance from the Zoning Board for setback relief. The applicant has made one change that does not appear on the plans submitted. The proposed building height has been reduced to be in conformance with the ordinance. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the condition the final plans identify the height is in conformance with the ordinance.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, gentlemen. MR. SCHRODER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record. MR. SCHODER-Yes. I’m Carl Schoder, from Schoder River Associates. I’m pinch hitting for Greg Hathaway from McKernon Group. We worked jointly on the site development for this project. WILLIAM MANSMANN MR. MANSMANN-And I am William Mansmann, the owner. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. SCHODER-Okay. If I can, first off, address the concern of Staff regarding the filing of an updated drawing with regard to the heights. I have that with me. We understand that one copy is adequate. I’m just dropping it off. Okay. You’ll note that on that revised drawing, the building height is now indicated as being 28 foot 10 and a half inches, I believe, I’m sorry, 27 foot ten and a half inches, which falls below the 28 foot requirement. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you seen this yet? MRS. MOORE-I haven’t seen this, but that was only the one change on the plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHODER-I believe that is all that Staff was requesting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead. MR. SCHODER-Outside of that, I think this case is stated. This is a second floor addition with a minor bump out on a mechanical room which totals actually 14 square feet of increased footprint area. The addition is approximately 775 square feet on the second floor, built, again, over the original footprint. The purpose for this is to gain more living space, total of four bedrooms will be provided when it’s complete. The site has been subjected to review by way of the ZBA and by way of the Town Board of Health. Septic system, new septic system will be constructed to accommodate the additional size of the property, or size of the facility. With regard to site development items, there isn’t really a whole heck of a lot I can say. The permeable area currently and finally is approximately the same. It’s very close. Actually, I notice some numbers that Mr. Hathaway presented, but they didn’t take into account the fact that some pavers are being removed. So in actuality, the amount of impermeable area, when we’re all done, is going to be a little bit less than what there is now. Site will generally be configured the way it has been. A piece of retaining wall is going to be removed, that is behind the property now, not on the lakeside, but rather on the, it would be the west side of the property, of the building, and replaced with a two tiered type of a wall system 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) to allow for some landscaping and also kind of reduce the effect of being so enclosed by the current wall. I guess I’ll open to questions. MR. VOLLARO-I have a print before and after. Just let me ask it straight away. Are you going to really add to this, or are you going to build a new building? MR. SCHODER-We are going to really add to this. The structure, the roof is going to be removed, and the new structure is going to be constructed above that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, on top of the existing building? MR. SCHODER-That is correct, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHODER-Well, now, let me qualify. There is a 14 square foot addition that is shown there that will be larger than the original footprint, okay, but, no, we are not taking down the walls, etc. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I reviewed this. I don’t have any other questions. MR. METIVIER-I just wonder if they’re going to have enough room for it, but I guess it’s going to have to. It looks fine to me. I’d like to see it when it’s finished. 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-How many copies of this did you bring tonight with you? MR. SCHODER-We were informed just the one was needed. We have two, if you’ll give me a second. MRS. MOORE-I was going to say. He will receive a notice from our Department, if he receives approval, to submit three copies of plans, and that’s a procedure that occurs after the Board. MR. SCHODER-We’ll be glad to do that. You’ll forward the notice? MRS. MOORE-We forward a notice to you. MR. SCHODER-To McKernon Group. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, then? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2000 TERRIE & BILL MANSMANN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 20-2000 for Terrie & Bill Mansmann for a 775 +/- sq. ft. second story addition for three bedroom and bath, and a 14 sq. ft. addition to the mechanical room. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires board review and approval. WHEREAS, the above mentioned application received 2/23/00 consists of the following: 1. Application w/maps C-1, C-2 dated 1/31/00, PR1, PR2 dated 2/3/00 WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 3/28/00 Staff Notes 2. 3/21/00 Notice of Public Hearing 3. 3/15/00 ZBA resolution - approved 4. 3/2/00 Meeting Notice 5. 2/29/00 L.Moore from G. Hathaway – Map of Existing Elevations 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) 6. 2/28/00 TB meeting minutes 7. 3/28/00 Revised drawing WHEREAS, public hearing was held on March 28, 2000 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, 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 THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, AS FOLLOWS: The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Site Plan approved as proposed, including the revised drawing dated 3/28/00. Duly adopted this 28th day of March 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. SCHODER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Good luck. PUD SITE PLAN NO. 21-2000 JAMES FEENEY/TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF RESORT, INC. OWNER: TOP OF THE WORLD VENTURES, INC. AGENT: DANIEL SMITH ZONE: PUD LOCATION: LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ACQUIRE 200 ACRES TO THE TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF RESORT, INC. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS PART OF THE TOP OF THE WORLD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE 200 ACRES WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AS RECREATIONAL USE FOR THE PUD. THE PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR PUD CONSISTENCY AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 24-1-4.1, 5.3, 6.3, 7.2, 7.1, 8 23-1-7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 27 LOT SIZE: 468.04 +/- AC. SECTION 179-58 DAN SMITH & JIM FEENEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Are these new drawings? MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask a question? Why are we getting new information the night of a meeting? MRS. MOORE-I’ll read through Staff Notes first, and then I’ll have them address that. Staff Notes: Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 21-2000, James Feeney/Top of the World Golf Resort, Inc., Meeting Date: March 28, 2000 “The applicant, Top of the World Golf Resort, Inc., proposes to purchase 200 +/- acres from Top of the World Ventures, Inc. The land involved in the transaction is part of the planned unit development for Top of the World. According to the zoning ordinance, the owner is required to notify the Town Board of the sale of land within a PUD. The sale of the land would adjust lot lines on twelve properties and create one individual lot. Upon review of the Top of the World PUD it was determined the 200 acres was part of a proposed recreational use of the area. The recreational opportunity for some of the sale land was for an equestrian training center and a children's camp as part of the PUD. The applicant has indicated the future intentions of the Golf Resort is to expand the Golf course from a 9 hole golf course to an 18 hole golf course. Staff has determined that the recreational intent is consistent with the PUD for Top of the World. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) The Town Board has requested a report and recommendation from the Planning Board in regards to the sale and subdivision of property. Recommendations: Staff would recommend approval of the sale of land and the subdivision because the intent of the sale is consistent with the PUD for the Top of the World.” MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen? MR. SMITH-My name is Dan Smith, and this is Jim Feeney to my left. We’ve read the Staff recommendations, and I can give you a very simple answer as to the change, if you’d like me to address that point. MR. MAC EWAN-Go right through your presentation, please. MR. SMITH-Okay. When we first came in, the original proposal was that our lot would end at this line right in here. After we made this proposal, we talked to representatives from the Homeowners Association. The septic system for the townhouse project has a design of four sewage beds down in here, two of them are built, a third is designed, looking at me, it would be to the left of my hand. The four was on this parcel right here. Rather than try to re-engineer everything, what we did is we moved the line down here, pushed it in here, and ended up with the same amount of land. The Park Agency jurisdictional goes back to the Town Board. We intend, some day, to plan for an 18 hole golf course. This is the existing golf course and facility. I don’t know what more we can say, but Jim and I would be glad to answer questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-You’re just proposing this for a golf course, nothing more, nothing else, buildings? MR. SMITH-The proposal is that we’re seeking a Park Agency permit. Obviously, it’s Park Agency jurisdictional. Our acquisition is 200 acres. On 200 acres, we have negotiated with the sellers to get the magnificent sum of three building rights. We have no idea what or where we would do those three building rights, but, that’s all we’re getting. MR. STROUGH-Have you had any discussions with the homeowners association and other area residents about this project? MR. SMITH-Jim, I think you’ve had a number of conversations. MR. FEENEY-Yes. I’ve had some conversations with some of the homeowners and some of the abutters, and I think the homeowners were pretty excited about us expanding the golf course, from my feedback. MR. STROUGH-And the other residents? MR. FEENEY-One resident asked about riding their horses on the property, and presently they’re riding them on the property, and I told them I don’t know where the golf course exactly is going to be located, but it is private property at this point. MR. STROUGH-Is this in the Adirondack Park? MR. FEENEY-Yes. MR. STROUGH-See, what bothers me is I don’t, how many trees are you taking out? Are you taking this all out? You’re going to put nine more holes on here, right? MR. SMITH-The future plan is for nine more holes some time. That would be subject to Park Agency review and Town Board review when we come back. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I wanted to understand. MR. SMITH-Yes. We know that we’ll be back, and back and back. MR. MAC EWAN-That also requires site plan review, too. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. SMITH-As a PUD, do we go to Site Plan and the Town Board? MRS. MOORE-It’s possible. I know it definitely would require a site plan review. MR. STROUGH-So some time through the process we’re going to get a clearer idea of what’s going on? MR. SMITH-No question about it. MR. STROUGH-Okay, because I have a hard time trying to get oriented here. First of all, I know how you could get me oriented. Where’s the driving point for the first hole? If you can show me that, I’m there. MR. SMITH-Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is the clubhouse right here. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then you walk down the road, and you tee off for the first hole. MR. FEENEY-This would be the first hole going over here. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and it’s a dog leg to the right, but I don’t bother with that. MR. FEENEY-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now I’m oriented. MR. FEENEY-I’m sorry, the old first hole, I don’t know if you realize, we changed it about two, three years ago. The first hole would be going out this way, and the dog leg that you’re referring to would be down here in this. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now I’m oriented. MR. FEENEY-Okay, and just to give you a little bit of reference, I’ve got nine holes on 71 acres, and if we did expand, according to the plans that I have now, we would not need all this land, and you’re probably looking at perhaps clearing 15 to 20 acres. Don’t hold me to that number, but it would not be clearing out this whole location. MR. STROUGH-I have no more questions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was just disoriented reading this, but I’m okay now. I was totally on the other side of the existing golf course, because I didn’t see where the clubhouse was. MR. VOLLARO-Suppose you just explain to me what, it says ventures will probably have to make a decision some time as to which three town house units are to be abandoned. What is the story with that? With this you’re getting the right to build three, and you’re abandoning three. Is that what’s happening? MR. FEENEY-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now how does that figure into the HOA? What does the Homeowners Association, how does that effect them? Are these vacant buildings, unowned? MR. SMITH-These are unbuilt units. My recollection of the numbers is that the original approval, correct me if I’m wrong, was about 170 town house units were approved. There’s about 100 built? MR. FEENEY-Sixty-six. MR. SMITH-Sixty-six, I’m sorry. So there’s 66 built. There’s 170 approved. The 170 townhouses would get bumped down to 167, and that 167, that’s 100 more approve than are actually built. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re not in a full build-out condition. MR. SMITH-No way. MR. VOLLARO-And it’s a little misleading when we talk about three units being abandoned. It kind of sounds like that that’s a hard building you are abandoning, and it’s not. MR. SMITH-Three approvals, three rights to build. MR. VOLLARO-Three rights for approval is what you’re abandoning, okay. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. SMITH-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-When you read this, at least when I read it, I reflect that, why are you? MR. SMITH-There won’t be a tear down, no. MR. VOLLARO-There won’t be a tear down, okay. As far as the Homeowners Association is concerned, what is common ground? What portion of the PUD is considered common ground? MR. SMITH-It’s not on our map, but we can give you a narrative. MR. VOLLARO-None of that’s common ground? MR. SMITH-No. Bear with me for a minute. This line on your map is the original ownership. The road, generally speaking, the Lockhart Mountain Road, the corner down here, comes up like so. the new clubhouse is in this position here. You loop around, there’s some townhouses in this area here. The area surrounding those townhouses would be common property. It’s about under my hand, right in here, for lack of a better term, to the northwest of us. There is also a road that turns like so, and there’s a brand new clubhouse in there. That, too, is common property. This is the septic system down here. Obviously, that’s going to be common property. Weird as it is, but this is not owned by the Homeowners Association. MR. VOLLARO-We have the same thing in Baybridge. MR. SMITH-Anyway, this is being deeded, some time, we’re not involved in that deal, but we know that that’s why this lot is being carved out. That’s going to the Association, but the common property is generally in here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I’m somewhat concerned about is, and I’m going to give this question to Staff, and it says, Staff has determined that the recreational intent is consistent with the original PUD for Top of the World. How was that determined, that we have consistency between the original definition of the PUD and what is happening now? MRS. MOORE-I can just provide you that I did the research of what was intended for that area that’s proposed for the expansion, and it was proposed for a recreational use, and some of the specifics that were identified on the drawing were and equestrian riding camp and a children’s camp. MR. VOLLARO-Right. So you’re interchanging that with the golf course? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t have any questions, Mr. Chairman. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. SMITH-Not really. I expect we have to go back to the Town Board and after we go to the Town Board we have to go back to the Park Agency. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JEANETTE SHERRILL MRS. SHERRILL-My name is Jeanette Sherrill, and with me is my husband Munro. We are owners of Unit 22 in Top of the World. We’re seeing this presentation for the first time this evening, and came up from out of town to find out what was proposed. So our questions may not be appropriate at this time, but we are wondering, as residents there, what impact will the expansion, proposed expansion, have on the road coming in from the main, the County roads, which is the privately maintained road by the Homeowners Association, and I would assume that the expansion would at least involve, hopefully, more car traffic, and that is the only access road to that development. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask that question for you. MRS. SHERRILL-Can we ask more questions? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MRS. SHERRILL-Secondly, does Mr. Feeney have any kind of a proposed timeline for when this development would take place? MR. MAC EWAN-We were going to ask that question ourselves. MRS. SHERRILL-Do you have any questions? MUNRO SHERRILL MR. SHERRILL-No. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? GREG SHERRY MR. SHERRY-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SHERRY-My name’s Greg Sherry. I’m also a resident of the Top of the World Unit 61, and I’m the Property Manager for the Homeowner’s Association. Mr. Feeney and I have had conversations concerning this subdivision, and at the present time, the Association is concerned with only one feature effect that this may have on our development, and that is the traffic on this main road. Two, three years ago, Mr. Feeney and Top of the World Ventures, and the Association went before this Planning Board, and we developed a three way agreement on the maintenance of the road, based on a certain set of conditions, and when this subdivision is approved, those conditions will change, and we would like it noted that, if those conditions do change, and there is development on the subdivision, that that three way agreement be re-opened and re-negotiated, and that all the APA bonds that are in effect to maintain the road and develop any future road also remain in effect. The only other comment that I have, personally, on this is that I’m concerned about the way the PUD is being dismantled three years at a time, and we would like some more consistency, and maybe a better planning as to what we can look forward to, either from Mr. Feeney’s organization, or from Top of the World Ventures. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. BILL KEENAN MR. KEENAN-My name is Bill Keenan, and I live on Lockhart Mountain Road, and I was just concerned about, I guess I don’t understand exactly what’s happening up at Top of the World. When they talk about trading in three development sites for three other development sites, where might they be, and what might they be. My property borders theirs. I’m concerned about septic systems, runoffs, you know, the usual concerns. I just don’t understand, and nothing I’ve read so far really explains what’s going on up there, what the proposal is all about. I mean, other than an 18 hole golf course. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask them to clarify that when they come back up. Thank you. MR. KEENAN-Okay, thank you. IRENE O’BRIEN MRS. O’BRIEN-Mike and Irene O’Brien. MIKE O’BRIEN MR. O’BRIEN-I think the only question I was going to ask on this is that, how are they going to handle the water for the golf course, and where is the source of this? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask that of them. I mean, I think they’re plans, at this point, are very, very preliminary. I mean, something down the road, but that particular issue would be something that would evolve during site plan review, but we can ask them what their tentative proposed plans are. Okay. MR. O’BRIEN-Yes, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I have two letters. I have a letter dated March 27, and this is from th Freda Solomon, “Dear Planning Board Members: As you consider the transfer of 200 acres from Top of the World Ventures, Inc. to Top of the World Golf Resort, Inc./James Feeney I request that you review the purpose and intent of the entire project as approved by the New York State Attorney General, the Adirondack Park Agency and the Queensbury Planning Board from its inception in 1984. Buyers of town homes had the understanding that the developer would develop approximately eighty-three (83) acres of the approximately thirteen hundred three (1,303) acres into residential units to be developed in up to five phases with one or more swimming pools, parking areas, private access roads, landscaped areas and natural wooded areas as disclosed in the Offering Plan dated May 1, 1985 and filed with New York State Department of Law. As a town home owner in Phase One I request that the Planning Board, before conveyance of small parcels of land from the original thirteen-hundred and three acres know what the exact use or development of the acreage will be. It is important to the homeowner’s who have invested in this development to preserve the uniqueness of this project. Sincerely, Freda Solomon Townhouse #39” A second, I have a comment from Keith Harris, dated 3/28/00, “I have no problem with the project.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Okay. A couple of questions popped up. The future of the road, the access road coming in, and also another question that was along the lines regarding the agreement for mutual maintenance of the road. MR. SMITH-There was an agreement entered into about two years ago, when Jim bought the golf course. You have to keep, one thing we should point out is Jim is also an owner at Top of the World. He’s a townhouse owner there. We have a magnificent sum of three building rights that are unbuilt units. Top of the World Ventures, Inc., the developer, has about 97 unbuilt units. Right now, we don’t control what’s going to happen with those. We can only control what we’re going to do. As to the road, depending on what they do, yes, I guess we’d have to change. It makes sense. We have said, and I suspect some of the homeowners might be saying something to the effect, you know, it ought to be a Town road, and right now it isn’t. It is, if it’s a private road, it’s a private road. We’ll pay our share. If it’s a Town road, it’s a Town road. We can’t answer that. That’s really in the control of Top of the World Ventures, the developer of the property. We’re buying 200 acres of raw land with three building rights. MR. MAC EWAN-But it isn’t a Town road. MR. SMITH-No, it is not. MR. VOLLARO-And it’s maintained by the Homeowners Association, they plow it and they? MR. SMITH-No, it’s maintained by Top of the World Ventures. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is not part of common ground? They do not own the road? MR. SMITH-My recollection is that Top of the World owns, that Ventures, the developer, owns the main road and the homeowners own the access roads. Is that right? MR. FEENEY-Yes. MR. SMITH-Yes, I think that’s how it goes. MR. MAC EWAN-The main road is the road from Lockhart Mountain Road up to the clubhouse? MR. SMITH-Up to the clubhouse. That’s right. MR. FEENEY-And beyond is owned by the developer. MR. SMITH-There is an agreement that we go to a point in the road, and that’s maintained one way, and the Association. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s written in the Offering Plan? Is that stated clearly in the Offering Plan? MR. SMITH-No. That was in the agreement. The agreement we entered into two years ago is that we have a participatory interest in maintaining it, and the Association has it beyond that point. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Clarify to what extent you have interest in, and where the line stops. I mean, is the interest in that you want to make sure it’s always plowed in the winter time, or is the interest in it that you kick in X number of dollars a year to help maintain it? MR. FEENEY-The road is owned by the developer. He pays to maintain it. He pays to have it plowed and repaired. Plowing doesn’t really make a lot, for me, because my business is mostly 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) seasonal, and I think the intent is, at some point in time, when the development is completed, the road is going to be brought up to Town specs, and at that point in time, hopefully, the road could be turned over to the Town, but that’s something that’s due in discussion. MR. VOLLARO-Do the common charges that they pay, do any of those common charges get directed toward the maintenance of the road? MR. FEENEY-No. MR. VOLLARO-No, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you respond to your proposed timeline to move ahead with this expansion of the golf course? MR. FEENEY-As Dan said, once we go here, we have to go to the Town. Then once we go to the Town, we go to the APA, and then after that, what I have to do then is go through the series of getting the course designed. We do have a preliminary design. We’d have to get drawings and we’d have to start the whole approval cycle. My intent, as long as every step of the way seems to be according to plan, is to kind of push this thing as quickly as I can. MR. MAC EWAN-Something like a year and a half, two years before you’d be back here, I would think. MR. FEENEY-I hope not, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, that’s the far out reaching, I guess, end of it. MR. FEENEY-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Once you go through the Town Board, which should be relatively quick. The APA could slow you up, design of your golf course, the final plans. Okay Can you clarify the tradeoff that you were referring to on proposed building? I mean, you said you had three buildings here that you were trading off to do something else. Can you explain that a little bit more? MR. FEENEY-Yes. There are 103 unbuilt condo lots, and included in this 200, I’m taking three from the developer, which now the developer will have 100 unbuilt condo lots, and I’ll have three lots to be built somewhere on my 200 acres, and at this point, I have no plans at all as to where or what those lots would be. MR. VOLLARO-When you say built, you’re talking about townhouses or some structure? MR. FEENEY-Some structure. MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t even have a glimmer as to what you’re going to do on there? MR. FEENEY-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Proposed water source for the future golf course? MR. FEENEY-If we go to 18 holes, we’re certainly going to have to have irrigation, and there are several ponds up there right now, where we are using the water, plus potential would be to drill another well up there, to get the source. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would just like to make one. The gentleman who was the business manager for the Homeowner’s Association talked about systematic dismantling of the PUD, and I’d just like to explore that a little bit. I don’t know exactly what he meant by that, Mr. Chairman. Somehow or other I would like that gentleman to be able to come up and talk just a minute about what he means by the systematic dismantling of the PUD. MR. SHERRY-My name is Greg Sherry. Three years ago, Mr. Feeney came before the Board and required subdivision approval to take the original nine holes out of the PUD. So this will be the second approval to subdivide this PUD known as Top of the World. This will make the second one. MR. VOLLARO-Do you think that that move is consistent with the intent, original intent of the PUD, or do you see the PUD being violated in any way, in terms of its original intent? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. SHERRY-My concern is based on the fact that 1300 acres is being disassembled at 200, or 60 acre clips, and by a person who’s not taking over or has interest in the entire development. As you’ve been told, there’s quite a few building permits left. There’s a lot of life left in that development, and we were just hoping that someone would take it in whole and work it, as opposed to dividing it up into smaller and smaller pieces, the effect of which would effect the provisions in the Offering Plan for example. The road maintenance is a separate agreement. The main road is maintained by the sponsor, until such time as he conveys it to the Association, and at that time, the golf course and the homeowners have agreed to a formula to chipping in and maintaining the road. MR. VOLLARO-That would be paid for, then, out of common charge? MR. SHERRY-Yes. That would become a common charge to the homeowners, and Mr. Feeney would contribute, right now, the equivalent of four town homes. Now any other development that Mr. Feeney does on his subdivided property will effect the traffic on the road, and the maintenance costs associated with maintaining that road, and that’s why I mentioned earlier that we would like that agreement re-opened or at least mentioned in any approval you may or may not give it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, unless he has anything else to say? MR. SHERRY-No, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Just for clarification, the golf course, nine holes, is still part of the PUD. It’s still in PUD zoning. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Provision, just to clarify that for you, is that the provision under the Zoning Ordinance for a Planned Unit Development can have one or a number of developers having an interest in it. So the fact that an individual has purchased one of the entities of the PUD doesn’t, in and of itself, dissect the PUD into separate little pieces of pie, so to speak. It’s still all falling under the same umbrella, but there’s several different owners who now have interest in it, and that’s a common thing that’s happened with PUD’s throughout the Town. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to add one thing to that, that the thing that’s missing here, for me, is to be able to read the Offering Plan and what the intent was when somebody went into that development and bought and became part and parcel of that Offering Plan, and was governed by that Plan. An awful lot of that goes on that I know I’m a member of a homeowners association myself, personally, and I constantly have to refer back to that Plan, time and time and time again, to make sure that what we’re doing is consistent with what we were told when we bought, and the people that are up there now have got the same problem. That plan has been submitted to the Attorney General, been approved by the Attorney General. It’s got some status, and it’s up to people like the gentleman in the back to enforce that status. I’m just telling you that’s how I see it. Because people had some understanding, when they went in there, as to what they were going to, you know, what the future was going to hold. That’s it, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any further comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do you know, Bob, I think (lost words) to what you just said, there has been talk, for as long as I can remember, and I’ve lived here all my life, that Top of the World was going to have an 18 hole golf course, and I think that, I mean, it’s something that those homeowners, of course it was not in their Offering Plan. It was always something that was always in the background. MR. SMITH-Can I answer that? Our recollection is that it is in the Offering Plan that it’s contemplated in the future that it may expand to 18. I can’t, is there anything in there that says it will? No. Is there anything in there that says it never will? No. It says it’s contemplated, planned. MR. VOLLARO-It’s like all Offering Plans. MR. SMITH-It’s a definite maybe, but it was mentioned. To answer your question, it was in the Offering Plan. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Does someone want to introduce a motion then, please? MR. PALING-This is just for a recommendation. This is not to approve anything? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. SMITH-That’s correct. MOTION TO MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR PUD SITE PLAN NO. 21-2000 JAMES FEENEY/TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF RESORT, INC., Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 21-2000 for James Feeney, Top of the World Golf Resort, Inc. to acquire 200 acres to the Top of the World Golf Resort, Inc.. The proposed project is part of the Top of the World Planned Unit Development. The 200 acres was previously approved as recreational use for the PUD The proposed project requires Planning Board recommendation for PUD consistency and site plan approval. WHEREAS, the above mentioned application received 2/23/00 consists of the following: 1 Sketch, Prelim. & Final Stg. applications w/ maps WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 3/28/00 Staff Notes 2. 3/21/00 Notice of Public Hearing 3. 3/2/00 Meeting Notice 4. 2/28/00 TB Resolution 89,2000 5. 2/16/00 Gary Smith, APA from D. Smith 6. 2/16/00 C. Round from D. Smith re: various correspondence w/ APA 7. 1/11/00 FOIL request – G. Sherry 8. 12/27/99 Rec’d. APA notice 9. 12/21/99 M. Steves from Staff 10. 12/15/99 D. Smith from C. Round 11. 12/9/99 APA from D. Smith 12. 12/9/99 C. Round from D. Smith WHEREAS, public hearing was held on March 28, 2000 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, 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; THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, AS FOLLOWS: The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Positive Recommendation to the Town Board in accordance with the resolution under the same subject, prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 28th day of March 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough ABSENT: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. FEENEY-Thank you very much. DISCUSSION ITEM: CITY OF GLENS FALLS VETERANS FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK – DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) STUART MESINGER & DIANE BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Are you opening this up, or casting them right to it? MR. MESINGER-I’ll cast them right to it. I think where we are, Stuart Mesinger, Chazen Companies, is we last saw you at the public hearing about a month ago, and the SEQRA process is now completed. We are on the verge of submitting a Final Environmental Impact Statement to the Town Board for it to complete the SEQRA process, and then we would anticipate coming to you with final subdivision plans, and proposed zoning for the property. So before we submitted the SEQRA documents, we wanted to have the benefit of a discussion about the project with you, so that if there were any tweaks or changes that we need to make beforehand, we can do that. When we met I think the last time you had a real full agenda, and we didn’t have a lengthy discussion, and maybe we don’t need one. I don’t know. There were two sets of technical comments submitted by the Town’s consultants. One related to stormwater drainage, and we have looked at that issue pretty closely. We had the benefit of quite a few test borings and back hoe excavations on the site, and I think the geology here is a little bit different than it is to the north, where some of the neighbors are concerned about, the flooding and the drainage impacts. We went down about 20 feet and didn’t find groundwater, is the short of it. It’s a very bony, sandy soil. So we still think that using a dry well system is going to work on this site. We are going to make some changes, per Rist-Frost’s comments, basically hooking and connecting along the roadway. So there’s a little bit more of an infrastructure up front than what we had originally said, but we think the original plan still works with that. With respect to traffic, there are a few changes worth noting. Creighton Manning submitted several pages of comments, most of which were fairly technical in nature. The main one basically said, in essence, your trip generation rate was too high. You were too conservative, and so we ran the numbers using a little bit lower trip generation rate, and when you do that, you find that the intersection of Richardson, Veterans, and Luzerne, which we were proposing to re-build with turn lanes, no longer needs to be re-built with turn lanes. It functions as a four way stop sign control intersection. The Richardson approach still needs to be realigned with Veterans Avenue. So this project would contemplate that that would need to happen at some point in development, and we’ve got to define what that point in development needs to be, but it’s an improvement also identified in the Exit 18 Study. We also, at the Town’s request, looked at an intersection we hadn’t looked at earlier, and that was Sherman and Western, and indeed that intersection is going need to be signalized fairly early in the development program. So that was, it was a good thing that we looked at that, and then the third thing is that we looked at designating a truck route. I’ve always advocated making the truck route to this site, and again, we’re probably not thinking of 18 wheelers here, because of the nature of this site. I think we had this discussion with this, I’m not sure if it was this group or a different group, but you’re probably more likely talking about smaller delivery trucks. At any rate, my thinking has always been that you would designate a truck route that used South Western Avenue and Luzerne, and all the traffic guys tell me that that’s not really the best way to do it, for various reasons relating to radii, and traffic from Hannaford, and that the preferable thing to do would be to designate Richardson as a truck route. That will bring into question the need, at some point in the future, when truck traffic, if truck traffic reaches a certain volume, to reconstruct that road, basically with a heavier pavement base and wider shoulders. So there’s going to be, as part of the SEQRA findings here, a couple of future improvements that get keyed to a certain level of traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-Stuart, just a quick question. Why not consider Pine Street as a truck route, considering most trucks go that way now? MR. MESINGER-Yes. It’s less direct, was the thinking, that the Richardson is more direct. They both have houses on them, which is sort of why I like going around the corner, and the real long term answer is the connector road between Luzerne and West Main Street out by Exit 18, and I think this whole issue kind of adds weight to that as being something that the Town really out to pursue in the near future, because honestly, none of those are great answers. MR. MAC EWAN-Can the re-work of Richardson Street be worked into the Exit 18 re-vamping, that corridor re-vamping? MR. MESINGER-Possibly. I think that Chris and I have to have some discussions about timing and so forth, and how we tie it to traffic. A couple of minor changes to the site plan, that you don’t see them reflected here. One is the park project that you approved, the park project across Sherman Avenue that you approved recently contemplates a roadway that joins just a hair east of our road, and in talking to those folks, it looked like it would be much easier, from a turning radius point of view, to re-align our road rather than their road. So we’ll pull this over in the final plans about 20 feet to the east. Not a big issue there, and then the final changes that we’re going to re-align the driveway, or reconfigure the driveways. Now, remember, these are hypothetical driveway configurations, dependent on an assumption that we have eight uses or, as the other plan contemplates, four uses, and actual driveways may vary, but the idea is to write into the legislation a limitation so that certain 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) of these buildings have to share driveways, and you don’t see that fully reflected here now. The net effect is going to be to lose a couple of them. So there’s fewer curb cuts, primarily on Veterans. So that’s the overview. I think we’re just looking for comments here, so we can go into final plan production and complete the SEQRA process. MR. ROUND-Can I add a couple of comments on what you indicated, Stu. Number One was the truck route, and I guess we have some concern whether Richardson is the, you know, maybe the more direct. It is signalized. I know that’s the preferred route for trucks, but from the consideration of impact to the residences, that there’s less residences on Pine Street. There is no available right-of- way for the proposed improvements on Richardson Street. I mean, the homes and front yards are right on the street, versus Pine Street’s a much more wide open right-of-way. So we’d like to give you that, to consider that issue. On site circulation, I know Transportation Council, and we’ve talked about it a couple of times, is with the closure of some of the curb cuts, is there room for an on-site roadway for interconnection, and can we mandate that as part of the approved site plan? I know that there’s going to be some flexibility. MR. MESINGER-We can certainly mandate cross connections between the lots and have a functional, internal road along the back of the lots. I don’t think you want to call it a public right-of- way, though, and get saddled with maintaining it and so forth, but you’re seeing it here, like this. MR. ROUND-Yes. You have it there. Can we make sure that it’s well defined enough so that there has to be some conformance to that, when you come through for a site plan layout. MR. MESINGER-I think we (lost words) that they have to build it, that each use that comes along, whether it’s a one lot, two lot, or three lot configuration, has to build it and functionally connect to the next lot, yes, and then you’ll have it as a defacto interior road. MR. ROUND-And then just direction for the Planning Board, the whole purpose of coming back in front of you is the main concept behind this going through the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and the development of a new zoning district, is that this is your opportunity to comment on the site plan now. I mean, it’s very difficult. The site plan will change and be flexible, but the zoning district language itself is going to dictate site plan design criteria, in the form of those typical dimensional setbacks, height restrictions, etc. So we’ve had discussions about aesthetics. Can we look at aesthetics and, you know, how much can we control, or how much guidance can we give a prospective developer, in regard to aesthetics. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, is the concept here for this industrial park to have a uniform building design? MR. ROUND-That hasn’t been articulated to date, and I guess that’s where we’re sensitive, the City wants to offer the greatest flexibility for developers, but then we, as residents, want to make sure that this development is done in a quality manner, and that it doesn’t have a negative impact on the Town, and I think that’s a common interest, but how do we get there, and how do you build that comfort level that that’s going to be accomplished? MRS. BARBER-Yes. Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject, one of our concepts, as we’ve been developing this, is to have it have a unified appearance that would resemble either the Pryun’s Island look or the Glens Falls Tech Park, so that the buildings are fairly uniformed, and aesthetically on the upper level. MR. MAC EWAN-How intent are you going to be with like landscaping, lighting criteria, such like that? MRS. BARBER-That is currently built in to the documents of record. You’ll notice that the properties are buffered along the roadside, for a couple of reasons. Number One, aesthetically for the neighbors who are in the region, but also environmentally to just assist with air exchange, etc. and we thought that that was the best way to do it. We’d like it to fit into the existing neighborhood where we could have the opportunity. Our main goal is to put people to work, but not to be obtrusive to the current neighbors. You’ll notice that the buffer goes around the entire property line. There are some regulations for lighting, how the lighting will be directed. There are regulations for decibels for noise. MR. VOLLARO-This is all part of the building envelope that we normally talk about. The reason for doing this, as I understand, so that the manufacturer or builder or whoever’s going to occupy, doesn’t have to come to us anymore. He’s operating within the sphere of some already pre- established levels. Is that a fair statement? MR. MESINGER-Correct. That’s a fair statement, and he would come to see you if he did not. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-If he deviated from that, or wanted to deviate from that. MR. MESINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I got that from the DGEIS, in just reading that. What I was looking at is Rist- Frost comment number two on site details. MR. MESINGER-Those are, will go into the final subdivision plans. In other words, after this meeting, we complete SEQRA, we’re going to come back to you with a final set of subdivision plans that contains the level of detail you’re accustomed to seeing in a set of subdivision plans. MR. VOLLARO-Explain to me just a little bit what it means by the Queensbury Planning Board will conduct generic site plan reviews for the model site plan shown on the two build out configuration? Just give me a short tutorial. What do you mean by that? MR. MESINGER-What we’re hoping you’re doing tonight, and you’ll do in your subsequent meeting, is to look at the site plans that you’ve seen in front of you and say, this is the envelope that we want them to work in. In other words, what you’re seeing there, in terms of setback and buffering and landscaping and the lighting information that’s in the DGEIS and so forth, constitutes an acceptable site plan. I mean, you’re doing it now. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to plan on incorporating some of the new Zoning Ordinances that will soon be adopted into this? MR. MESINGER-Yes. I mean, that’s the unique advantage that we have, is that this zoning will reflect, for example, the parking lot landscaping standards that are going to be proposed in the next couple of weeks to the Steering Committee. MR. MAC EWAN-For me, I’m very satisfied with the conceptual layout, the infrastructure, the buffering that you’ve got. I think it’s a great looking park that you have conceptually designed, the only thing that I would like to see when you come in for your generic site plan approval is just give us a feel for building design, materials. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could we see the floor building, rendering? MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Average size of those buildings? MR. MESINGER-Those are a hundred and a quarter. MR. MAC EWAN-And the smaller ones were right around what? MR. MESINGER-Fifty. MR. MAC EWAN-Fifty. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And did I miss something on the water? Was that? MR. MESINGER-Water is going to be what is available to this point, for these two lots. Water will be extended up Veterans, looping Sherman (lost words) and then down this way. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Now what’s the blue? MR. MESINGER-These are wetlands. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Those are the wetlands. MR. MESINGER-And that’s really our site constraint, in terms of laying this thing out. Chris’ point about the internal road not shown on this plan, so you would write that into the subdivision approval, and site plan approval, whatever anybody did, these guys would have to connect to this point and these guys would have to connect to this point. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think I asked that question, Stu, during our last get together with the Town Board and the Planning Board, what about even a construction road, and I think what we wound up with there is we weren’t going to do any of that because that was kind of going to be dictated by the occupants of these buildings. MR. MESINGER-That’s correct. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. VOLLARO-Does that still hold? MR. MESINGER-That still holds. So what we want from you folks is to look at the envelope, the generic site plans, and say, yes, if they build that, that works, and they have to have the connecting road and whatever else we might come up with. If somebody wants to do something different, they’re free to propose it, but then they’re back in front of you. MR. VOLLARO-I spent about an hour or two Saturday morning up on this site, walking it around. There’s a couple of, I’ll call them holes, but you could put a couple of B-52’s in there and lose them in there. I strolled out and I saw a guy doing some work, and I said hey, and I knew a little bit, I said, what went on over there. He said, that was the garbage dump for the City. MR. MESINGER-The holes are the burrow pit. MR. VOLLARO-For years, and my question on that is, have we done any borings to take a look at what’s really down there, to substantiate these buildings? MR. MESINGER-Yes. We’ve, gosh, we did 18 or 20 borings. We did geo tech borings on every lot, and then we did soil borings for the soil tests on there. There’s encroachment. Go back and read the, that’s part of the encroachment. The dump encroachment is over here. MR. VOLLARO-I almost decided to walk down, but I thought better of it. I figured I’d never get out. MR. MESINGER-I think the burrow pit’s okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Stu, I apologize. I know you discussed traffic in the onset of this, but how comprehensive is this traffic study supposed to be? Did it include the development of the athletic field adjacent to it, and did it include the possible build out of the Exit 18 corridor? MR. MESINGER-The Exit 18 Corridor Study, as I understand it, Chris may want to correct me on this if I’m wrong, included two or two and a half million square feet. MR. ROUND-Two million. MR. MESINGER-Yes, of build out, and we think it’s reasonable to think that this is a part of that. MR. STROUGH-And the athletic field is? MR. MESINGER-We didn’t look at the athletic field, specifically, as part of this traffic study. MR. STROUGH-But they share Sherman Avenue, right? MR. MESINGER-They share Sherman Avenue. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they’re contiguous. MR. MESINGER-I think part of that concern was to look at the Sherman and Western intersection, and indeed that’s going to need a signal. It would be reasonable to attribute that signalization to this project. MR. STROUGH-And try and avoid a possible conflict, access points, too. MR. MESINGER-Yes, and that’s why we’re going to move ours over. MR. STROUGH-Is the infrastructure going to bring in fiber optic? MR. MESINGER-I totally agree that it should. I would anticipate that the private companies are going to do that, rather than the City initially. MR. STROUGH-But won’t that be mostly underground service? MR. MESINGER-It should be yes. MR. STROUGH-And shouldn’t that be done, I mean, I’m not sure how the fiber optic cable’s going to work here. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. MESINGER-I don’t either. MR. STROUGH-But is that being explored? MRS. BARBER-It’s always an opportunity, but when we talked to the telecommunication companies, they’re saying that traditionally their T-1 line is sufficient for what would be there. MR. STROUGH-That’s today. MRS. BARBER-But to your point, though, we did say if we have a company coming in and they would like fiber, it’s very close, and they can truck it in. MR. STROUGH-Coming into this area, I would like to know that you’re ahead of the scale, the T-1 line, you’re on scale. You’re not ahead of scale. Just one other, how wide is that perimeter buffer? MR. MESINGER-It’s a minimum of 20 feet. It’s up to 50 on some frontages, but it shows a minimum of 20. MR. STROUGH-Has the study gotten to the point where it’s suggested a type of vegetation for that perimeter buffer? MR. MESINGER-What we’re going to do is suggest generic buffer types. So depending on, like an industrial use abutting a residential use might have a Type III buffer. That’s really what they are, and by a Type III buffer will have evergreens on center, every X amount of feet. MR. STROUGH-So it will be fairly dense, relatively dense? MR. MESINGER-I don’t know that you want to hide these buildings. I mean, if you adopt the noise studies. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t, either. I just asked the question. MR. MESINGER-Yes. No, I would want it to be attractive, but the idea here is not a type of buffer that hides the building, and there’s going to be types of buffers that hide or reduce, are intended to reduce noise. I think the intent here is low and attractive and colorful. MR. STROUGH-And my last question for now, has the study gone around and kind of taking a meter reading on how the residents feel, that are adjacent to this? MR. MESINGER-Yes. We had a public meeting, at which we specifically invited everybody, but that was not the public hearing. We sent them all a letter and asked them to come out. We had a very, very light turnout. I think we had a handful of residents, and I think, you, in turn, had the public hearing and didn’t have a lot of comment. So I don’t want to put words in anybody’s mouth, but I don’t see any kind of grounds full of opposition. Remember the site is already largely zoned industrial. MR. STROUGH-But the study is including potential residential impacts? MR. MESINGER-Yes. It’ll be talking about, for example, noise and light and that kind of thing. MR. STROUGH-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I have just one more, Craig. I noticed in the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council letter of February 11, well, it’s their February 9 letter, received at the thth Planning Board February 11, but what Scott says in here is very limited reference is made to the th Main Street improvements that are currently being designed by Warren County for construction over the next five years. Are you taking all of the comments from A/GFTC into account? MR. MESINGER-Yes. I mean, we have to respond to everybody who made a comment during the comment period. MR. VOLLARO-So what is the response to that, or don’t you have it done yet? With that box, I figured you’d have everything, Stu. MR. MESINGER-I don’t have a response to that one done. MR. VOLLARO-Because I think what Scott did in his letter of February 9, he dwelled considerably th on that topic, I noticed. Did you get a chance to look at that? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. ROUND-I asked Scott to write that, and I asked Scott to participate in the review, because that is our main concern. That’s one of my main concerns, besides aesthetics and noise and overall community impact, it’s traffic. We’re talking about I think between five hundred and six hundred vehicle trips per hour during the peak travel period. That’s a lot of vehicles. I mean, but you have to take it into context that the GEIS contemplates this build out to occur over a five or ten year period, but that’s going to be a big change, 10 years from now when somebody says, well, why didn’t you look at this? So that’s what you’re doing now. Envision this 10 years from now when this is built out. Are you going to be happy with the way this project looks? Because this is your opportunity, as a Planning Board, to shape this development. You’re not going to have another opportunity, and I think that’s. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you, for the magnitude of what we’re talking about here, and to be able to do that kind of review in the bottom hour, is sometimes unrealistic. MR. STROUGH-Tonight’s our only opportunity? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think it’s important that we all understand the process that’s envisioned here. If the Planning Board’s not prepared to give your “final input” onto this, what I call hypothetical site plan review tonight, then we need to decide when you’re going to do that, but you need to recognize that the goal of this process, to be blunt is to avoid future Planning Board review. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and therefore one of the goals of the process, I think, and any of the three of you, or anybody else for that matter, interrupt if you feel there’s a different goal or contradictory goal, but one of the goals of this process, and one of the purposes of having this before this Board right now is the notion that this Board should exercise whatever type of oversight, by way of site plan review, pretending you were doing an actual site plan review of a site plan that looks like that, on behalf of a hypothetical applicant, you should exercise whatever type of site plan review input you would like exercised now. So that the SEQRA process incorporates any and all concerns that you have, so that essentially you’re going to wash your hands of this affair, and if you’re not prepared to do that tonight because of whatever reason, you didn’t have enough time to look at this documentation or whatever, yes, the answer is, do you have to do it now, the answer is yes. Not now tonight, but now in the process. So if we need to talk about a different, you know, evening in which to do that, but now in the process, we can do that, whether that’s your first meeting next meeting, I don’t remember the SEQRA timeframe, how well that fits or doesn’t fit, but not meaning now this second at, on March 28 at 9:30, but now in the process is when you should do th your site plan review, in effect. Fair statement? MR. MESINGER-Yes. MRS. BARBER-Fair statement. MR. MAC EWAN-Which I thought we’ve been doing. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, okay, but I mean, Bob, for example, Bob Vollaro is, I think, suggesting that he still has, he’s not prepared to bless this as a site plan, and I’m not criticizing that, and I think different members have different levels of comfort, but I think the level of comfort that the team seeks is, pretend this is the MaryJane Smith Company site plan, and this is what you have before you. Would you be confident and comfortable in giving this site plan approval based on what you see? MR. VOLLARO-My problem is I see a whole bunch of comments from Rist-Frost, a fairly lengthy set of comments from Rist-Frost. I see a fairly lengthy set of comments from A/GFTC, and I just want to make sure that those comments are addressed, so that I understand that they’ve been addressed. When I look at that, these comments are in there, in effect, and I don’t know that they are. I just asked Stu about the Main Street improvements, and that’s not done yet. So if that’s not done yet, it’s not in there. So you’re asking me to look at something that’s not complete. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, and that’s why I made that speech. MR. MAC EWAN-But by the same token, those are issues that can also be addressed when we do the generic site plan. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not what Mark just told me. MR. MESINGER-I guess the Main Street question is, and now that I’ve gathered my wits, I mean, the answer to that question, I think, is that we’ve looked at the intersections along Main Street that would be effected by the project, in the existing condition, and they were. There’s a signal timing for 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) the adjustment, and that’s about it. If there’s future changes to that, well, there are going to be future changes to that corridor, they can be expected, I think, to increase capacity. So I guess I’m not overly concerned about that corridor. Where I’m mainly concerned, personally, is getting vehicles there, which is either the Richardson Street re-alignment or a bypass, I keep calling it a bypass, but it’s really a connector between Main and Luzerne. I think those are bigger issues with respect to what happens in this project, and that’s my own perspective. MR. ROUND-But also, to answer you question, Bob, is that those, as part of the SEQRA process, it’s required that they respond, and that we accept those responses, as the Town Board, as lead agency, accept those responses. MR. SCHACHNER-Just to play off both of your comments there. I think, Craig, you said something about, but you can address these later when you do your generic site plan approval? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, some of the questions he was referring to were site plan issues. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s true, and I think what we’re trying to say is your generic site plan approval time is now. Again, not necessarily now tonight, but that’s the stage you’re at now, and Bob Vollaro’s correct, in two respects. Number One, that there’s, we’re pushing this to happen now from the Planning Board, again, I don’t mean tonight necessarily, but now in the process, and as Chris just said, well, Bob Vollaro points out there are some comments that have not yet been addressed, and Chris is, again, correct, pointing out that the SEQRA process contemplates that those comments aren’t going to be addressed until the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the principal component of which is the responses to the comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, but to the extent that the other members share what I’m think is Bob Vollaro’s concerns, that he wants some of these questions to help him bless the site plan review. I think that’s what I’m hearing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-To the extent that view is shared by others of you, we need to come up with some of those answers, and decide when this Board is going to do that. MR. MESINGER-So let me throw out this as a suggestion. I don’t want to get into a Catch-22 where you don’t feel you can act until you’ve seen a Final EIS, and our whole goal was not to finish the EIS until we heard from you, is maybe tonight we can just get some kind of general sense, it doesn’t have to be a vote, but a general sense that the site plan is acceptable, appears to be acceptable, the subdivision plan looks to be acceptable, you want to see the Final EIS, and then we can go prepare the Final EIS and you can get another look at it before you formally act on site plans, because then what we will do is give you a model site plan. You’d have an FEIS to rely on, and we’d have a subdivision plan. I’m just looking for a sense of the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-For me, I’m comfortable with both proposals you have up there, as long as you continue to identify the infrastructure that you said you’ve yet to work out the details, the access to get from Main Street to the site, whether it’s going to be Richardson Street or whether it’s going to be Pine Street. The only thing that I personally, as I said, I’d like to see is some sort of criteria that you plan on using for architectural design. That’s the only thing that I’m kind of hanging out on. Everything else I think is, personally, from my standpoint, is fine. MR. STROUGH-What kind of input is Glens Falls going to have on a site plan, in the future? MRS. BARBER-Actually, we’re having discussions with Chris’ office and we plan on having full compliance with standpoint, is fine. MR. STROUGH-What kind of input is Glens Falls going to have on a site plan, in the future? MRS. BARBER-Actually, we’re having discussions with Chris’ office and we plan on having full compliance with your regs. MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s say that I’m going to make the appearances that I’m a light industrial and I want to come to the area, and I like the site, but, you know, my type of business, I don’t want to put a lot of money in the outside of my building. I’ve got some lathe work and stuff inside, and I’m going to put up a corrugated steel building, basically like a big garage. Can I do this? Glens Falls says, yes, go ahead. Who’s going to have control of it? MR. MAC EWAN-It would be in the generic site plan. Those are the thresholds, and if blue, corrugated steel buildings aren’t in there, then you come to this Board for a site plan approval. MR. STROUGH-So that’s what you’re saying, you want to see like low thresholds. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s what they’re talking about doing for everything in here. All I’m asking for, for my own personal information, is to give me a feel for the kind of building design they’re looking at. Are they looking to put in butler buildings? Are they looking to put in brick veneer buildings that are only brick veneer facing the road for aesthetics? And the back of it being steel? That’s what I want to know. MR. STROUGH-I agree with you. MR. MESINGER-I think that’s what’s envisioned. MR. STROUGH-But I just didn’t understand the process of who will have control of that. MR. MESINGER-Well, what I hear the City saying, the City has said, they’re willing to have some kind of guideline. They obviously don’t want it to be the Taj Mahal, because of exactly your concern. What they envision is a brick façade, and then potentially a butler building or a steel frame building in the back, if that’s what somebody wants to build, and that’s a real common construction type. I spend a lot of time in Indiana, of all places, where all the manufacturing jobs in the world go, and that’s exactly what everybody builds, and they’re not unattractive. They’re decently landscaped and they have a nice brick front office, and then they have a big steel building, and it’s not bad. MR. STROUGH-They’re smoke stacks are killing our lakes. MRS. BARBER-We’re seeing that that’s the combination that’s used, for instance, on the Boston Scientific Building, CA Screen Plates on Pruyn’s Island. So it seems that, and with the butler building construction behind the brick veneer, it allows them room to expand more easily. MR. ROUND-So would you be willing to commit, then, to a specific architectural treatment, then? I’m hearing yes, maybe. Is that, Stu, would you come back with something that says, this is what the standard is for the park? MR. MESINGER-If it’s okay with the City. This is going to be the City’s call, because I do think. MR. ROUND-We realize that. MR. SCHACHNER-But that would be helpful to this Board, it seems like, to have that information, at least to the Chairman, but I think to other members as well. MRS. BARBER-And to the new tenants. I think it works well for the new tenant to know exactly what our thoughts are. MR. MAC EWAN-And I think we have some sort of uniformity in your industrial park. It makes it more attractive to attract other tenants. MRS. BARBER-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-If we have a tenant that says, well, I just don’t like that idea so much, then he’s got to come before this Board with a new proposal for a building. MR. MESINGER-That’s correct. MR. MESINGER-On any of these criteria. MR. VOLLARO-On any of them, yes, noise. MR. SCHACHNER-Whatever. MR. MAC EWAN-You even have thresholds in here for what kind of industry can take place? MR. MESINGER-Yes. Your permanent use list is very narrow. In other words, we’re not allowing warehousing, and that, I think, was the big internal debate earlier in the process, was do we allow warehousing, and the thought was, no, because there’s not enough job generation for the space. Let that use happen elsewhere. The idea is try, it’s really office manufacturing, light industrial. MR. VOLLARO-Some place in here you’ve got that, and I’m looking for it. There’s a list. MR. MESINGER-It’s in the appendix that discusses the proposed zoning for the project. I think it might be the first or second. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. STROUGH-While he’s looking that up, have you discussed with Telergy, who brought the fiber optic up the Northway? MR. VOLLARO-Telergy MR. STROUGH-Telergy. Has there been any discussion with Telergy that when we re-do the Exit 18 corridor we’re going to have open ditches, open trenches, everything’s going to be torn up? Are they interested in coming over here? MRS. BARBER-We’ve had discussions with Bell Atlantic, not Telergy. MR. STROUGH-Well, wasn’t it Telergy that’s got fiber optic coming up through? I mean, I don’t know how the process works. Maybe Bell Atlantic takes it from there. MRS. BARBER-Yes. See, I believe Bell Atlantic is servicing already some facilities in the City of Glens Falls. So when we submitted our grant to the State of New York, Bell Atlantic was the pop at that point. MR. STROUGH-So what kind of feedback did we get? I mean, we did directly ask them the question? MRS. BARBER-Bell Atlantic? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. BARBER-Yes, sir, and they say, yes, it is available for that site. They could bring it in. MR. STROUGH-They’ll bring it in when we start development? MRS. BARBER-If they clients want it. MR. MESINGER-They’re not going to bring it in in advance, in my opinion. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I would like to see. MR. MESINGER-We would all love to see it, but it doesn’t work that way. They just won’t do it. I shouldn’t say they just won’t do it, but in my experience with these guys, they want a tenant. MR. STROUGH-Well, has anybody put the question to them? MR. MESINGER-I have not. MR. STROUGH-I mean, it wouldn’t hurt. I think the question at least should be put before them. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a lot like trying to coordinate Niagara Mohawk, their construction schedule with the road improvements. You want until six months after the roads are re-paved, then they do their stuff. MR. VOLLARO-The problem with that, John, is they don’t like to go in advance with dollars unless they see an absolute turnaround return. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I’m just saying, if the question’s never asked. MR. VOLLARO-You can ask it, and they’re going to tell you no. MR. ROUND-I think it’s a common objective to bring telecommunications infrastructure to the site, to the Town, the City. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, but I think it’s going to be between the tenant and the guy who provides that, whether it’s Telergy. MR. ROUND-John’s point is good, though. If you have it there, it’s going to make the site more marketable, and I think that’s Diane’s objective. MR. MESINGER-That’s absolutely true. Just don’t get your hopes up. MR. STROUGH-Well, somebody’s got to ask the question. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MRS. BARBER-Well, that’s why we did approach Bell Atlantic, to see if someone needed that kind of capacity, could it be brought to the site, and they said absolutely. And we said, well, what’s the next step, and they said, we really need to talk to the customer to see what their need is. MR. STROUGH-As long as we have potential customers, just bring it to the site for now. MRS. BARBER-There you go. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to give them a pretty hot marketing plan. MRS. BARBER-A real hot one, yes. MR. VOLLARO-We got a whole bunch of fish on these lines, and we’re tugging. MR. STROUGH-It might be in their best interest to do it, you know. If they’re there and established already, it’s going to service their needs as well, because if they’re going to attract industry which uses their services, that’s of interest to them. I mean, I we can go. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a nice thought, John, but what you’re ultimately asking them to do is shell out literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars to put the infrastructure with no absolute guarantee they’re going to get a return on that money right away. MR. STROUGH-But I’m also suggesting it might be a lot cheaper for them to do it when the road’s under construction. MR. METIVIER-The fiber optics are already available for the area. They’re not available for that area, but it shouldn’t take that much more to get them in there. MR. ROUND-Stu, are you going to actually have landscape those patterns, those buffer types established for this one, when you reach the final. So you’re going to say it’s going to be A, B, or C, depending on. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do we have some guidance here? MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing I wanted to clarify something Stu said earlier, again, making sure we’re all on the same page. The only formal decision that will come back to this Board, as I recall, is the subdivision approval. MR. MESINGER-And an approval of a model site plan. I think we envisioned that you would approve a model site plan that would be. MR. SCHACHNER-After completion of the SEQRA process or at this stage? MR. MESINGER-After completion of the SEQRA process. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That’s not in our outline. MR. MAC EWAN-This is just a discussion item tonight. MR. MESINGER-Yes, because we’re not through with the SEQRA. MR. ROUND-Yes. I guess I don’t know how firm we were on that, but I guess that’s what we want to accomplish. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because you’re on the agenda tonight just as a discussion item, not for approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but what I’m asking, and maybe this is more of an internal question, but the outline that I remember looking at talked about, after the SEQRA process, the only formal decision being made by the Planning Board being the subdivision approval, and now we’re talking about maybe they would, at that time, also then do a generic site plan approval of some sort? MR. MESINGER-We probably should discuss this more internally, but I guess I’d like to see it, because. MR. MAC EWAN-You guys decide. MR. SCHACHNER-Do this some other time. All right. We’ll do this some other time. We agree. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) MR. MAC EWAN-But just for the record, I always understood that it was going to be a generic site plan approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Now or later? MR. MAC EWAN-Down the road. After the SEQRA. That’s the way I always understood it. MR. ROUND-What you do have to do, though, is provide a recommendation for zone change to the Town Board, for that portion of the property that’s zoned Single Family Residential, and that’s, there’s a narrow strip of land on Sherman Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-Put it together and get it on for next month’s agenda. Tomorrow’s the deadline submission. MR. ROUND-So, I guess, are you happy, you talked about aesthetics, building design. You talked about landscaping. There are noise measurement standards to comply with. Traffic is being addressed through the SEQRA process. I think we talked a little bit about internal circulation. Are there other issues? MR. PALING-When you talk about traffic, Chris, are we going to be able to look at numbers that reflect built out conditions before we do anything? MR. ROUND-Those are included in the Environmental Impact Statement that you have. MR. PALING-And are we doing the SEQRA? MR. ROUND-No, you’re not. The Town Board is the lead agency in that regard. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we did the joint meeting with them. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to have fun with this one. MR. ROUND-Well, hopefully we’ve handled most of it internally and through our technical review agencies, Rist-Frost and Creighton Manning Engineering, that we’ve handled the big issues. We wanted you to handle some of the softer design issues. That’s generally how the process works. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m comfortable with it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Me, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Put that recommendation on next month’s agenda, for the re-zoning. MR. ROUND-Stu, do you have an idea when you’re going to have a complete document? MR. MESINGER-Two weeks. Thanks again. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? Site visits. Next months meetings are the 18 and 25. Site thth visits, Cathy would like to do on the 12, after work. th MR. PALING-I can’t be here. I won’t be able to go. MR. METIVIER-What day is that? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a Wednesday. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When daylight savings time comes, Tony, we go on Thursdays at 4:00. MR. METIVIER-I’ll catch up to you, because I’m usually on Long Island Thursdays at 4:00. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, this particular month we’re going to do it Wednesday at 4:00, instead of Thursday. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s because I have report cards on Thursday. MR. METIVIER-Okay. I’ll call you if I can’t make it. On motion meeting was adjourned. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/28/00) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 48