Loading...
2000-06-29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 29, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER ALAN ABBOTT ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 26-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL & MARY GIELLA OWNER: CHARLES & ELLEN KENNY AGENT: HOWARD KRANTZ ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9 BETWEEN DEXTER SHOES & DOLL HOUSE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 18 HOLE MINIATURE GOLF COURSE WITH PARKING AND FACILITIES BUILDING. MINIATURE GOLF COURSE IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE HC ZONE. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 4/10/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/12/00 CROSS REFERENCE: AV 31-2000 TAX MAP NO. 34-1-9 LOT SIZE: 2 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-23 HOWARD KRANTZ & JOHN GOLDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-2000, Michael & Mary Giella, Meeting Date: April 25, 2000 TABLED June 29, 2000 “The application was tabled at the April 25, 2000 meeting to address Staff and Engineering Comments. The Board had requested the applicant to submit a revised set of coordinate drawings. The applicant proposes an eighteen-hole miniature golf course with an attendant structure and associated parking. The proposal does not require substantial grading as the course is designed with different elevation changes. The character of the project will be Adirondack with a log cabin like structure and a lumberjack sign. The course will be landscaped to create pathways and views. The applicant has received a favorable response from the NYSDOT. The applicant met with staff in June to review some additional items, as outlined in the “Note to File”. On June 13, 2000, the applicant provided a revised set of drawings that incorporate comments from Staff, the Board and Engineering.” MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a June 21 letter from C.T. Male? st MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read the latest C.T. Male comment? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, why don’t you. MR. VOLLARO-The 29. th MRS. MOORE-Okay. This letter is dated June 29, 2000 addressed to Chris Round, “We have reviewed the response letter dated June 23 from Dickinson and Associates related to our comment rd letter of June 21 and offer the following: 1. The engineer indicates that the culvert which will st collect stormwater from the parking lot will be set an elevation that will provide positive drainage. We concur that the parking lot will likely drain properly, however, the invert of the existing Northway cross culvert receiving the water should be shown on the plans. 2. The information reviewed last submission indicated a typical section of a septic leach field. The best information that we had to review (test pit 3) suggested that the high ground water table may be less than 2 feet from the trench bottom. With the absence of a test pit within the septic system area, we will have to trust that engineer can assure that the proper separation distance is maintained. 3. In our previous correspondence, we recommended that all storm lines be at least 12 inches in diameter for the sole purpose of maintaining adequate flows due to buildup of solids and sedimentation over time. The 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) engineer proposes the use of 6” storm lines since the piping will be maintained by the golf course proprietors. We can only respond by saying that we would recommend a larger diameter line since our experience has been that maintenance of storm sewer systems does not often occur after construction.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. KRANTZ-Good evening. MR. GOLDE-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz, attorney for Michael and Mary Giella. MR. GOLDE-John Golde, principal, North Country Engineering. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, gentlemen. MR. KRANTZ-We don’t really have anything to add. We’ve received the fax from the Planning Department that the applicant, through Dennis Dickinson, has provided a revised set of drawings that addresses all of the comments from the Staff, the Planning Board, and Engineering. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Golde, is there anything you wanted to add? MR. GOLDE-When we met with the Staff earlier this month, we were able to have a sample fixture, similar to the fixture that’s going to be used at the course, and we have the house side shields that we explained would be used in order to minimize the light spillage. Laura recommended if we could keep the fixture, bring it in and just show the Board the fixture we’re using and what the house side shield is, just review some of the characteristics of the fixture. I don’t know if you would be interested? MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. GOLDE-This is typically called a shoebox fixture, a cut off fixture. Unlike some fixtures which have a globe which extends down beyond the shoebox, this fixture has a flat, glass cover. With that cover, the light is going to be directed down. It cannot go above the fixture, not above the bottom plane of the fixture. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me, can you just tell me what fixture is represented by the three? Is it KSF1-250 or? MR. GOLDE-This fixture here? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got a bunch of cut sheets here of fixtures. I just want to, while you’re doing that, I want to know which one I’m looking at. MR. GOLDE-This is of the same family as the fixtures that we have submitted. MR. VOLLARO-Is this A, B, or C? MR. GOLDE-They’re all very similar. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one is 400 watts and one is 250. I just want to know the one I’m looking at. MR. GOLDE-The one you’re looking at is, it’s in the same family of fixtures that Lithonia puts out. I believe they gave us this one, they sent us this one because it’s a less expensive fixture. They don’t want to send the, it’s 400 watt. MR. VOLLARO-This is the 400 watt. Okay. MR. GOLDE-This is 400 watts. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. GOLDE-We were able to get some photometric data that describes how the light is distributed by the fixture. I believe we included on the drawings that were submitted on the 13 a drawing that th shows the definition of a cut off fixture, as defined by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America. So I believe you will have this sketch on your drawings. Since then, we were able to get, from the vendor, the photometric data for the two fixture types that we’re going to be using, the Type A fixture and the Types B and C are basically the same fixture. If you’ll notice, IES definition for a cut off fixture allows 10% of the light, the total lamp lumens, the light that’s emitted from the fixture, to be between 80 degrees and 90 degrees from the fixture, directly below the fixture, and it also allows two and a half percent of the total lamp lumens to be above 90 degrees, to be above the plane of the fixture. These curves demonstrate, and I apologize that we were not able to get them in time to submit them. I can bring this over. These demonstrate that there is no light above 90 degrees. All of the light is directed down, and that only the Type B and C, you can barely see it, but there is a, there is a very small section of this distribution curve that goes above the 80 degree line on this curve. The light is being directed down. It is not being directed up. We’re doing the best to control the light and keep it as much as possible on the site, or minimize the light as you go away from the fixture. The house side shield, there was some question, at the last meeting, as to whether the house side shield could be adjusted to tailor the light distribution of any particular fixture on a site, and what I’d like to demonstrate is how the house side shield is installed, how it works, it’s basically your one option, house side shield or no house side shield. When the fixture is installed, this side of the fixture is toward the pole, it’s toward the property line, or the house side if it was a street lighting fixture. The lamp sits basically aiming toward the property line. The house side shield has two parts. It’s installed on the street side, actually, to prevent reflection back toward the property line, and there is another component that is installed over the top of the reflector that, again, prevents light from exiting toward the pole and toward the property line. So this is, you cannot tailor this at all. It’s the one option that you get from the factory. What we were able to do was to move two of the fixtures back away from Route 9, provide two lower height fixtures, the two toward the road now, at a different type of distribution, and do a little bit better job of controlling the light going out onto the road. Are there any questions? MR. MAC EWAN-Those shields come with all different size wattages, lights? I mean that’s a 400 watt, they come with a two, they come with a six, it doesn’t matter, right? MR. GOLDE-You would have to check with the manufacturer to see if they offered that option. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you utilizing them on all the lights on the parcel? MR. GOLDE-We are using them on the Type A fixtures. We will be using them on the Type A fixtures along the edges of the course, down to this location. The Type B and C fixtures are a different type of distribution. They’re designed to throw the light forward. What we’ve done is put the B fixtures in the parking lot back to back. So back to back, throwing the light basically forward, you don’t have to worry about the house side shield, and it gives a uniform light distribution. The C Type fixtures are the same distribution, a Type Four distribution. They are down at 12 feet, I believe. They’re on 12 foot poles. So they’re lower. They’re 250 watt. Being a Type Four distribution, they do a good job of cutting the light off and not distributing it toward the back. So you do not need the house side shield. As a matter of fact, you cannot get a house side shield on a Type Four distribution. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. GOLDE-No. Any other questions? MR. MAC EWAN-John, I’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I have some concerns. My first concern was, I went up and visited the site today, and I had a little bit of a concern with the sight distances, and I didn’t notice in any of the paper work if there’s been a sight distance analysis for this site. MR. RINGER-You’re talking traffic. MR. VOLLARO-Traffic, yes, DOT’s given them a clearance on it. They have a DOT letter. MR. STROUGH-I see the DOT letter, and I read that, Bob, but nowhere in the DOT letter does it specifically address some of the concerns that I have. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I read that. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. KRANTZ-I don’t know how to respond to that. It’s very difficult to bring an application before the Town of Queensbury under these circumstances. I know you have your job to do, and I know you’re volunteers, and I always appreciate that, that people volunteer their time, and I’m not chastising you, but from the applicant’s point of view, it’s very difficult to present a project like this, address comment, address them satisfactorily, have a sign off from the Town of Queensbury, and now, when we arrive here, to have issues raised that we can’t address. Our engineer is not here, principal engineer, Dennis Dickinson is not here, and one of the reasons he was not here, he relied upon the letter that we received that all issues have been adequately addressed. So, I guess you have every right to raise it, but I can’t respond to that. I know that, I believe he did sight distance work. I can’t swear to that. I recall that he said that, that he had to do that for DOT, but he’s not here. MR. MAC EWAN-What specific concerns did you have? MR. STROUGH-Well, I stood out there, and I timed the cars from when I could see them coming, and I was standing in the proposed driveway area, which is currently the driveway to the residential, the house, and I just timed, how much time did I have from first spotting the car to when the car was directly in front of the driveway, and I varied, but most of them were between four and six seconds. Now maybe that’s all right, but to me, it was of concern because to me it seemed like very little time, especially if the driver was not immediately, well, you know, if they’re not a fast driver to get out of there. So that was a concern to me. MR. KRANTZ-All I can tell you is that I know DOT took a hard look at this, and they were satisfied, and they presumably have experience and expertise in the area of site distances. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve seen DOT’s hard looks before. All right. Well, that’s a concern, and I also had another concern, and this is along the lines of traffic. Now I live in this general vicinity. So I’m well aware of this intersection, as I’m sure you are, and I’m referring to the Route 9/149 intersection. Commonly, especially during the summer, there’s stacking of cars at that intersection, and I’m talking about Route 9, the section of Route 9 north of that intersection, which is right in front of the proposed application here. There are frequently cars backed up to that point, and sometimes through more than one light cycle. Are you aware of that? MR. KRANTZ-Well, sometimes I’ve seen stacking. I can’t necessarily confirm how far back they’re stacked and under what days and what times. MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay. MR. KRANTZ-There’s traffic, a lot of traffic through that whole Route 9 area. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, it was another concern of me, of people being able to access this application. Okay. Do you know what the grade of the driveway is, percent grade? MR. KRANTZ-Again, here are engineering questions that I am not an engineer. MR. STROUGH-This is site plan review, right? MR. KRANTZ-Again, these are engineering questions. The engineer is not here. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not the Board’s fault, Mr. Krantz. I mean, you have an application sitting in front of this Board. You should have your people here. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just, you know, it’s a rather steep piece of property. Does the grade of the proposed driveway meet Code? MR. MAC EWAN-That is does. MRS. MOORE-As far as I know, it does. Dennis and I went through much of the plans, and the Town Engineers did as well, and if it was an issue at the time with the Town Engineer, he would have addressed it at that time. MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay. Well, let’s assume that it is. It was a concern of mine, and I did address it to the Planning Department today. MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’m aware of some of your comments but not all of them. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Moving on. The privacy fence, what you propose, the wood fence, which is along side of I believe Chrostowski? MR. KRANTZ-That’s to the north, I believe. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. STROUGH-To the north. Now that’s a four foot fence? MR. KRANTZ-Maybe the Giellas could respond to that. MICHAEL GIELLA MR. GIELLA-Yes, it is a four foot fence. I’m Michael Giella. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the four foot fence, my concern here, I just have in my notes, I’m worried about the impacts of your application on the adjacent resident, and I’m looking at lighting. I’m looking at noise and people and visual effects and hours of operation, and a four foot fence. That’s the only mitigating factor here? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll speak for him on that part, John, is that was one of the reasons why we tabled this thing because one of the main reasons we were looking for is this lighting to be addressed, and they put a lot of emphasis on it to keep the lighting on the parcel. There was a lot of overflow before. MR. STROUGH-I know, Craig, I appreciate your comment, but there’s also an aesthetic thing through the lighting is that maybe the light itself doesn’t go on my property, but from my property I can see light, light poles. I can see people and I can hear noise, without the launching of light necessarily occurring on my property. There still is an impact, a visual impact. MR. KRANTZ-The only thing I can add to that is I recall a conversation that I had with Dennis Dickinson who spoke to the lady who resides to the north, who didn’t want the fence too tall. She didn’t want it higher than four feet. She didn’t want to look at a fence higher than four feet and she didn’t want to be blocked from seeing into the miniature golf course. Other than that, we’ve had no objections from the neighbor, the lady to the north. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m assuming she’s here tonight. So when the public hearing is opened, we’ll hear from her. MR. STROUGH-I’ll leave that. Okay. MR. KRANTZ-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Now you did see Marilyn Van Dyke’s letter and a concern for the historical importance of the Military road that went through the area? MR. KRANTZ-No. MR. STROUGH-You haven’t seen that? MR. KRANTZ-No, sir. MR. STROUGH-I can give you a copy of that, but there is obviously some concern there. MR. MAC EWAN-The letter went with this application? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’ve got it right here. MR. RINGER-Yes, we’ve got it in our packets. MRS. MOORE-That information was, as far as I know, was forwarded to the applicant. Whether Mr. Krantz has it, I don’t know, but I know we did forward it. MR. KRANTZ-It’s not on the State list of historic sites. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s your answer. Okay. My other concern is the infiltration component of the septic system. It looks like the septic system is put in a swale. I mean, from what I can tell from this, and the infiltration part of the septic system is put in a swale, and unless you tell me otherwise, that’s, that can’t be. MR. KRANTZ-I’m not an engineer, but I understand that Dennis Dickinson has worked this out with the Town Engineer. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s another concern I have, and the size of the septic system is a concern of mine. You do have it that it is about the same size septic system as it would be for a three bedroom home, right? MR. KRANTZ-I don’t know. MR. STROUGH-That’s what it says in the plans, and about how many potential people could be at this site in one day? MR. KRANTZ-I guess we could answer questions about that, but again, these were specifically addressed by the Town Engineer and Mr. Dickinson, and they’ve resolved it that the system as proposed is adequate. MR. STROUGH-Well, okay, it’s 800, and I’m just wondering if that’s a large enough septic system. MR. KRANTZ-The Town Engineer, as I understand it, thinks that it is. MR. MAC EWAN-It meets Code, John. MR. STROUGH-Well, there is no Code for this, right, Laura? This is kind of by guess and by golly? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Dickinson has, I believe, spoken with Dave Hatin as well as I have spoken with Dave Hatin, about the septic system, and my understanding is that Dave will look at it when a building permit comes in. At this moment in time, it’s designed for Code. MR. STROUGH-So the Planning Department finds it satisfactory? MRS. MOORE-At this moment in time. MR. MAC EWAN-John, the Board addressed that issue the last time the applicant was in front of us, because that was a concern we had. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I’m almost done here. Along with the septic system, the high water table, and that is an issue that I guess the engineer brought up. So I won’t bring it up again. I had a problem finding what they call the adjacent access site. You’re supposed to be some place on the property to be able to access an adjacent site. MRS. MOORE-John, can I address that one? There is a notation on the drawing that indicates a 20 foot easement. The line that you, it may appear to look like a property line is the physical line that says this is where a proposed possible access road could be. In addition to that, the applicant has indicated there’s a sidewalk that they would install if the Planning Board agreed that that was a good idea for that site. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now that’s State land, right? MRS. MOORE-To where? No, it is not. That is their property. MR. STROUGH-How far does the State land extend on to? MRS. MOORE-Their property line goes to that boundary that’s on the plans. MR. STROUGH-How far from the center of the road, do you know? Because their plans go right to the edge of the road here. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. That’s their property line. MR. STROUGH-And so the State doesn’t own any right of way? MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of. MR. STROUGH-Well, maybe we can get that clarified a little bit, too. Okay. Those are my concerns, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Alan? MR. ABBOTT-The letter of C.T. Male of today, June 29, you’ve got that? th MR. KRANTZ-Yes, a few minutes ago. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. ABBOTT-Okay. Item Number Two, the absence of a test pit within the septic system area, we’ll have to trust that the engineer can ensure the proper separation distance is maintained. It’s hard to go on a statement like that and approve a site plan with trust in an engineer. I think that needs to be gone over a little bit more, and the third item, C.T. Male’s come back and said that they’re still recommending 12 inch diameter in the storm lines, and if this is to be approved tonight, as a condition of approval will be that C.T. Male’s recommendations are met. Just so you’ll know, they’ll have to be 12 inch storm lines in there. MR. KRANTZ-Can I make a comment on that? Number One is not problem. Number Three, while philosophically I have a problem with it, I don’t think it’s a major problem, although Dennis doesn’t think it’s necessary. I guess it’s a different approach to things. Assuming that people won’t maintain something so it should be over engineered, oversized is kind of an interesting approach, but I don’t think that’s a problem, and I understand Number Two has been settled with Dennis and Dave Hatin. MRS. MOORE-My understanding with Dave Hatin is that once they discuss the septic, it’s possible that Dave will ask him to dig another test pit hole to confirm that, and that’s something that you can put a condition on there as well, is that another test pit be dug within that septic area to confirm that it meets the correct separation distance. MR. ABBOTT-Okay, as long as it’ll be a condition of approval. That’s all I have right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The Site Development Data sheet that I have here has an attachment to it. I don’t know if you’ve seen that, and first of all, it’s not dated, and I can’t, the original data sheet had percent nonpermeable at six percent and twenty-six percent, and then somebody attached a document to it, if you recognize that document. That’s 63 and 30. Now should these two pieces of paper ever become separated, how would the reader know that this hunk of data goes with this piece? How do you do that? What should have happened here is that that should have been redone, if the data on this is correct, it’s now 63 and 30. MRS. MOORE-That is considered within the official file, with the Town. You’re more than welcome to ask the applicant to revise the site plan development data. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s noted right on that sheet that it belongs to this application, right there at the bottom. MR. KRANTZ-It could be marked Page One of Two and Two of Two, if you wish, if that helps. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I have a question that is directed primarily at Staff. There was a packet included, and part of the packet had the Comprehensive Land Use Plan statement. Does that still apply to this application? MRS. MOORE-I guess, provide me with some comment, then. MR. VOLLARO-What I guess what I want to get at quickly is should it be part of the resolution, or was it just something that was put into the packet? MRS. MOORE-It was just put into your packet as reference. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Good enough. Taking a look at the stormwater calculations, I’m not going to sit and debate that, but this is for Mr. Dickinson, I’m looking at the volume of stormwater that the area is, cubic feet of stormwater. Then he comes up, it’s 816, for example, on the first one, and he has a mitigating volume of 825. Every one of his statements that he makes against particular stormwater calculations are very, very close to the requirement. They hardly have any separation at all, and when I started to look at some of the C.T. Male comments that were in their letter of April 21, they had 18, 20 comments in that letter, and I tried to identify these comments with answers, st and I couldn’t get any correlation between this April 21 letter and the calculations, for them to say st that those calculations were correct. I’m not going to debate whether they are or not, but I can tell you that there’s hardly any safety factor in here at all. They pretty near match the volume of stormwater that he’s trying to mitigate, 816 to 825, 816 to 828, 7200 to 7290, 528 to 576. They look awfully close to me, and that’s my only comment there, and I can’t find a direct answer, in all of the C.T. Male responses, that talk to that particular calculation, anywhere. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to respond to that? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, the applicant has been ongoing discussions with C.T. Male. So there may be items that have been clearly addressed between the two that are not going to show up in documents. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I would think that if there was still anything outstanding that wasn’t satisfactory to C.T. Male, such as this letter that we have in front of us tonight, that they would have commented on it, like they did recommend that it still didn’t show the 12 inch diameter pipe, and the separation, which are two issues that they didn’t see readily addressed. MR. VOLLARO-I would also assume that, Craig. I’m just saying that, to me, making a comment that the calculation looked awfully close, and we’ll let it go at that. In the notes to file of June 9, this is received by the Town of Queensbury Planning Office on 21 June. This is a note to file, and I think, Laura, I talked with you about that today, where it says Staff reviewed one set of eight drawings as coordinated package and received on 6/5. Are we to be looking at another set of drawings, or is this it? MRS. MOORE-The set that you have in front of you is the set that you should be reviewing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the June 13, dated June 13? thth MRS. MOORE-Correct. We requested the applicant to submit one copy, this is of the 6/5/00, so that Staff could review it and provide comment back to the applicant in regard to if he needed additional information or less information. We came up with a list for the applicant to update the plans, and that’s what you have in front of you now. MR. ABBOTT-Have you double checked the plans, that all 12 recommendations on this? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I have. MR. ABBOTT-And they’re all taken care of? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess the last comment I have is there’s a Beautification letter in, of April 10. Now in that letter, there is no reference to the June 13 drawings, in the Beautification letter. thth In other words, the Beautification letter was quite old, April 10, and it doesn’t seem like it’s th addressed any of these new considerations that we have, and I don’t know whether it should or not. I think the resolution had that letter from Beautification listed in it, and if everybody’s happy that that Beautification letter carries through from April 10, that’s fine. th MR. KRANTZ-Bob, if it’s of any help, Mr. Giella says that the landscaping plan that was submitted to Beautification is the same landscaping plan that is now you. In other words, there’s been no alteration of the landscaping plan. In other words, there’s been no deviation. MR. VOLLARO-So, all of the work that’s been done up from April 10 on doesn’t bear anything on th the Beautification response, that’s what we’re saying? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. There’s been no change on landscaping. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have just a couple of things. First, I’m surprised you didn’t bring your engineer. MR. KRANTZ-He’s physically not in the State. I’m sorry. MR. RINGER-I assume you took it that everything was set because of the Staff notes. Laura, when you wrote that, that says on June 13 the applicant provided the revised set of drawings that th addresses all of the comments from Staff, the Planning Board, and Engineering, that did give the indication that everything was done. Yet, we still had a lot of stuff from Male that hadn’t come in yet. MRS. MOORE-They were provided with that information. The letter that you received now, those are comments and recommendations. They’ve addressed, I would say, all of the comments. Dennis 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) has approached C.T. Male and commented on saying, I would like to have the stormwater at six inch versus 12 inch. So it was addressed. MR. RINGER-And you’re assuming that that meant they’re okay. MR. KRANTZ-I honestly took it for what it said. MR. RINGER-All right. I agree with Laura. It says it addresses, and she doesn’t say that they’ve approved it. They just said that they addressed it. It’s just that when you started you were saying, darn it, you know, you say everything’s approved, and she really didn’t say that. MR. KRANTZ-Well, I think it’s, again, from my point of view, I think it’s reasonable to assume that someone reading this would, it implies favorably addressed. I mean, otherwise, the letter would be couched differently. MR. MAC EWAN-You know what they say when people assume, don’t you? MR. KRANTZ-Well, I make that assumption. MR. MAC EWAN-I will tell you, Mr. Krantz, you’ve been in front of this Board many, many times before representing applicants, and any understanding that an applicant’s engineering staff has with the Town’s engineering staff should not be construed in any way, shape or form as an approval from this Board. MR. KRANTZ-Not necessarily an approval. MR. MAC EWAN-You were under the impression, when you made your opening statement, that this was fait accompli. It was a done deal, why are you raising these issues now. It’s part of site plan review. That’s our job. MR. KRANTZ-I know that. No, it’s just that I honestly thought that all the issues that came up when we first were here, and all the discussions, you know, between Mr. Dickinson and Staff, Mr. Dickinson and the engineer, combined with the letter, I thought all the issues were resolved. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, this has been a lengthy, ongoing review. The last time we looked at this application I believe it was back in, what, April or May some time. So a couple of months anyway has elapsed, and we need to refresh memories and we’re dealing with alternates who may have not been sitting on the Board at the time we first reviewed it. So everyone needs to have an opportunity to do their job, and it’s unfortunate that Mr. Dickinson wasn’t here tonight, because he probably could have very adequately answered the questions. MR. KRANTZ-Better than I, I’m sure. MR. RINGER-And I certainly would believe that Item Three of Male’s letter, the 12 inch stormwater would have to be, if your engineer is not here to. MR. KRANTZ-Yes. Again, I don’t think it’s a problem. I don’t know if it creates an engineering problem in the construction of the miniature golf course. I think what Dennis did, and again, I’m not an engineer, but I think he calculated that six inches was adequate from an engineering point of view, and as I understand the comments from C.T. Male, they said, yes, six inches is probably adequate, but since it’s probably not going to be maintained, twelve inches would be better. MR. MAC EWAN-And historically, most of them don’t get maintained. They get forgotten about over the years. MR. KRANTZ-As I indicated before, that’s agreeable to the applicant. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing further than the issues that we’ve addressed already. MR. ABBOTT-I’ve got a couple things to mention. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. ABBOTT-The recommendations in the Staff’s note to file of June 9, recommendation one th indicated doubling the amount of deciduous flowering and evergreen trees. I don’t have a copy of the Beautification Committee’s letter in front of me. Bob, do you have it there? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. MR. ABBOTT-What were their comments? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll pass it to you. MR. RINGER-What item are you looking at, Alan, on that note to file? MR. ABBOTT-Staff recommends the following items, at the top of page two, it’s the first recommendation, not the comments, but the recommendation, double the amount of deciduous flowering evergreen trees, and their response, the applicant’s agent indicate the plantings were developed for the site. They reviewed the amount and type and felt it to be adequate. I guess I’ll ask, Laura, what were the Staff’s thoughts at that point to come up with that recommendation? MRS. MOORE-By doubling it, it provided more of an aesthetic point of view from either the road or from neighboring properties. That was the goal. MR. ABBOTT-Do you have the landscaping diagram up there? MR. KRANTZ-I believe it’s among, I’ll see if I have it. I have a planting plan dated March 24, which I think is the one the Beautification approved. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it, right there. We have it. MR. ABBOTT-Laura, was there a specific area of the property you were looking at? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. ABBOTT-The north, this shows great detail of the miniature golf area itself. Anything around the parking lot, the north end of the property, Route 9 being the south, above the club, I’m sorry, you’re right. The north side of the driveway, and the west side of the property, the back of the property, nothing is indicated as going anywhere other than the immediate miniature golf area itself, nothing behind the club house. It says just lawn, it’s going to be straight lawn, no trees. MR. GIELLA-I think I can address that. On the south side, okay, where there’s going to be a pathway, for people to walk into the course, that’s going to be sodded, okay. On the north side, okay, where the driveway is, okay, that’ll be sodded where the fence is going to divide the two properties. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. GIELLA-There’ll be sod in the front, and in the other areas, around the parking lot, it’ll be seeded. They’re going to spray seed. Okay. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. No other plantings around? MR. GIELLA-No. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any plans to put a hedge row or something between the easterly side of the parking lot and the residential property? MR. GIELLA-Well, right now, on the residential side of the property, by the driveway, there are some large trees, cedars and evergreens, that run along the driveway, which is on Peggy’s property. MR. STROUGH-It’s pretty cleared out. The only thing that the property has left is basically the large trees. I was up there today. MR. GIELLA-Right. MR. STROUGH-So any cars that were parking along that line, the headlights would be flashing in to the back of their house. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. GIELLA-Well, no one will be parking along that line on the roadway. The parking lot is in the back. MR. ABBOTT-I know, but if you pull into a parking spot, so you’re parking back toward Route 9. MR. GIELLA-There are no houses. MR. STROUGH-Yes, there is. MR. GIELLA-By the parking lot? No. MR. ABBOTT-About where the north pointer is. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s exactly about where the house is. MR. ABBOTT-There’s a house right in there. Okay. So the fence goes down there and along the driveway? MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. ABBOTT-And how about the north side of the parking lot, does the fence go across that? MR. GIELLA-Back here? MR. ABBOTT-Yes. MR. GIELLA-That’s the Northway. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. You’re right. MR. MAC EWAN-The fence that we’re referring to, on top of the short retaining wall, refresh my memory, how tall is that fence? MR. GIELLA-I believe it’s four feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Four foot. How tall was the retaining wall? MR. GIELLA-I believe that was 18 inches. MR. MAC EWAN-Eighteen inches. Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. ABBOTT-The lighting plan still shows .5 foot candles out on Route 9, I believe. MR. GOLDE-Yes, it does. MR. ABBOTT-We try and get down from .1 foot candles, on the property line and across. Is there any adjustment to the Type Four fixtures that are in the front of the property that can be done to reduce that .5 into Route 9? MR. GOLDE-On the Type Four fixtures, you cannot get a house side shield. We were able to, as you pointed out, we were able to reduce the light level out in the road, Route 9. I think it’s important to note that along that stretch of Route 9, there are a number of light fixtures, street lighting fixtures, north of the intersection with 149. They are spread out. I believe that the criteria that New York State DOT has is more uniformity of light level than the lighting level itself. Of course, they don’t want it lit up like this conference room, and I believe that with the light levels that we’ve got, it’s not really going to effect the uniformity of the lighting on the roadway, in that stretch, and as a matter of fact, it’ll probably fill it in a little bit and make it better. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. RINGER-How much excavating are you going to do, and the reason I’m asking is, you said you hadn’t seen it, so I’ll give you our copy of the letter from the Town Historian regarding, because she is recommending that we have an archeologist on site, during your construction, she’s suggesting. MR. MAC EWAN-I would recommend that if we made a condition of approval, if we were to approve this site plan, that we do the same thing we did with Boats By George. Because basically that letter parallels the letter that she presented for that one, and that was a site study that we had authorized. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ve got to remember his name. He’s out of Albany. I remember him doing Hudson Pointe. MRS. MOORE-Was it Ed Curtain? MR. MAC EWAN-There you go. Good memory. MR. KRANTZ-Just for my education, can anybody here tell me approximately where the Johnson’s Old Military Road ran? Seriously, just approximately? MR. MAC EWAN-Approximately, from your site, if you headed east, it would be relatively close to where the existing bike trail is now. MR. STROUGH-No, the Military Road up in this area, according to other reports, ran just to the west of Route 9, and ran about where the front of their property is, and it shot right through the Chrostowski property and then continued north. MR. KRANTZ-Did it go generally north and south? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-I mean, through where all that retail shopping is now? MR. STROUGH-I’m not sure where it went in that area. All I know in this area, it went down across the front of the applicant’s property. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Krantz, to respond to you before you even make the comment, had they been in front of us, we would have asked them the same thing, to do the same thing, but they weren’t. That was before this Board. It’s significantly, historically important, and what Ed Curtain is going to do for Boats By George is what’s called a preliminary field study, and basically what it is, it’s a, help me out if I goof here, it’s like a Level One study that indicates the potential to find artifacts on site. MR. KRANTZ-So this is the first application in this area that’s been required? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we just did one back in April. MR. ABBOTT-Boats By George. MR. KRANTZ-But have they proceeded with that? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they have. MR. MAC EWAN-Now they have. Has Ed Curtain done his field study? MRS. MOORE-He’s done his field study. I’m waiting for a report. MR. MAC EWAN-So, yes, it’s been enacted. MR. KRANTZ-And what is the potential here? If he finds a musket ball, where do we go from there? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s based on his report, the probability of it being a significant site. MR. KRANTZ-And this is notwithstanding that it’s not on the Historic Register as a significant site at all? I’m not really clear, according to her letter, where she believes the road ran. MR. MAC EWAN-That entire area was known for skirmishes during both the French and Indian War and portions of the Revolutionary War as well. Right, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s important, and Level One studies are the most cost effective studies to do, if that’s a concern. We certainly could request, I suppose, that you invite Fort William Henry to come down and have a summer encampment and do an intensive field site survey. I don’t think you’d want to do that would you? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. KRANTZ-They do theirs periodically. MR. MAC EWAN-So, it’s important. I mean, probably within, what is it, three eighths of a mile, half a mile from this location is the historical marker up there. MR. STROUGH-Colonel Williams’ monument. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay. Anything else? MR. STROUGH-I’d like to ask, what are the hours of operation going to be? I don’t think I read that. MR. KRANTZ-The same as Pirate’s Cove down the road. Whatever they are. MR. GIELLA-We’re going to mimic their hours. I think it’s still midnight, ten in the morning until midnight. MR. STROUGH-Ten to midnight, roughly. MR. KRANTZ-Ten ‘till midnight. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? MR. KRANTZ-I would just add as a point of information that Mike told me that it’s a little ironic that the other site they looked at was that Fort Gage property, as you go to Exit 21, just west of the intersection. Because he thought, by word of mouth, that might have some historic significance. So he stayed away from it. MR. GIELLA-Well, the real estate agent had to disclose it to us. MR. KRANTZ-Right. So, ironically, they started after we did, I know it’s a different Town. They got their approval, and they’ve been under construction for two weeks. So it just goes to show you. You try and go with the easier site, it doesn’t always work out. MR. MAC EWAN-No, it doesn’t. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. I’d ask that you come up and identify your name and address, and address your concerns toward the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PEGGY CHROSTOWSKI MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-My name is Peggy Chrostowski, and the Military Road, and the State owns to the stone wall in front of my house, and it is the same in front of the old DiManowitz property. MR. STROUGH-So how many feet would you say the stone wall was from the edge of the pavement? MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-About 20 feet, I’d say. MR. STROUGH-Twenty feet or so? MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-Yes, 20 to 25 feet. MR. STROUGH-So that’s where you’re saying, the State also owns that? MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-The State owns that land. MR. STROUGH-And that’s about where the Old Military Road went. MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-Yes, and it goes diagonally up toward VanDusen’s house, and almost comes to their front door, up in that area. MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question for you. The fence. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-The fence, my land is higher than the land where the miniature golf is going to be. I’m probably three feet higher than they are at ground level, so four feet wouldn’t do me any good. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-Well, I was concerned about the septic system, too. Because I know the land is all wet in there. You can dig down two or three feet and hit water. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-You’re saying you would prefer a higher fence? MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-Well, to be of any use at all, it would have to be higher. It would only be about a foot higher than my land is. MR. RINGER-Are you the person they talked to that said you didn’t want a higher fence? They mentioned earlier when they first started that they talked to a neighbor and they said they wanted the fence four feet, and not higher, or did I misunderstand? I’m sorry. MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-The other thing I’m concerned about is the hours, until midnight, that’s a residential area. It always has been, and I think 12 o’clock at night is kind of late. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-I guess that’s about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KRANTZ-Just very quickly to address the neighbor’s concerns. Again, there’s a one and a half foot retaining wall, and then a four foot fence. So I think you have, effectively, five and a half feet, and I’m not an automotive expert, but I think, I’m guessing the average height of headlights, with the SUV’s is maybe three, three and a half feet tall. So I guess I just don’t understand, especially with the difference in grade, why the five and a half feet wouldn’t be more than adequate, and as far as the hours of operation, I appreciate, no one can change, no one in this room can change the fact that the lady lives next door, but it is Highway Commercial. It’s not a residential area. MR. MAC EWAN-Your retaining wall is running the entire length. Now your fence goes down, as illustrated, goes about three quarters of the length of the property line that abuts her property, roughly. Is your retaining wall going that same length as well? MR. GIELLA-I’m pretty sure the retaining wall is by the parking lot, okay. There’s no retaining wall on the roadway going up toward the parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s what I wanted to be clear on. MR. GIELLA-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So that the elevation of the fence that’s along the property line adjacent to this lady’s property is only going to be four foot high, it’s not going to be higher than that? MR. RINGER-Her property is eight foot higher than the. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. GIELLA-You mean her house, or just the property? MR. RINGER-Her house is eight foot higher. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’m just trying to get an idea exactly how high that fence is going to be, and I honestly don’t think there’s a fence that you could make that would be high enough to obstruct her view of it, because of the elevation difference. MR. GIELLA-From the entrance there’ll be a four foot fence running west. MR. KRANTZ-Parallel to the traffic. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. GIELLA-Toward the Northway. MR. KRANTZ-The traffic. In other words, the headlights won’t be facing toward the fence. The point that was raised earlier is correct, I don’t know if it was Mr. Abbott, that cars parking in the parking lot facing east would be facing in the direction of Peggy’s house, and that’s where there’s going to be five and a half feet, in the parking area. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any other questions, but I’d certainly like to make a recommendation that the Beautification Committee have a chance to take a second look at this on the plans dated June 13, 2000, as opposed to the comments made on April 10. That’s just a recommendation. That’s th how I feel about it. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s the same plan. The plan didn’t change. That landscaping plan did not change, did it? It did not change from when Beautification reviewed it. MR. KRANTZ-No, that’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Other drawings in here changed and were revised, but the landscaping did not. It’s still the same. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, there were other drawings in here, drainage drawings and stuff like that, did change, as part of his. MR. VOLLARO-As long as there was no change at all on the new plan dated June 13, that’s fine. th MR. MAC EWAN-No. Does Staff have any additional comments? MRS. MOORE-No, I do not. MR. ABBOTT-Sprinkler systems? MR. GIELLA-There will be a sprinkler system, yes. MR. STROUGH-I see we’re developing this piece of property, and Mr. Krantz is right. The adjacent property is also zoned Highway Commercial, even though there’s a residence, but maybe some day that might be developed commercially, and the lands of VanDusen’s might be, and I believe Mr. Stark owns the hotel past that, but considering the future development of the area, I get back to, I have a problem with any of those curb cuts along that curve on Route 9 and sight distance. I would really like to see a traffic sight distance analysis on that, but I also have concerns, even though it is zoned Highway Commercial, there is somebody that lives there, and they’re going to have to sleep there, and they’re going to have to carry on their quality of life there, and I do have some concerns whether, how we’re impacting that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We know you have concerns, but what would you suggest as a mitigation? Having a concern is one thing, coming up with a. MR. STROUGH-I would definitely like to see a higher fence, and I’d like to see a little bit more of a buffer between this proposal and the residential area. MR. MAC EWAN-But a buffer’s not required in the zone because it’s a commercial zone, even though there’s a residence there. MR. STROUGH-But your question was, what am I proposing to try and mitigate the negative impacts that this proposal might have on that residential area, and I made a suggestion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s take each one separately. How high of a fence would you propose, considering the house sits eight feet higher than the adjacent parcel? MR. STROUGH-Well, how about plantings, better plantings possibly a spruce. See there’s spruce trees there, but they’re not really providing any protection of the house, which is a little bit west of that. MR. KRANTZ-Sir, if it would help, Mr. Giella has poster board with photographs so you can see the existing vegetation, which I think would help address your concern. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. STROUGH-You mean the vegetation that’s currently there? MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. STROUGH-Well, I was there today. MR. KRANTZ-But you’re raising something that the other Board members maybe don’t have knowledge of. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re basically looking from the edge of your property line to the edge of the pavement for your drive is 10 feet, right? MR. GIELLA-That’s on the north side. MR. ABBOTT-On the north side of your property. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. GIELLA-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Ten feet. So when you go in there and do your site preparation, are you going to clear right up to your property line? Because nowhere in here do I see a limits of clearing on any of your drawings. You guys should have brought Mr. Dickinson with you. MR. GIELLA-There’s going to be a fence along that side of the driveway. MR. ABBOTT-On the property line. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. So basically what you’re going to do is you’re going to clear right to your property line, then you’re going to re-grade it and put up this four foot high fence. MR. GIELLA-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So all the vegetation that’s there now is going to be taken away. MR. GIELLA-On our side there’s really not much vegetation on that side, on the north side. It’s basically the trees. Are we talking the entrance way or the parking? MR. ABBOTT-Right now we’re talking the entrance way, talking about the north side of the driveway, as you enter the property. MR. GIELLA-Along the entrance way, on our side of the property, there really isn’t much vegetation other than grass growing very high, but on our neighbor’s side, okay, is where we have the trees. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s four, four big spruce trees? MR. GIELLA-Yes. That’s not on our property. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but there’s only four spruce trees that are on her property, though, right? Four spruce trees is not going to be an adequate buffer the entire length of that driveway, which is how many feet long? How does the rest of the Board feel about it? MR. ABBOTT-Well, that’s part of the question I had, the planting just along the miniature golf area itself, and then nothing else on the rest of the property, I tend to agree there should be something. MR. KRANTZ-Again, I would ask the Board to keep in mind that along that north boundary, which is where the driveway’s coming in, cars are not going to be pointed toward Peggy’s house. They’d be running parallel with it there. The area that, the only area that has that potential at all is the eastern end of the parking area where you have five and a half feet. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well I’m trying to mitigate the noise, too, because miniature golf’s fun, right, and it’s a family affair, right? MR. KRANTZ-Hopefully. MR. STROUGH-Kids and adults and the screeching, the screaming and everything else that comes with people being on vacation having fun. Well, that’s great, but I don’t know if a four foot fence is going to keep that lady asleep. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-If you put another row of trees in there, they’re going to make you cut them, just like they made me cut all the branches, the lower, from the wires, from the telephone pole. MR. STROUGH-There’s a line going through there, too. MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-Yes. So if they plant trees and they get as tall as mine are, which is logical, they’re going to be cut down or cut off. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you satisfied with the plan that they’ve, as far as having any kind of buffer between your property and their property. MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-Actually, they haven’t even had that side of the property surveyed yet. The surveyor’s got a line on Dexter’s side, but they’ve never come up with a surveyor. Has he told you about any special line? MR. KRANTZ-Well, he has finished the whole survey, ma’am. MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-But he hasn’t marked it off. MR. KRANTZ-I can’t. MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-Because I talked to him the last time he was there, and he said we can’t find where to start from to measure off. MR. KRANTZ-Well, apparently he did. MR. MAC EWAN-With all due respect, I want to keep away from the bantering here back and forth. MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. Mr. Strough is looking to see if we can’t increase the buffer between the golf’s parcel and your parcel. What they have proposed so far is a four foot high fence along that drive coming in there. I want to know from you is a four foot high fence adequate for you? MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-It’s not going to be at that level, at the level it’s on now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s all I needed to know. Thank you. I think, you know, probably the appropriate thing to do here is planting of cedar hedge of some kind. MR. STROUGH-Possibly a berm, and then a cedar hedge? I’m just trying to get some way of deflecting that noise. I mean, they’re going until midnight there. MR. METIVIER-I think the biggest problem is that she’s sitting up so much higher, you know. If you do a cedar hedge, it’s going to have to be a 20 foot cedar hedge to even make a difference. So anything that you do here is still going to effect it. I mean, obviously you want to try and mitigate as much as possible, but the results are not going to be sufficient. MR. STROUGH-So you’re suggesting there’s nothing they could do? MR. METIVIER-There’s got to be something they can do, and my question is, what do you want to do? What would you like? MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-A wooden fence would be fine. It would be permanent. It shouldn’t be disturbed by anything that I know of. There’s a lot of brush in through there. Between my trees and the driveway, there’s a lot of brush. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What’s the rest of the Board feel? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll give you my opinion, and I gave it before but I’ll give it again, for what it’s worth, but this time I’m going to read the one line that we got from the Beautification Committee, that said miniature golf course with parking and facilities. Miniature golf course parking installed in the back of the property, dumpster behind the parking lot, motion made to approve the plans. That’s just unsat, in my mind. I think I’d like to send this back to Beautification to solve the problems we’re talking about here, at least some of them. There is no recommendation from Beautification in their April 10 letter that makes any sense to me, and, you know, I’d like to make a th formal recommendation that this go back to Beautification for another look at the identical plan they looked at before. That’s my recommendation, Mr. Chairman. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. MAC EWAN-What’s everybody else’s opinion? MR. RINGER-If we do that, can we ask Beautification to look at that, especially that area where we would like a buffer? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the issue here is not a Beautification aspect, I don’t think, as much as it is a buffering scenario, and our job is buffering, not the Beautification Committee’s. MR. VOLLARO-That may be true, but really the Beautification Committee could have taken a better look at this, and maybe had they, they would have had something like that in there. I’ve seen some of their recommendations talking about, you know, separation and buffering in the past. I think that this particular look by Beautification got short shrift. That’s my opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I want to come to some sort of conclusion on this, somehow, some way. MR. STROUGH-Well, I also had a problem with the septic system. If you know where it’s located. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s try and solve this portion first and then get to the next one. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’m also thinking instead of a four foot high fence, why not go with a six foot high fence? MR. METIVIER-I agree with that. MR. RINGER-I definitely go that way, too. MR. METIVIER-A four foot high fence just doesn’t seem like it’s going to do anything. MR. VOLLARO-That certainly doesn’t cut it. A six foot high fence is probably better. MR. MAC EWAN-If you stop and think, the fact that her property where her house sits is approximately eight, maybe nine feet higher elevation than at the property line is here at the edge of the driveway, I mean, even if you planted a cedar hedge row that was on a three foot berm, you’re still looking at a long time before they’d mature. Well, don’t everybody speak at once. MR. VOLLARO-I said I agree. MR. RINGER-You made that a formal motion, did you? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I mean, we still have to do a SEQRA yet. MR. RINGER-Yes, but I meant, Bob made a motion that we send it back to the Beautification. I don’t know if he made that as a formal motion. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was just a very strong recommendation, but not a motion. Craig, obviously the Board, I didn’t get a whole bunch of rousing yeses with that, so I figured that nobody agreed. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s definitely a minority on that one. MR. STROUGH-I keep on thinking about what Tony said. Is there anything, really, that they could do that’s going to mitigate the noise and the visual impacts of the project? MR. VOLLARO-I really don’t think so, in my opinion. I think it’s, I think that it’s a commercial area and nothing that we’re going to really do here is going to significantly change how that site is going to look to people, like this lady in that house. There isn’t going to be much you can do. You can play at the margins with this thing, but you’re not going to do an awful lot more. MR. STROUGH-How about the traffic? Am I the only one that’s concerned about the sight distance? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all by yourself on that one. MR. STROUGH-I’ve been there before. MR. RINGER-I think, John, we have to assume that the engineers did look at that, as part of their, and Staff looked at that also. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. MAC EWAN-New York State DOT, if they felt that there was an issue, a significant enough issue with sight distance, they wouldn’t have allowed a curb cut there. They may very well tell them to move the curb cut, and they have done that along that corridor before. MR. VOLLARO-Well, John, if it’s an comfort to you, when Larry and I were down there, he and I were there together, because he was frightened to death of me backing out of that driveway, we both commented, when we got to Route 9, that the sight distance looked tight to us, to the left, to the north, and that’s what you’re saying. MR. STROUGH-And here’s my other concern, too, is the adjacent property, the Chrostowski property. They have even more of a serious problem getting a curb cut that would be acceptable for any type of commercial enterprise there. I’d like to see these two pieces of property incorporated, in an ideal world, and not have to worry about the residential area. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if we made a motion to approve this, we could have a stipulation that the interconnect be shown on the final plat. So that if this next parcel is ever developed, just like they did for the Dexter, that you do is there, so that you’d have a common drive to share. As far as the septic, I’d be willing to make it a condition of approval that, obviously, that Building and Codes is gong to do what they have to do to make sure it meets health standards. MR. STROUGH-Yes, because if you look at where the septic is, it rises toward the Northway, and the septic is at the bottom of that rise, and then the clubhouse, or whatever you’re going to call it, that also is in a high area, and it appears that this infiltration system is right in the swale, which is a no no. MR. MAC EWAN-We can make that part of our condition, that that be re-reviewed, and it naturally would be at the time a building permit’s pursued anyway, and if it’s not, and if it doesn’t meet the standards or setbacks, then they would have to change it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the problems that I always have with that, and you’re correct with what you’re saying, but the feedback that we get as a Board from that is zero, pretty much, and maybe it should be. I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t require that. We don’t ask for feedback. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-The only time we’ve asked for that Department to get involved with something is during the review process we’ve asked them. We’ve tabled an item and asked them to address it, and Dave’s been here before, or sent a memo to us, an explanation on how it would work. MR. RINGER-Laura had recommended that we make that a condition, if we did a motion for approval, that we make that a condition that that be acceptable to, or be highlighted. MR. VOLLARO-I have a little thing written down on that. MR. STROUGH-Did Mrs. Chrostowski say that she thought a six foot fence would be enough to satisfy her? MR. METIVIER-She said a wood fence. MR. STROUGH-A wood fence. So a six foot wood fence, and I want to be convinced that this interconnection access site is not on State property. I mean, even if it is, all they have to do is get permission from the State to be able to have that interconnect access. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s outside of the State DOT right of way. If you look at, do you have the landscape plan? Which plan are you looking at? Either look at 6-9, but if you look at 7-9, plan 7-9, see the width that’s written in New York State Route 9? Where it’s labeled New York State Route 9? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s actually the macadam road, and if you look at the piece that’s next to it, that’s blank, that’s like half as wide again, that’s the State right of way. Okay. MR. STROUGH-And the interconnect access would be in this area then? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Let’s go through our checklist. So a six foot fence. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s checklist? You’re checklist? MR. STROUGH-Yes, mine. The interconnect access, we’ll have to see what the applicant feels about this, right? And they are going to take care of the archeological potential. MR. MAC EWAN-If we make that a condition of approval, should we put a motion up, yes. I mean, you know, whatever conditions we tack on to the prepared resolution, if we should choose to want to approve this site plan, whatever conditions we attach, they’ve got to follow them. MR. STROUGH-Is the applicant agreeable? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to be cynical, but he doesn’t have to be agreeable. I mean, if that’s a condition that we’re willing to approve a site plan for him or anybody else, and we see to it that there’s certain conditions we need to have on there, in order for this to be acceptable to this Board, then that’s our job. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-For clarification, where would this interconnect go? MR. MAC EWAN-I think Staff was talking in this vicinity here. MR. STROUGH-Yes, the interconnect access, would it be large enough for vehicles to use? MR. MAC EWAN-It has to be, by Code. MRS. MOORE-I was going to say. On Plan 2-9, he has indicated a line that says possible access roadway, and he’s marked 20 feet. That is a requirement of the interconnection. It says plan 2-9. Okay. He actually has two types of interconnection available to the Board to review. MR. STROUGH-I see that, but does that? MRS. MOORE-Twenty foot is the required. MR. STROUGH-It goes right across the roadway and connects with the northern site? MRS. MOORE-That’s what you want to include in your resolution, if that’s what you want to happen. MR. VOLLARO-So you say that that should continue from where it’s shown on the drawing all the way north, past their property line, on to the next one? MRS. MOORE-It should end at the Giella’s property line, north. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? MRS. MOORE-I have one other question for the applicant. Will there be loudspeakers or music oriented items played during operation hours? MR. GIELLA-We weren’t planning to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Good point. MRS. MOORE-Okay. No loudspeakers? Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Let’s do a SEQRA. MRS. MOORE-Okay. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Am I the only one saying yes? MR. ABBOTT-No, you’re not the only one saying yes. MRS. MOORE-All right, and that’s in regards to which of these listed items? MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater. MRS. MOORE-You mean drainage or flooding problems? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It could also talk about surface or groundwater quality or quantity, and I think quantity is something that I think that may be impacted there. MR. STROUGH-And the water table is rather high in the area. There was mottling about two feet down, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s what he said. The water was two foot below the mottling indication. MRS. MOORE-Would you like me to continue? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes again. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Archeological. MRS. MOORE-Is this in reference to historic, the letter received by? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MRS. MOORE-I need your explanation of whether you’re going to move for a negative dec, and I need to know if the C1-C7, or you answered yes on C1 and C2. MR. MAC EWAN-But you didn’t ask what the significance and the impacts were. MRS. MOORE-Because I can do that at the end. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think that the impacts are minimal, and I think that they can all be mitigated through the on-site development that we’re going to request the applicant to do. Am I alone on that one, too? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-I think they both can be mitigated. MRS. MOORE-The motion’s up to you. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 26-2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MICHAEL & MARY GIELLA, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a motion if someone wants to put one up. MR. ABBOTT-I just want to go through, I have eight conditions. I just want to go through them quick before I. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. ABBOTT-The first three are directly related to C.T. Male’s, I’ll come back and I’ll repeat this all during the resolution. Just so the applicant knows where we’re headed. The C.T. Male letter of today, June 29, the first one would be that the invert of the existing Northway cross culvert th receiving the water should be shown on the plans. Secondly, that, through review with the Building Department and the Building Permit process, that proper guidelines for septic system are met, and if that means another test pit, then he needs another test pit. Number Three, that all storm lines be 12 inches. Number Four, skip four, we did away with four, it’s about plantings. That an archeological Study Level One be done on the site. MR. MAC EWAN-What we can do is read it in such a way that it tailors the one we did for Boats By George. Can we do that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I believe the term would be Initial or Phase One. I’m not certain. I know there’s a terminology, but I don’t know exactly what that is. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s a Phase One Archeological Study. MR. ABBOTT-Phase One. MR. MAC EWAN-Archeological Study. MR. KRANTZ-Is that, just for clarification, is that having someone there during the excavation? MR. MAC EWAN-No. In layman’s terms, and don’t hold me to this, what it is is that they go out and analyze the site for its potential for being a historically significant site. It’s basically a field survey, where someone is, now, when we did the CVS store, we had an archeologist on site, during that excavation, and we’re glad we did. MR. KRANTZ-What happened there? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, long story short, we were told that there were no Quaker remains on that site, and that it was an old tale that had circulated in Town that when the original Doyle’s building was built, that it was no where near the Quaker Cemetery, contrary to rumors. Well, when they did the excavating, they found the foundation walls went through at least two burial plots. MR. KRANTZ-So what are you asking for here, in layman’s terms? MR. MAC EWAN-I believe it’s called a Phase One Archeological Study. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. KRANTZ-And who conducts that? MR. MAC EWAN-Ed Curtain is one person. There are, Staff has a listing of accredited archeologists who will do that, and also a listing from the State of people who are accredited to do that. Ed Curtain’s very familiar with this area and he’s done numerous ones up here. MRS. MOORE-Do you want to add a comment that the report be forwarded to Staff? Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Actually to Planning Staff and to the Town Historian, too. MR. ABBOTT-Do I have to put anything about if they find something? MR. MAC EWAN-If they do, then that kicks it into the next phase. That’s the purpose of doing a Phase One. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. The fifth was a six foot fence that runs along the north side of the property, parallel with the driveway in the east side of the parking lot. MR. STROUGH-Let me add, you said six foot wood fence, but a split rail is a wood fence. Can we say solid wood? MR. ABBOTT-Okay, a six foot solid wood fence. That the plans show the interconnect be indicated for both the north side and the south side properties, and the last one, that no loudspeakers or PA systems are used on the property. MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds doable to me. MR. VOLLARO-It sounds good. MR. METIVIER-Could we add one, for the interest of the neighbors, that if their hours of operation are until midnight, that the lights be shut off by either midnight or 12:30? Can you do that? Meaning that if they’re open until midnight, that if it’s a 45 minute game, then they shouldn’t accept anybody after 11:15, say. So at midnight the light can be shut off. So there can be peace in the neighborhood. Because, again, if they’re open until midnight, somebody could play the game until three o’clock if they wanted to. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good point. MR. METIVIER-And we’ve seen that, if you go up the road over here. MR. MAC EWAN-12:30? You give time for people to get out of the place, and filter out. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. ABBOTT-All parking lot lights, if you’ve got staff there working and cleaning up. MR. METIVIER-But, if you think of it, I mean, Martha’s, their lights are off, you know. MR. STROUGH-How about the overhead pole light? MR. MAC EWAN-Just say that outdoor lighting be. MR. ABBOTT-Well, it’s all outdoors. You’ve got somebody going through the actual game itself, cleaning up or taking a whisk broom through the different things, it might take them longer than a half an hour. The pole mounted, let me back up for just a second. We’ve got pole mounted lights throughout the park, rather. If those are off, is that all the lights that are on the? MR. KRANTZ-Do you have lighting other than the pole lights? Do you have some by the building? MR. GIELLA-Well, we’re going to have some lighting on the building. MR. MAC EWAN-There were small lights on the building. They weren’t big ones. MR. KRANTZ-And they might need to close things up there at the building. MR. ABBOTT-I’m just thinking it’s 12:30 and the lights are to come up, and they’re still cleaning up through there. I don’t want to. MR. KRANTZ-They could certainly shut off all lights along the northerly boundary, pole lights. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. MAC EWAN-You know how you could easily do this? Just say that all the lights that are indicated on drawing eight, that’s all the exterior lots, not inclusive of the building. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. My concern is, if someone’s out here cleaning and picking up stuff, what are they going to use for lighting? I mean, is a half an hour reasonable to clean that all out? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. I can’t answer that. I would think that, in my mind, if cleaning was going to be done, I’d have it done, I’d have a crew in there at nine o’clock before you opened doing it. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. So all pole lights off at 12:30. MR. KRANTZ-We understand what your condition is. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-If that’s what your resolution is, why don’t you introduce it. MRS. MOORE-You mentioned the privacy fence. On plan 2-9 it shows a privacy fence, and you may just want to utilize that within your resolution, to say that privacy fence noted on 2-9 shall be changed to a six foot high fence. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Six foot high solid wood fence. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2000 MICHAEL & MARY GIELLA, Introduced by Alan Abbott who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 26-2000, Michael & Mary Giella, for an 18 hole miniature golf course with parking and facilities building. Miniature Golf Course is a Type II Site Plan Review use in the HC zone. Tax Map No. 34-1-9, Cross Reference, AV 31-2000, and; WHEREAS, the above mentioned application, received 3/29/00 , consists of the following: 1. Application deed, survey map dated 2/19/00, plot plan dated 3/14/00, detail plot plans dated 3/9/00, landscaping plan dated 3/24/00 and lighting design dated 3/28/00. WHEREAS, the above file is supported with the following documentation: File #1 1. 6/29/00 Staff Notes, incl. 4/25/00 P B res., 6/21/00 CT Male review comments., 6/23/00 D. Dickinson comments in response to C.T. Male comments, 6/21/00 No. Co. Eng. re: fixtures, 5/26/00 D. Dickinson regarding traffic analysis & Addressing CT Male comments of 4/21/00, 5/31/00 letter to D. Dickinson from W. Logan NYSDOT, 6/9/00 Note to File, 5/15/00 memo from M. VanDyke, Town Historian 2. 6/29/00 C.T. Male engineering review comments 3. 6/26/00 Fax to No. Co. Eng. – CT Male comments and D. Dickinson’s response 4. 6/26/00 Fax to J. Edwards – D. Dickinson response 5. 6/21/00 C.T. Male engineering review comments 6. 6/21/00 No. Co. Eng. regarding fixtures 7. 6/14/00 Transmittal of revised drawing s received 6/13/00 8. 6/13/00 Revised drawings received 9. 6/9/00 Note to File 10. 6/8/00 Meeting notice 11. 6/5/00 Revised Maps – 8 of 8 12. 6/5/00 Portion from ADA Handbook regarding Parking & Passenger Loading zones 13. 5/31/00 D. Dickinson from W. Logan, NYS DOT 14. 5/22/00 Fax to J. Golde regarding lighting issues 15. 5/18/00 J. Edwards from D. Dickinson in response to letter of 5/4/00 (w/3 maps) 16. 5/18/00 Stormwater Management Report w/map received from D. Dickinson 17. 5/15/00 PB from M. VanDyke, Town Historian 18. 5/8/00 L. Moore from J. Golde, No. Co. Eng. response to Eng. comments 19. 5/4/00 C.T. Male eng. review 20. 5/1/00 D. Dickinson from L. Moore 21. 4/26/00 J. Edwards from C. Round – transmitting revised info. 22. 4/25/00 PB resolution – tabled 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) 23. 4/25/00 Staff notes 24. 4/25/00 Fax to agent of staff notes 25. 4/21/00 CT Male eng. review 26. 4/21/00 ZBA resolution 27. 4/18/00 Stormwater Man. Report 28. 4/18/00 Notice of Public Hearing 29. 4/17/00 C. Round from H. Krantz w/revised survey 30. 4/6/00 Warren Co. PB recommendation – Approved 31. 4/6/00 Meeting notice File #2 Maps 3/29/00 Original submission 4/21/00 Clubhouse plans and renditions 6/5/00 Revised maps 6/13/00 Revised maps Undated Brochure – Harris miniature golf course WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 4/25/00 and 6/29/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved with the following conditions: a. The invert of the existing Northway cross culvert receiving the water should be shown on the plans. b. That the septic system be reviewed with the Building Department as part of the building permit process for proper separation distances. c. That the storm lines be 12 inch in diameter. d. That a Phase I Archeological Study be performed and report given to Staff and the Town Historian. e. That a six foot solid wood fence be installed as indicated on Plan Sheet 2/9, referred to as the privacy fence. f. That the plans indicate the interconnection for both the properties south of this property and the property north of this property. g. That no loudspeakers or PA systems be used on the property. h. That the pole lights indicated on Drawing 8 of 9 are off by 12:30 a.m. 2. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning Administrator’s signature. Duly adopted this 29 day of June 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Howard, you might want to visit with Jim Miller on your way out, sitting over there. He did Boats by George, and he’s familiar with Ed Curtain doing his Phase One. You’ll find it’s not that big of a deal. MR. KRANTZ-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION JOSEPH LEUCI/MOUNTAIN SIDE AUTO OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE A 3,360 SQ. FT. ADDITION FOR AUTO REPAIR FOR OFF STREET VEHICLES (PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR REPAIR OF ON SITE VEHICLES ONLY); OTHER MODIFICATIONS WILL ADDRESS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SITE LIGHTING, AND LOCATION OF BUILDING ISSUES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PREVIOUS APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-97, SP 55-98 TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1.3 LOT SIZE: 5.83 ACRES SECTION 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE LEUCI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-98 Modification, Joseph Leuci/Mountainside Auto, Meeting Date: June 29, 2000 “The applicant proposes a modification to a planning board approved site plan. The proposal changes the original location of the building, the amount of impermeable surface, the type of repair allowed on site. The applicant also proposes a 3,360 square foot addition to the existing building. Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer informed the applicant, the site was not in conformance with the January 1999 approval. The applicant/agent has since met with Staff and has provided a revised site plan to address the modifications. The plans were forwarded to Rist Frost Associates for review and comment. Staff performed a site visit to evaluate the proposed project. The site looked well kept with sales vehicles, customer, and employee vehicles within the designated areas. The applicant’s landscaping does provides a balance between the commercial view and the natural vegetation. The use of the site for car sales and auto repair is compatible with the site and surrounding uses in the highway commercial zone. The addition of on site repair to off street repair does not appear to significantly change the amount of traffic generated. The board should consider the following during their review of the application: 1. Should the gravel area be contained so to minimize gravel spreading beyond the proposed area? 2. Does the proposed lighting schedule sufficiently light the site?” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Do you want the Rist-Frost comment in? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please. MRS. MOORE-This is dated June 27, 2000, addressed to Chris Round, “The supplemental information submitted by Nace Engineering on June 23, 2000 in response to our comment letter dated June 13, 2000 satisfactorily addresses these comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, my name is Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, and with me is Joe Leuci, owner. We’ll be glad to answer any questions. Would you like me to walk you through what? MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. NACE-Okay. Real quick. The original site plan for this had the building down more opposite the entrance. When the owner constructed the building, he moved it up the hill a little bit. Staff identified the fact that it didn’t comply with the existing and asked for a submission of a plan to address where it was and make sure that all the site plan concerns were answered. In looking at it, the applicant has identified the area, a larger area that he would like to have available for parking, and also as his business has gotten going, he would like to add a 60 by 56 foot addition on the back of the building to accommodate a couple more repair bays. That’s it in a nutshell. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. NACE-No. Only address any questions you may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. ABBOTT-Not right yet, come back to me. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There was an attachment to this letter, a small attachment showing the proposed showroom and repair shop, and I guess the only thing I saw on that that was significant says remove existing water service and extend it to a new building. You know the one I’m talking about, Tom? MR. NACE-What this was, this was an attachment that addressed one of the Rist-Frost concerns, in the fact that the septic system was installed differently than what the original site plan had, okay. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t get that out of this, I guess. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, I think, encloses a copy of the septic system details as presented with the building permit is attached, and that’s what this is. This is simply out of the Building Department files, showing the fact that instead of expanding the old septic system, he installed a completely new septic system, and it consists of a septic tank and a drywell. That’s all that was for. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Okay. Now, in line with that, there’s a New York State Department of Health requirement, and I’ll read it to you, Tom, so that you see where I’m coming from on this. This is out of Table Two of Required Separation Distances from Wastewater System Components. It comes out of that New York State Department of Health book, and it says that any water service line under pressure, public water supply main or household service line or well to household service, etc., located within 10 feet of any absorption field, seepage pit, or sanitary privy, shall be installed inside a larger diameter water main to protect the potable water supply, and looking at the drawing, and seeing where this existing three quarter inch water service comes up, this is on the main drawing, not that one. You’ve got to go to your drawing revised June 23, 2000. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And you’ll find that on the bottom of that, right off Route 9, perpendicular to Route 9, comes an existing three quarter inch water service. You see that? Raise your hand up a little. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then that line proceeds on to the storage building and then goes off to, I guess it’s to the west or to the south, really, and then proceeds up and goes right on past that seepage pit. That seepage pit, there’s a five foot separation between the two of those. MR. NACE-Okay. To answer your question, what happened was that this plan was submitted prior to my gaining access to this out of the Department files. I knew there were drywells out here, and I had a general description of where they were. It turns out, after looking at the Building Department as built files, there’s one drywell. So the small sketch. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the one that’s currently on my drawing that’s five foot away. MR. NACE-Okay. The applicant informs me that this water service into the old building was abandoned, and a totally new water service was installed. MR. LEUCI-It starts approximately here, and comes right up here to the south side of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In other words, this drawing is incorrect? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. NACE-That can be corrected for record purposes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to make sure that, my suggestion was going to be to just move the seepage pit to the 10 foot separation area, to the 20 foot separation area. MR. NACE-I’ll make a note and we’ll correct the drawing. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that drawing has to be corrected. All right. Going back to the prior motion that was made, and that was made back on 26 January 1999, it said that the drain will be, in the repair shop, will be piped in to a holding tank, which will have a period clean out. The material will be hauled away to a plant that processes that type of material, and I guess my question is, where is the holding tank for the shop on this drawing? I don’t see it. MR. NACE-Okay. If you look on the as built sketch from the Building Department. MR. VOLLARO-This is going to be our main drawing, Tom? MR. NACE-I didn’t have access, at the time, to the as builts. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-But, again, I will be glad to put this on the final drawing, before sign off. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to know where that was, because it was in the last motion. MR. NACE-Okay. If you look at the back side of the building, the left hand side, back behind the septic tank, there’s a tank back there, with a grease separator in it, a grease oil separator and a dry well beyond it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s inside the building? MR. NACE-That’s outside. MR. VOLLARO-Because I see the septic system, and I see a small tank. You’re not referring to this tank? MR. NACE-No, the one in the parking. Here is the separator and the dry well beyond that. MR. MAC EWAN-Who did that drawing? MR. NACE-Whoever the Building Inspector was. MR. MAC EWAN-That was done by the Codes Department, that little eight and a half by eleven? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I was just wondering, in addition, there was a sketch showing the front view and the floor plan of the proposed building. I’m in the motion still, and the only way to identify that is the left hand corner is said to receive the letter from Laura Moore. There’ll be a new site plan issued with modifications, and to that site plan will be attached an elevation view of the building. I don’t see that here. That was part of the motion, that a new plan would be done with an elevation view. I don’t think I’ve seen that. MR. NACE-I think that was on one of the prior site plans. That was a small, very small sketch on the site plan. At this point, the building was already up. So we felt that there was no reason to provide that elevation anymore. MR. VOLLARO-This site plan looks like it’s had an iterative process to it from February 25, 1997 all the way to the present time. MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my last question is that your letter, Tom, of June 7 talks to 30 foot lighting th poles. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to refer that to Staff. We have been putting 20 foot poles, requirements on 20 foot poles on most applicants that come before us briefly, because that’s going to turn into the new Code, I understand, that the Chazen Companies are doing, and I was wondering how the Board felt. We’ve been imposing that requirement on some applicants, but I don’t know how the Board feels about imposing it. MR. STROUGH-Are you referring to the lights that are already up? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. NACE-Yes, these lights are already existing. MR. VOLLARO-They’re already, there are no new lights going in here? MR. NACE-No new lights proposed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That was my question, whether there were any new lights on here. MR. MAC EWAN-What lights are you referring to, specifically? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I was referring to any new lights that were going to go on to this site. I didn’t see any, but in Tom’s letter he referred to 30 foot lighting poles, and I didn’t know whether there were new poles planned to go into the site or not. MR. NACE-A lot of this submission was to address changes between the previously approved site plan and what was actually constructed on the site, to document what was constructed. MR. MAC EWAN-Stuff that was put up without this Board’s approval. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So the 30 foot light poles that are up were not part of the original approval, that I remember. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-How many of them do you have up there? MR. NACE-There are four, I believe, is that right? MR. LEUCI-Four. MR. MAC EWAN-This sort of stuff gets my dander up. Because how we go from a site plan that’s very clearly depicted, to drawings prepared by you guys, to something’s built that’s not even close to it. I’d like an explanation. MR. LEUCI-The reason we put the lights up is because I was getting break-in’s once a week. I can show you police reports from the Sheriff’s Department. The kids were coming into my lot. They were breaking in to the cars, stealing the radios, the “T” tops, slashing tires, stealing the rims off them, and that’s why I quickly constructed the lights. Although I haven’t used them, I just put dim night security lights on, so they would stop breaking in to my cars. MR. MAC EWAN-Why wouldn’t you want to come back to this Board at that time and ask for a modification to the site plan so that you could put up the lights, do things the right way? MR. LEUCI-I don’t know. I didn’t think it was that much of an issue. I only put up four lights. I did whatever I did in a moderate way, and I tried to stay within all the Building Codes here. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, unfortunately, that’s the wrong way. Do you have those police reports readily available? MR. LEUCI-I don’t have them here. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to have the Board get copies of them. Can you supply them to the Board, please? MR. LEUCI-I can go to the Sheriff’s Department and get them. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. I was finished, Craig. MR. METIVIER-I’m confused on parking. You don’t have any proposed new parking, although you have future parking? Is that correct? MR. NACE-Well, no, there is proposed new parking. MR. METIVIER-All these spaces are proposed new parking? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. NACE-Well, not all of them. Some of them are existing, and I think it delineates the area of existing gravel parking and the proposed parking. The existing parking is here, across to here, and back to here, and the proposed would be this area in here, and a little bit back here. MR. METIVIER-So you’ve moved more gravel back? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. ABBOTT-The previous resolution held you to 39 units for display areas and automobiles for sale shall not be parked in the green space, spaces or green areas. So I would assume we would have to change that in this resolution, if he’s asking for more than 39? MR. MAC EWAN-There’s nothing that says you have to give it to him. MR. ABBOTT-No, but how many. MR. NACE-Yes, that’s what we’ve asked, I think in the original submittal letter it delineates how many spaces are being presently requested. MR. METIVIER-I did see 130 spaces in all, and I was just wondering if that is excessive. Do you feel you need 130 spaces? MR. LEUCI-I feel since I put up the building business has increased tremendously, okay. I need more parking area, for customer parking, for repair parking, and for order display parking. I left plenty of green space throughout the front of the building lot, and I don’t feel I’m asking for anything that any other dealership doesn’t have. Driving up and down Quaker Road, there’s not an inch of green space that’s fully, it’s fully black topped for parking, and I need some more parking area. So that’s what I’m asking for. MR. METIVIER-And is it going to remain gravel? MR. LEUCI-It possibly would be black topped in the future. For now, I just want gravel. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MR. NACE-The drainage has been analyzed as if it were paved. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. ABBOTT-Was there any breakdown of what was? MRS. MOORE-I have it. I have a letter that was dated June 7, from Nace Engineering, and it’s th item number three, he says with the proposed parking layout, there will be a total of 130 spaces. Of these 80 will be used for sale vehicles, 10 for employees, 10 for customers, and 30 for service vehicles. Is that sufficient. MR. ABBOTT-That’s fine. We’ll use that as reference in the motion, that’s fine. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. METIVIER-I’m all set. MR. STROUGH-The stormwater management plan seemed to work for me, the landscaping program appears to be effective, I mean, for what it is, it seems to be doing a good job there. Unless I hear anything from the public, but proposed building and parking additions, I didn’t see any major impacts. The permeability seemed to be acceptable. Now, I did have some other questions, though. It seems like there is a problem with maintenance of these drywells along the Round Pond Road. Do you have, who takes care of your landscaping? MR. LEUCI-I do. MR. STROUGH-So when you do your fall landscaping, or your spring landscaping, it would seem to be better if we could include the cleaning up of those, in the future, I guess there’s been a problem with those getting cluttered up there or something? MR. NACE-Yes. I think, yes, they got clogged up way back, shortly after they were constructed. At that point, there had been an erosion problem right at the corner of northwest corner of the property, before the grass got established on the bank in there, and a lot of the sediment washed 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) into those drywells, probably no more than six months after they were installed. So I don’t think that that’s going to be an ongoing problem once they’re cleaned out. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I know the four poles are there, and I don’t know what the Board is going to do. They’re currently 20 feet, right? MR. VOLLARO-They’re currently 30, but they’re there, have been there. I just wanted to make sure, when I spoke, that there weren’t any new poles going in. It wasn’t clear to me whether there were new poles going in. MR. STROUGH-Well, I did go up there at night, okay, just to make sure, I wanted to make sure if those lights were ample for security reasons, and for the most part, it seems to light up even your proposed expansion. I mean, minimally, but it’s lit, and rather than see additional lighting, I’m proposing that we leave them as they are, because they seem to be lighting just about the whole project, not much more than what’s being proposed. MR. ABBOTT-Are they cut off so they don’t come back toward Route 9? MR. STROUGH-I didn’t notice. I was more concerned to make sure that it was reaching. MR. NACE-They’re floods. They’re beamed floods so they, yes, they’re definitely well away from Route 9. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. STROUGH-So do you also find that the lighting is satisfactory to you? MR. LEUCI-It’s satisfactory. I don’t need anymore lights. MR. STROUGH-Okay. When is that storage building going to be removed? MR. LEUCI-Probably in the next phase of construction, when I start bringing the gravel in, things like that. MR. STROUGH-Which is? MR. LEUCI-Soon after we get approvals. Hopefully by the fall, by the end of summer or towards fall. MR. STROUGH-Within a year? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And I also have problems with the septic systems. I guess you and Bob worked it out. MR. NACE-It’s just not depicted correctly on my plan, and it will be before the plan is filed. MR. STROUGH-I’ll trust Bob on that. So, the capacity of the sewer. All right. The last thing that I have, I suppose when you go and do this expansion, that you’re going to put the dumpster in an appropriate site and you’re going to fence it in? MR. LEUCI-Yes, I will. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s it for me. MR. ABBOTT-Signs, any signs? MR. LEUCI-No new signs. I may, at a later date, put up a larger road sign, but that would be all, no new signs than what you see now. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. I think that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-I have a couple of questions for Staff. What kicked this site plan coming back to us? What initiated this coming back in for a modification? MRS. MOORE-I can read the letter that Craig Brown submitted, but my understanding is that the light poles and when Craig visited the site, he saw the light poles, understood that they weren’t part 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) of the site plan. That was part of it, and understood that the building wasn’t exactly the right, the location that was proposed on the original site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and why did Rist-Frost review this? MRS. MOORE-Because they had the original site plan, and we felt that because there were outstanding issues on the stormwater, we felt it was a better avenue to take to send it to Rist-Frost because they were familiar with the original project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are you repairing cars other than your own up there? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Not just cars that you plan on selling, but you’re doing off site repair? MR. LEUCI-Yes. I want to do off site repairs. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you remember that your original approval said that you couldn’t do that? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It frustrates me to no end. When this Board takes what we do seriously, in giving approvals to projects, and when people just, in my mind, in this case, just blatantly ignore those approvals. MR. LEUCI-I wasn’t blatantly ignoring approvals. MR. MAC EWAN-How could you not? Mr. Leuci, if we gave you an approval to repair and service, only automobiles you sold, prior to their sale, or as the resolution states very clearly, warranty work, and you’ve now instigated doing service for off street customers, people doing oil changes or whatever it is that you do up there, that’s not in accordance with the approval, what would you call it? MR. LEUCI-Businesses change. MR. MAC EWAN-Fine. We all realize businesses change, but then you need to come back in front of this Board and ask for a modification. MR. LEUCI-I’m here now asking to do off site repairs as well here, again. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Staff? MRS. MOORE-I just have a comment. Marilyn reviewed some of the lighting issues, and I just want to clarify that, I understand that there’s five light fixtures, or maybe Tom could take me through how many light fixtures are actually used on the light poles, because I understand there’s two, there’s one at one level, and then there’s a height, another, a different level. MR. NACE-Okay. Let me find my letter, because I wrote it directly after talking to the electrician that installed them. There are three 1,000 watt fixtures at the top of the pole, okay, that are only used for illumination during business hours, and then there are two 400 watt security fixtures lower down on the pole. So, yes, there are five. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not indicated on the site plan though, right? MR. NACE-Yes, they are. MR. MAC EWAN-I couldn’t find them on there, where are they? MR. NACE-The light fixtures? MR. VOLLARO-He’s got a light pole right here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. I’ve got them. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I would suggest adding the light detail of what it looks like, the elevation, that would be helpful. MR. NACE-Sure. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MRS. MOORE-And then my understanding is that the hours of operation, maybe you can tell me what the hours of operation are, because I forgot to ask those. MR. LEUCI-Hours of operation? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. LEUCI-I’m there probably seven days a week, but no later, Monday through Friday, the latest we stay open is like eight o’clock. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s from when to when? MR. LEUCI-Eight until eight. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t do any Saturday repairs or anything, half a day Saturday? MR. LEUCI-No. I’m open on Saturdays, but generally I don’t do any repairs on Saturdays, nor Sundays. MR. VOLLARO-Is that because your mechanic’s not there? MR. LEUCI-Yes, because the mechanic’s not there and everybody gets a break. The only department that’s open is the sales department for weekends. MRS. MOORE-I have a comment from Marilyn with the flood light wattage of 1,000. She has a comment that it appears extensive. Is there a possibility of lowering the wattage that’s involved, or is that flood light a standard? MR. NACE-I think they’re standard. MRS. MOORE-Okay. It was a comment because it appears extensive. I’ll let the Board make that determination. MR. VOLLARO-In order to comment on that, you’d have to see a lighting plan with some light dispersion and lumens on the ground in order to make that determination. Just to say that they’re too bright because they’re 1,000 watts doesn’t mean anything to me. I’d have to be on the ground to see what it looks like. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. NACE-And they are just during hours of operation. So they’d be winter time primarily. MR. VOLLARO-I’d have to sort of bow to, John apparently took the trouble to go up there and look to see whether or not, how they looked, and he seemed to think they were okay. MR. STROUGH-They seemed to be potent. I wouldn’t want to see any more. MR. VOLLARO-That they wouldn’t have to add additional lights with this new application. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. ABBOTT-So there’ll be no lights on the building, not even the proposed addition around the? MR. LEUCI-Whatever light’s already existing on the building. There’s a couple of outside dim lights, just for security and safety reasons, but I’ll be adding no other lights than what you see. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the proposed addition going to be utilized for? MR. LEUCI-Some storage, some repair. MR. MAC EWAN-Storage of what? MR. LEUCI-Mechanical parts and whatever I may need. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open the public hearing. If anyone wants to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOANNE BRAMLEY MRS. BRAMLEY-Good evening. My name is Joanne Bramley. I live on Twicwood Lane, and I’m here to represent the Twicwood Homeowners Association. I wonder if I could ask Mr. Nace to point out a few things on the map, for clarification. MR. MAC EWAN-How about you ask us, and then afterwards we’ll ask him? How’s that? MRS. BRAMLEY-Okay. I’m interested in knowing how far from the back of the property line the current building is and how far from the back of the property line the existing, or the new proposed addition is going to be, and the names of the property owners to the east and south of the Passarelli property. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll answer the question for you right now. 140 feet to the existing building, 81.4 feet to the proposed addition. MRS. BRAMLEY-I’m sorry, would you give that to me again? MR. MAC EWAN-140.5 feet to the existing building, and 81.4 feet to the proposed addition. MRS. BRAMLEY-Is there any notification necessary to neighbors for an addition? MR. MAC EWAN-No, this is a modification to the site plan. MRS. BRAMLEY-Okay. I’d like to know if there’s going to be any PA system involved. Did I understand that there was a site visit by the Board? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. BRAMLEY-And could I ask the Board if it was obvious to them the difference in the landscaping of the dental office to the south of this property and this property, in terms of, did anybody notice the difference between the fact that one is green and one brown? And I’m not trying to be funny. This property has looked atrocious for years, and it’s my understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, that initially, when the property was clear cut, there was a restriction put on the activity that could happen on that property for five years? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s subdivision. Subdivision Regulations say that if you clear cut a piece of property, you can’t subdivide that parcel for five years. That’s not site plan. MRS. BRAMLEY-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s two separate entities. MRS. BRAMLEY-But there was a clear violation there. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, which would prevent them from dividing that property up into thirds or halves and selling them off. They couldn’t do that for five years, no subdivision of the parcel. MRS. BRAMLEY-I have a real problem with this, because this is not Quaker Road, and I don’t think that this applicant is due anything that exists on Quaker Road because of what the car dealerships have on Quaker Road. This borders a residential neighborhood, and we are not interested in having the type of business that is apparently attracting the type of trouble that this business is attracting, with the number of break-ins and trespassing that is happening on this property. We have residents that live within 80 feet of this property, and I remember sitting here when Mr. Sutton was applying for his warehouse, and we were talking about lighting at night, and lighting on the back of the building that may be disturbing the Twicwood neighborhood, and he made the comment that he certainly had no problem turning off the lighting, after business hours, because we certainly didn’t live in any type of a, you know, that this was a minimal to non-existent crime type area. This business obviously is attracting the problems that we have never had bordering any of the current businesses on Route 9, and I think that is a real problem. I don’t care whether you have older people, younger people, wives with husbands that travel, I don’t care what the mix of your neighborhood is, this is not a desirable mix for this neighborhood, and if this addition is going to increase this type of business, then it’s going to increase this type of problem, in my opinion. I find the need for this kind of additional parking excessive. I’d like to know what percentage, exactly, of 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) the building is repair and what percentage is storage, and when Mr. Nace was speaking of the erosion problem that has existed there, I’m sorry, I don’t know how many years it’s been since, it apparently existed six months after the initial occupation of the last site plan, and it’s been ignored, and it seems to be the pattern here that the problems are ignored and violated until something else is wanted, and then there is compliance, and I don’t think that follows a pattern of someone who is considerate of the restrictions that are put on development by this Board and this Town, or the fact that they border a residential neighborhood. In the last two weeks, I’ve been awakened at three thirty and four thirty in the morning out of a dead sleep by trash pick up, the beeping of trash backing up. I’m not saying it’s coming from this property, but it’s coming from some Route 9 property, and these are the types of things that we have sat before this Board too many times, more times than I’d like to remember, talking about that’s happening to this neighborhood. I find this totally undesirable, and I don’t believe that the applicant gave a viable explanation for why he started repairing other cars. There doesn’t seem to be much, maybe remorse is too strong a word here for violations. It just seems to be, hey, my business changed, and this is what I need to do, worked for me, and I’m here to say that this does not work for our neighborhood, and I would strongly request that you would, at least on no other issue until these police reports can be reviewed and we can see just what types of things we’re talking about, and the type of frequency, that this not be approved tonight. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. PA systems? MR. LEUCI-No, not at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Percent of repair versus storage facility? MR. LEUCI-Probably about 75% repair, 25% storage. MR. RINGER-This is in the addition? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the purpose of reconstructing the berm? MR. NACE-Stormwater? Because of the additional area of pavement or gravel. We needed a little more storage volume in the berm, not a whole lot but a little bit. So, that’s the purpose. MR. MAC EWAN-Why are you extending the berm into the buffer zone? MR. NACE-There’s the buffer. The existing berm comes out through here. This berm? That’s already installed. That’s existing from previous construction. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that didn’t follow through the original site plan approval then either. MR. NACE-Yes, that did. MR. MAC EWAN-I defy you to come over and show it to me, because I’m looking at it. MR. NACE-It was on one of the previous site plans, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-There it is right there, the original one, and it’s nowhere near that buffer zone. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, then this is the field survey location of it. I have no idea why it’s, I’m trying to picture. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask a dumb question. Do they need to have a variance for that because it’s extending into a buffer zone? MRS. MOORE-Re-vegetating a buffer zone? Kind of a strange question. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, is a berm considered re-vegetating a buffer zone, for the purposes of controlling stormwater? MR. NACE-I think, I’d have to look in the field, Craig. The survey picked up the berm. This is getting up on that slope, and I can’t visualize, quite frankly, that the berm actually goes up that far up the slope, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re indicating it on your drawing that it does. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. NACE-I understand, and that’s, what I’m saying is that I’m not sure whether the survey accurately picked up that upper end or not. Okay. It would be worth looking at in the field, if that’s an issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Berm location, verify. MS. RADNER-The definition of Buffer Zone specifically includes an area that can be planted, re- graded, and/or fenced. So there’s no definite violation by virtue of re-grading in the buffer zone. MR. MAC EWAN-But it would be a violation if the original site plan approval clearly indicates that the berm is nowhere near a buffer zone, but this as built modification says that it’s in there. MS. RADNER-That could be. That’s a different issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff is looking for the lighting to be reduced. Is that what, not necessarily that you’re looking for it, but you’re inquiring as to maybe 1,000 watt pole lights are too intense, something less? MRS. MOORE-Too intense. There wasn’t enough information, as Bob Vollaro pointed out, of where the lumens were, and what we’ve seen in the past from other applicants. I don’t know whether that’s something the Board would like to review or not. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d like to just dwell on that last issue. The only way to make any sort of determination in this area is to look at a lighting plan. There’s no other way to make a determination, based on the fact that this is 1,000 watts. You either have a lighting plan or you don’t, or there’s some sort of light dispersion. MR. NACE-The lighting’s already installed, and I’ve done some looking at commercial lighting and the various aspects of it. It’s much more accurate to go out in the field and see what’s there installed, see what it looks like, than it is to look at a plan that has theoretical lumens on it. MR. VOLLARO-I tend to agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you looking for a plan, or are you satisfied? I’m hearing plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m saying the only way to make a determination for what Staff has looked into, Staff has a comment that 1,000 watts may seem excessive. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-In order to determine whether that is really excessive, and the lights go off onto Route 9, or worse, reflect back into the RR-3A zone, is to do a lighting plan to find out whether it does or it doesn’t, but if the only lights that I see are these pole lights out front here, we would probably be more concerned with how much light is dropping on Route 9. They’re a long way, and while Joanne was talking I was looking to see whether there were any lights on the back of these buildings, facing into the RR-3 zoning, and I don’t see any. So the only lighting impact that would be adverse would be that which was falling on Route 9, if it was. MR. NACE-Yes. I have looked at it. Those are floods that are aimed well away from Route 9, and there’s very little spillage, even close to Route 9. MR. VOLLARO-I guess what I’m saying, Craig, is that in the absence of a lighting plan to show exactly what’s happening, I don’t see any validity in the Staff’s comment. MR. MAC EWAN-I see the need for a lighting plan because Alan raised the issue, and I think it was well taken that a lighting plan also not only shows the intensity of the light, but also helps to document the site plan. So that if things should change down the road, we’d have something documented. MR. VOLLARO-For documentation purposes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m also seeing, you know, looking at this drawing, and through this discussion here tonight, that there’s several things that are either inaccurate with this site plan or not on the site plan, that have to be corrected. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s for sure. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. MAC EWAN-And frankly, I think I want to take another visit to this site. I’m interested in that buffer zone area, what’s up there, because I’m looking at this limits of clearing on this thing, and there’s some portions of it where they’re cleared right to the property line. MR. VOLLARO-Is there any vegetation in this 50 foot zone here, back here? MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to go and see. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what you want to look at? MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to go and see. I think that the water service needs to be indicated on the drawing, the septic location, a lighting detail, hours of operation need to be clarified, if you could put that in writing. I’m also very interested in seeing the Sheriff’s reports for the vandalism that he’s claimed that he has on the property. You need to show the holding tank. You need to verify where that berm is, and I’d like to go visit the site again. I don’t know how everybody else feels. MR. NACE-Craig, when you’re asking for a lighting plan, you’re asking for details, as Laura was asking for, of what lights are on the poles and an elevation of the pole, or are you looking for the lumen schedule that you can see the field? MR. VOLLARO-There’s only one way to answer her question, is to look for a lumen schedule on the ground. I don’t know of any other way to do that. Everything else is subjective. MR. MAC EWAN-To answer your question, I would want to see both of them, that detail what kind of lights you have, models, cut off and wattage, noted on the plan, and a lumen plan as well. MR. ABBOTT-My concern is with the proposed future parking, where we have the four spaces close to the rear berm, a lighting plan will tell us if you’re going to successfully, with what you’ve got there, illuminate those, all the way back to that point. What we wouldn’t want to happen is for you to go forward, get there, you start parking cars back there, and it’s too dark back there, and then you have to make a change to your light poles. MR. LEUCI-I could tell you right here and now, I won’t need any more lights. I have enough right now, and I will not be adding any more lights than what you see right there. I was very conservative in how I put them up, mostly it was for security, not for business, okay. Most of my business hours are done during daylight hours, and it’s only in the dead of winter when it gets dark early, that’s the only time that we’d really be using the lights, okay. For the most part it was put up for security. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? I just want to know if there’s support for my idea here or not. MR. RINGER-I think I’d like to take another look at it, too. MR. STROUGH-I’d go along with it. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to take another look at this. MR. MAC EWAN-Also to address these other issues as well. Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 JOSEPH LEUCI/MOUNTAIN SIDE AUTO, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: For the following reasons: One that the water service septic location, holding tank locations to be delineated on the site plan drawings; that the lighting detail and plan and lumination plan be added to this site plan; that the applicant clarify hours of operation in writing and also supply the Planning Board with Sheriff’s reports for vandalism or theft on his property; that the berm on the back portion of the parcel that’s indicated on the plan going into the buffer zone be verified, and for an opportunity for the Planning Board to revisit this site. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 46-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERT HUGHES/CLAIR HENSLER OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES MILLER ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: MANNIS ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE APPLICATION WAS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS, I.E. GRADING AS PER CONDITION OF AREA VARIANCE 8-1999 APPROVED ON 2/17/99. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 8-1999 (2/17/99), AV 29-2000 (4/21/00) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/00 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-42, 43 LOT SIZE: 0.52 AC., 0.60 AC. SECTION: 179-16 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CLAIR HENSLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-2000, Robert Hughes/Clair Hensler, Meeting Date: June 29, 2000 “The applicant proposes to construct a single-family dwelling that includes a substantial amount of earthwork. The Zoning Board of Appeals referred the application to the Planning Board for review as a condition of Area Variance 8-1999 approved on 2/17/99. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The site topography is unique with sloped areas. The development is proposed to be a phased construction. The first part of the development is installation of the driveway including slope stabilization and landscaping. The septic system would be installed for the house and the cabin. The final part of the development would be the construction of the house. The submission was forwarded to the engineer for review and comment.” MRS. MOORE-I’ll read C.T. Male’s comment, addressed to Chris Round, dated June 29, 2000 “We are in receipt of the response letter of Miller and Associates dated June 23 related to the rd Hughes/Hensler residence. Their response letter also contained five parcel site plan drawings and details referring to the comments in our June 15 letter. Based on the information provided, our th comments were adequately addressed and we have no further items at this time.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. MS. HENSLER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. MILLER-My name’s Jim Miller. I’m a Landscape Architect, and I’m here with Clair Hensler and Dr. Robert Hughes, the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. MILLER-The proposal is construction of a single family house on a 1.2 acre lot. Right now the lot is undeveloped, with the exception of there’s a small stone cabin that, actually there’s two tax parcels that are being combined. There’s a small stone cabin that exists in this portion of the site. Also, there’s an existing right-of-way that parallels the shore, the gravel dirt road that some of the properties in this portion of Glen Lake have access to, for example the existing cabin right now, because of the topography, the only access to that cabin is by way of that access, and there’s an existing parking area at this portion of the site. The proposal is to construct a new house and maintain the existing cabin on the site. We were granted side yard setback. There’s, if some of you have visited the site, there is some rather unique topography on the site where an area to the ridge that ran through here and an area with, by some previous owners, was excavated out, and there was a bunch of actions that went on, and it was finally stabilized, and our proposal, in looking at how to best site the house, was to, because of the topography, pull the garage back and the house as tight as we could to the existing bank, and the garage is actually tucked into the side of the bank, and the reason to do that was then to, when we graded on the westerly side of the property, we wouldn’t have to disturb as much of that bank, if we could utilize as much of the property on the side, and the Zoning Board granted us that variance. The other, all the things on the site plan are pretty much driven by the topography. We want to develop as long and as sweeping a driveway as we can, but the site actually, the highest point, it comes up about 40 feet to the top of the hill and then goes down about 40 feet to the lake, and it’s about 25 feet in this area. So what we want to do is swing the driveway up around into the garage. We have about a 13% driveway in that area. There’s going to 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) be a new septic system back away from the lake in this area. This septic system is not only going to be for the new house, but it’s also going to be a new system for the cabin. Right now there’s an old system in this area. That’ll be removed, and a new line will be brought from a new septic tank into that system. So that will be taken back from the lake. Both structures use lake water, both the new residence and the existing cabin. There will be, as part of this application, there will be an access to the stone cabin from this driveway. The shaded area would be an asphalt walk, or an asphalt driveway, so that this portion that you see here that’s shaded actually provides a turnaround area, but also provides an access back to the cabin. The cabin is going to be just for seasonal use. So this driveway is just going to be lawn. It’s not going to be heavily used. So that’ll stay as a lawn area, but it’ll eliminate the need to drive cars down around and park at the lower level. If that’s being used, the parking could be accommodated at this side of the property. The main access down to the lake, there’s a walkway that comes around and connects also to this stone cabin, and a walkway and stairs that comes down to the lake. The house is a two story house with a middle section of the basement opens up toward the lake. The basement is unfinished, and they wanted to have access that way to bring, you know, boats or canoes or lake equipment, anything that they use at the lake, inside, and then there’d be a covered porch at the upper level. The existing shoreline and vegetation, everything is going to remain, with the exception of this area right in here will be lawn, and what gets disturbed in this area will be planted. To accommodate the driveways, the plan is to actually where this bank is here, to cut it back further to the west, and the shaded areas that we show are actually areas that are going to be replanted as natural areas. They’re about a three on one slope. They’ll be seeded and netting will be installed to prevent erosion. Also, we’ve indicated some hay bales and silt fence, and then these areas to be replanted with native plants, hemlocks and oaks and maples, that type of thing, and allow it to go back to the natural condition. So the only finished landscaped areas would be in the area by the driveway and immediately around the house. The storm drainage, the soils, the native soils are a good gravel, so we’re going to utilize eaves trenches, and stone trenches around the perimeter of the building that collect the roof water that runs off. There’s no gutters, and then now water drains down into Mannis Road. We’ll put stone infiltration trenches along the sides of the driveways, along both sides of the driveway to collect runoff from those paved areas, and with that, I guess I’ll just turn it back to the Board for any questions. MR. VOLLARO-All those septic lines are gravity? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-They’re all gravity going into the? MR. MILLER-Yes, it’s all gravity. MR. VOLLARO-On the small drawings that you supplied, you know, there were a whole bunch of drawings that were supplied because we needed clarification. MR. MILLER-Those changes are on this drawing also now, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-They’re on that drawing? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-Yes. Actually we made them to the full sized drawing and then just copied them so we could fax them to the engineer. MR. VOLLARO-It was an interesting piecing it all together. First of all, that 1250 gallon tank is really a 1,000 gallon tank, right? MR. MILLER-For the cabin, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-For the cabin, and then you had to move it away from that, to correspond to that, I guess? MR. MILLER-No, the tank that they talked about moving, we actually, in the original drawing was a 1250 gallon tank for the main residence. We didn’t have the adequate 10 foot separation from the building. So we moved that away. MR. VOLLARO-I have a note on my drawing that says where did it move to. I don’t see it. MR. MILLER-Well, it just shifted very slightly. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no way for me to know what you did with it. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. MILLER-Well, if you looked at the original plan that you had, the tank was sitting right in here, very close to the corner of the building, so we only had to slide it over about five feet. MR. VOLLARO-So it was at one time sitting perpendicular to the building. Is that what you’re saying? MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-Like so? MR. MILLER-Yes, that’s right. See, in here is where we didn’t have the 10 feet. We had about five feet. So we just pushed it over. MR. VOLLARO-So what you did is you pivoted it around to get more distance? You’re just making it. MR. MILLER-Well, we’ve got a little bit more than 10. The reason it turned was another question. He questioned, we had a drainage swale here and he questioned how much fill we had over the top of the pipe. So part of the reason for turning that was now we came over and we cross, we have about a foot more cover to come into that, to come under that swale. So it was a combination. We accomplished two things by doing that. We moved it over and then turned it to respond to those two comments. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you actually now have the minimum clearance requirement, that’s what you’re saying? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-The next question is, this four inch rigid insulation board. Is that what you’re using to prevent, to get down below frost, or to keep frost out? Because I know effluent doesn’t freeze like water does. MR. MILLER-That’s right, but because that was raised as an issue, we just put that in as a precaution. MR. VOLLARO-Because it is going to be pretty close to the surface. MR. MILLER-I think there’s a minimum of two foot of cover. MR. VOLLARO-Did I have another question in here somewhere? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, about the ditch. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He said that’s gravity, and do you know what the pitch of the pipe is? It’s a long run all the way from the 1,000 gallon tank out up next to the existing wall. MR. MILLER-Did you say the pitch of the pipe? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MILLER-Yes. We’ve got a fairly substantial pitch there, because it’ll follow the driveway going back there, and I think it’s about six percent or so, because the cabin, the elevation of the cabin is about 422, or 423, and the new house is 416. So the house itself, the floor elevation of the floor itself is like seven feet up. So actually there’s plenty of pitch coming out of that. I thought I made a math mistake there. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s all I had right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-The power line that runs across the, where is that going to run across? MR. MILLER-That’s just a telephone line, it’s my understanding, and you can see there’s a pole, it comes from a pole right here that’s on top of the hill, to the pole on this top of the hill. It’s going to come over the garage. You can see it on the plan. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. RINGER-It’s just the telephone? It looked like a big. MR. MILLER-Yes. You can see. MR. RINGER-Yes, well, if you say it’s a telephone line, I don’t have the same concerns. MR. MILLER-Okay. Yes, you can see it right here. So it just comes over this portion of the garage. MR. ABBOTT-Is it going to interfere with construction? MR. MILLER-No. It’s, the top of that hill is like elevation 450, and then the pole’s like 20 feet. So it’s up at elevation 470. The roof of the house is about, it’s substantially above the house, but what happened was back in the old days when they had the camps there, they just ran it the quickest way, but I guess there’s only a few other places further to the west, and it’s just telephone service to those. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Larry? MR. RINGER-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I have that same concern. I mean, when I first went to the site, was that line going across there, and boy that’s an awful big climb for just a telephone. MS. HENSLER-I did. I called both Niagara Mohawk and the telephone company, and they did both come up and look at the line and survey the pole, because behind the stone camp there’s an old pole, and I was concerned with it because the line behind the stone camp is very close to the ground, and both of them looked it over. They said that that is only telephone that runs between the others. Our service tower from Stonehaven actually comes in from the opposite direction, and so that is just telephone. MR. STROUGH-Okay. When you talked to the telephone people? MS. HENSLER-Yes, they said the same thing. MR. STROUGH-I know NiMo has a certain amount of feet you have to be away from that line, like 12 feet. MS. HENSLER-No, they said they didn’t have any problem with the line, and the only thing they said is in construction if there’s any problem with the pole that once we had site plan approval, then they could come and place a new pole if that was necessary, but basically that they would not do anything at all with the pole until we had site plan approval. MR. STROUGH-Where are you going to get your power from? Where is your pole located? MS. HENSLER-I’ll probably take the power from the Wards, from the other side. I don’t know, northeast. It’ll come from the other way. So I’ll probably take it that way and it’ll come right into my garage. That’s what I’m hoping. Because there is service there. My neighbor, his is the end. He’s got a pole on his property, and that’s where NiMo ends, and there’s just no power going over that particular lot. It’s two separate feeds. I could feed from either side, but I’d rather bring it into the back of my house than go across the front. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m relieved to hear that. My other question was I see on your plat that you plan on keeping a lot of native trees, especially, and I must say some nice looking, beautiful hemlocks, and I was glad to see that you’re going to keep those, because some of them, as beautiful as they are, do obstruct your view, and will. MS. HENSLER-Actually, we have some in front of our stone camp, and I don’t mind looking through a few of them. MR. STROUGH-I appreciate that. Good luck. MS. HENSLER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. ABBOTT-My main concern was the trees along the lake. Like was just said, some of them partially obscure your view, and we were concerned that you would want to take those down, and I’m glad you don’t want to take those down. Jim, from the stairs that looks like they go down from the, next to the covered porch, the walkway next to the covered porch. MR. MILLER-Right here? MR. ABBOTT-Yes. What’s the grade on the lawn area, from the edge of the steps down to the existing gravel driveway? MR. MILLER-Well, it’s two feet, and about 10, so it’s about five percent, five to six percent. It’s a fairly gentle slope because we’re just grading up to the basement elevation there. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. So walking across the lawn isn’t like you’re walking down a steep slope? MR. MILLER-No, no, not at all. As a matter of fact, these retaining walls that you see, that’s the grade that’s coming down from the upper floor level, coming down the site. So what we’ve got is a retaining wall, stone retaining wall. That’s going to slope down with the grade. So it’ll come down from the upper level and slope down, but that lawn is a fairly gentle slope. MR. ABBOTT-Is that satellite dish staying? I don’t even think it’s yours, is it? MS. HENSLER-Yes, it is. MR. ABBOTT-That’s all I have. So it runs over to the cabin? MS. HENSLER-Yes. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MS. HENSLER-It’s just a little co-axial line laying across the ground. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. ABBOTT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. That gravity line that goes underneath the macadam, there’ll be two of them under there. Now how deep are they? There isn’t any load from automobiles. Are you using PVC? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Eighty or whatever. MR. MILLER-Forty. MR. VOLLARO-Forty. MR. MAC EWAN-The septic lines have to be four foot anyway, don’t they? MR. MILLER-No, they don’t, and they can be shallower than that, and they typically don’t freeze. These, I believe, we have about two foot down, but for precaution, that’s where we added the insulation. MR. VOLLARO-As long as you don’t ever have to dig them up, you’re in good shape. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. If anyone wants to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 46-2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT HUGHES/CLAIR HENSLER, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2000 ROBERT HUGHES/CLAIR HENSLER, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 46-2000, Robert Hughes/Clair Hensler for construction of a single family dwelling. The application was referred to the Planning Board for review of site improvements, i.e. grading as per condition of Area Variance No. 8-1999 approved on 2/17/99. Tax Map No. 40-1-42, 43; and WHEREAS, the above mentioned application, received 5/31/00, consists of the following: 1. Application, stormwater management report, maps SP-1, SP-2 dated 5/31/00 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/29/00 Staff Notes 2. 6/29/00 C.T. Male eng. review 3. 6/23/00 Miller Assoc. 4. 6/22/00 Notice of Public Hearing 5. 6/15/00 C.T. Male eng. review 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) 6. 6/9/00 C.T. Male from C. Round – transmittal of application materials 7. 6/8/00 Meeting notice 8. 4/21/00 ZBA resolutions and minutes for AV 29-2000 9. 4/17/00 From ZBA file – Warren Co. Request form for consolidation of tax map parcels and architectural drawing 10. 2/17/99 ZBA resolution WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 6/29/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved as per the resolution as prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. ROBERT HUGHES DR. HUGHES-Thanks very much. MS. HENSLER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I’ll announce now, if I didn’t announce before, that the Leo Lombardo application has been tabled, or withdrawn. SITE PLAN NO. 43-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED GEORGE GORE OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-3A, CEA LOCATION: 84 FITZGERALD ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A REVEGETATION PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON GLEN LAKE. THE PLAN INCLUDES REGRADING AND STABILIZATION. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR VEGETATION REMOVAL AND REVEGETATION WITHIN THIRTY-FIVE FEET OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 97-1999 (11/17/99) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/00 TAX MAP NO. 42-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: 4.92 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60B(1)(a)[1-5] GEORGE GORE, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to recuse myself from this application, and turn it over to Vice Chair, Mr. Ringer. STAFF INPUT 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 43-2000, George Gore, Meeting Date: June 29, 2000 “The applicant proposes to re-vegetate a portion of the property from Fitzgerald Road to Glen Lake. The applicant had performed some vegetation removal and grading that had caused concern about sedimentation into Glen Lake. The applicant was informed that site plan review would be required to improve the area. The applicant met with the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District to develop a grading/vegetation plan. The District developed a plan that identifies grading, type of vegetation, and limits of the area to be improved. The ordinance gives direction to the Board to have the District review plans and make recommendations (§ 179-60 B(1)[5]). The plan as designed addresses soil erosion and stabilization as defined for the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. The Board may want to consider implementing a time frame for completion of the project.” MR. RINGER-Good evening. MR. GORE-Good evening. MR. RINGER-Would you please identify yourself for the record. MR. GORE-My name is George Gore, the applicant. I’ll make one statement briefly. I know we’ve all heard the term or the saying that ignorance is no excuse for the law. I’m not here to plead ignorance. I’m here to apologize for the ignorance with regards to the unawareness on my part, the people I had employed, with the rule about 50 feet inside the lake frontage. I was not aware of that, and again, I apologize for the initial work that was done. As soon as we found out about the law, from Craig Brown, we ceased doing any work there, and proceeded to investigate what our options were, who to contact, and who I did contact was Mr. John Peck from Warren County Soil and Conservation, and since he is the expert, as far as the comments on the technical aspects of the re- vegetation of the site, I would naturally defer to him, but again, I want to express my regret for undertaking the project in the first place, unbeknownst to me, with regard to the 50 foot rule. MR. RINGER-Okay. I’d like to hear from Mr. Peck. Please identify yourself. JOHN PECK MR. PECK-I’m John Peck. I’m Senior District Technician with the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District. I also have an apology. I was unaware that my first sketch map was going to come before the Planning Board. So it did not meet your requirements, and that’s the reason for the second set of plans, which has, as far as I can tell, in conversations with Craig Brown and Chris Round and Laura Moore, should be sufficient to show you folks to scale what is planned to happen at the site, and because of the late hour, I’ll just entertain any questions or any explanation that you would like to describe what is planned at the site. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll start with John. MR. STROUGH-Well, I was unhappy to see the clearing, and you’re going to hear all that. On a positive note, I like, you’ve got a plan, and it’s erosion control, water control, replanting of vegetation, and I understand, Mr. Peck, you’re going to oversee the entire operation? MR. PECK-Actually, George Ryan, who is a member of our Board of Directors, got me, introduced me to the situation and the site. Mr. Ryan is in the business of doing the re-vegetation. He has a business on, a farm store. MR. STROUGH-Well, George Ryan’s going to do it, but I understand by your note that you’re going to oversee and make sure that it’s done right. MR. PECK-That’s correct. That was initially the way it was set up. I’m going on a once in a lifetime vacation, starting July 5. So Mr. Ryan will be doing the overseeing. th MR. STROUGH-And George Ryan works for Warren County Soil and Water Conservation? MR. PECK-He is on the Board of Directors. MR. GORE-May I just add, when we originally talked to the Zoning Board, and had a letter written to the Zoning Board, appointing John as site control individual, construction individual, this was back in the beginning of June, which, at that point in time, we were not aware, actually, I think it was late May, I wasn’t aware, personally, of his plans, and at the same time, another added comment is that we’ve been waiting with baited breath to get this project started for everybody’s sake, not only ours by my neighbor’s, and the whole lake’s sake, but we have a meeting set up, and George not only is a proprietor of a Farm to Market store on 149, but has extensive knowledge in erosion control, and planting, seeding, not only being involved as a professional, but also on the Board of Directors of 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) Warren County Soil Conservation, but John has directly instructed him with regards to his site plan, his intents, of what he would like done. MR. PECK-We also have a meeting of the applicant, his contractor, Mr. Ryan and myself to go over the plans in detail, tomorrow morning at eight o’clock, assuming. MR. GORE-That there’s approval. MR. PECK-That site plan is approved. MR. STROUGH-All right. I would just like to condition that, if we do give them, the willingness of George Ryan and the ability of George Ryan to oversee this, right? MR. PECK-He was here this evening and had to leave, due to the late hour. MR. GORE-I’ll tell you why he had to leave. He has personnel working up on the other side of the 50 foot area, in re-vegetation of the area on my property on the other side of the road, and I’m sure maybe you all have seen that, planting trees and those fellows, I talked to my wife right before we were scheduled, and my wife said that she had to go buy some bug spray because they lost about two pints of blood. So George had to leave. MR. STROUGH-All I’m saying is that if we vote to approve it, that we just condition it that we expect a letter from George Ryan saying that he is going to oversee the project. MR. GORE-No problem. MR. RINGER-Anything else, John? Alan? MR. ABBOTT-Just one Staff comment, the timeframe to complete the total project. MR. PECK-I had a discussion with Laura Moore this morning on the phone about that. The intention of Mr. Gore and George Ryan and his contractor is to do this as soon as possible, given the site plan review. The reason for the first plan was we had some immediacy. We wanted to try to get an erosion control plant called crown vetch planted there and transplanted, and that’s the reason for it not being to scale. So this, what I’m trying to get at is these folks have been trying to get at correcting this as soon as possible, and so I said to Laura, they’re going to do it by the middle to end of next week, given all things being okay. So we kind of talked about July 31. st MR. ABBOTT-If everybody’s happy with that, that’s fine. That’s all I had. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to get, George Ryan is on the Board of Directors of the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation, is that correct? MR. PECK-Yes, he is. MR. VOLLARO-Now, he is going to employ somebody to do this. Is he going to work for you? MR. GORE-Yes, he’s my contractor. MR. VOLLARO-He’s your contractor? MR.. PECK-He’s going to do the vegetation, installation of the vegetation, and he has another contractor, Bruce, I don’t know his last name. MR. GORE-(Lost word), he is the excavator. MR. PECK-It was Mr. Ryan that introduced me to the situation, because there was problems with, between Craig Brown on the Planning Board staff and what was going on in the field, and he said, well, why don’t we bring in the Soil and Water Conservation District because we have some expertise in that area, and so we tried to get Mr. Gore and the Planning Staff and the contractor looking all toward a solution, and this was the solution we came up with. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just trying to determine whether Warren County Soil and Water Conservation is in the contracting business or not. MR. PECK-No. Our role is to develop technical plans. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that I would understand. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. PECK-And our other role is oversight. MR. VOLLARO-So there’s no dollars going to transfer between you and Warren County Soil and Water? MR. PECK-No. MR. GORE-And as far as Mr. Ryan’s concerned, he is self-employed sub contractor with regards to landscaping. He happens to be on the Board of Warren County Soil and Water Conservation. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. To me it’s a strange relationship that people who are working for Warren County Soil and Water, or he’s just on the Board? MR. PECK-He’s a volunteer Board member. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, a volunteer Board member. So he’s not employed in any way by that group? MR. PECK-I’m the employee. MR. VOLLARO-You’re the employee. Okay. Now, I got that clear. So as such, he’s free to act as your contractor in this situation. MR. GORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any other questions, Larry, on that. MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve got a public hearing on this. So I’ll open up the public hearing, if anyone wishes to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CLAUDIA ZACK MRS. ZACK-Good evening. My name is Claudia Zack, and we’re adjacent to the Gore property on the left hand side, and we’re in favor, like a lot of residents on the lake, to have the job started and completed. So I’m here in favor of getting whatever he needs to get his job started. Okay. MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you very much. No one else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-Any other comments? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. Do we have to do a SEQRA? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it’s a Short Form. MR. PECK-Mr. Chairman, I have one additional. I didn’t want there to be any surprises to the Staff when they go out there to the site. Mr. Ryan informs me that the straw bale dike that’s indicated on the plans will change to a silt fence. So if we could make that change in your plans. MR. VOLLARO-Is this on plan map scale one to twenty, on the first, is that what we’re looking at? MR. PECK-Yes, that’s where it would be. It’s indicated right, just before the limits of grading, adjacent to the shoreline. MR. VOLLARO-It’s right above the word “Legend” on there. You have a copy of that. This is your drawing, John, of 6/15? MR. PECK-Right. That’s a rock wall. You want to follow that to the left until you find the letter’s S-B-D, and then there’s the indication of the straw bale dike. That’s an erosion control measure. That will be changed to a silt fence. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. PECK-And that particular detail comes out of the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control, which was provided to the applicant and to the Planning Board staff. MR. RINGER-If you can make those changes and make sure Staff has them so they’ve got the correction. MR. VOLLARO-This just a pen and ink change to the drawing? MR. PECK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-Anything else? MR. PECK-I don’t want Craig or Laura to go out there and see a silt fence instead of a straw bale dike and come back for another review. MR. RINGER-Very good. Laura, now we can do the SEQRA. MRS. MOORE-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. ABBOTT-No. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question on that. MR. RINGER-It would be, and we’re mitigating it with this. MR. ABBOTT-The project itself won’t have an effect. Not doing the project would have a negative effect. MR. RINGER-You’re right. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just wondering, I see all the drawings and all the slopes and everything. I took some time to read that and take a look at it, but just looking at the words “potential for erosion”, it’s still a fairly steep slope that you’re going to be dealing with there. I think what we’re doing could mitigate any problem that could happen on that site, as a result of that. MR. ABBOTT-The project itself is the mitigating factor. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. ABBOTT-I would say no. MR. METIVIER-So it would be a no, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-No? Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 43-2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GEORGE GORE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-We need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2000 GEORGE GORE, Introduced by Alan Abbott who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 43-2000, George Gore, for request of approval of a revegetation plan. P B review and approval is required for vegetation removal and revegetation within thirty-five feet of the shoreline. Cross Reference AV 97-1999 (11/17/99), Tax Map No. 42-1-1.3; and WHEREAS, the above mentioned application, received 5/25/00 , consists of the following: 1. Application w/attachments Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/29/00 Staff Notes 2. 6/22/00 Notice of Public Hearing 3. 6/16/00 Revised Info received prepared by J. Peck, Warren Co. Soil & Water Conservation District 4. 6/8/00 Meeting notice 5. 6/7/00 G. Gore from C. Round 6. 6/2/00 G. Gore from C. Round 7. 11/17/99 ZBA resolution WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 6/29/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA is necessary; and 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved as per resolution prepared by Staff with one notation on the plan map scale one to twenty, that the straw bale is being replaced with a silt fence, and the change will be submitted to Staff, and a letter from George Ryan that he has been contracted to perform this work, and that all work be completed by July 31, 2000. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. GORE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED FLR PARTNERSHIP OWNER: FLR PARTNERSHIP AGENT: R. MARK LEVACK ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 53-55 LUZERNE ROAD CRT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IS OCCUPYING 2,616 SQ. FT. OF THE BUILDING AS A CONSTRUCTION OFFICE. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 31-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/2000 TAX MAP NO. 118-1-4, 5.2 LOT SIZE: 4.362 AC. SECTION: 179-26 MARK LEVACK & FRED ALEXY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 38-2000, FLR Partnership, Meeting Date: June 29, 2000 “The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of an existing building to operate a construction office. The proposed use in light industrial zone requires site plan review and approval. The applicant proposes no exterior changes to the building or the site. There is no permanent storage of construction vehicles on site, an occasional backhoe may be stored overnight to be taken to a job site the next day. There is an existing storage trailer on site to accommodate small construction material. The office has four employees and no company vehicles. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan identifying the storage container, dumpster, CRT parking, and Encore parking. The revised plans also identify an area of “No-Parking” as identified during review of Site Plan 31-2000. If the applicant has not already done so, CRT Construction should obtain an application for a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LEVACK-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. LEVACK-You’re welcome. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us a little bit about this construction company. MR. LEVACK-CRT Construction, I think they’ve done about 65 Rite Aides in the area, a pretty organized construction company. They operate their business out of this office. They have four full time employees working out of the office. Their project materials and project equipment is off on project sites. They’re a pretty quiet operation there, all in all. You wouldn’t even know anybody was in the building. MR. MAC EWAN-They don’t seem to have a big traffic flow through there. MS. RADNER-Craig, before you continue, I think you want to get your speaker to identify himself for the record. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. LEVACK-Hi. Mark Levack from Levack Real Estate. MR. ALEXY-Fred Alexy, FLR Partnership MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize, thank you. They don’t seem to have a lot of traffic over there. It seems like maybe there’s only three or four cars there at any given time. Is this the same outfit that used to be over on Dix Avenue? MR. LEVACK-This is a fraction of the same outfit that used to be over on Dix Avenue. It used to be Contack Construction. MR. MAC EWAN-Contack, yes, because they did all the Rite Aid stores. MR. LEVACK-And there was a partnership split. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add? MR. LEVACK-I should add that they’re a tenant, and they’re not a long term tenant. They’re a one year tenant. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry? Tony? John? MR. STROUGH-No, I just wish they were all this easy. Fred, what’s the “FLR” stand for? MR. ALEXY-Fred, Leo, & Robert. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from Staff? Public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO-You didn’t ask me. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have any questions? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have any questions or comments? MRS. MOORE-No, we do not. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 38-2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: FLR PARTNERSHIP, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Two quick question, you said these guys are only in there for a year lease? MR. LEVACK-Right now it’s probably less than a year’s less, right, Fred? MR. ALEXY-Yes. I think May 1 is the anniversary date, as I recall. st MR. MAC EWAN-Please come to us before someone occupies it. MR. LEVACK-We will. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Second question, when the Industrial Park takes off, Veteran’s Park, down the street, do you have any intentions, down the road, of maybe wanting to hook into the sewer? I’m just curious to know. I’m looking at your septic system. MR. LEVACK-It would really be tenant driven or new owner driven. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, it would seem to me, would that make it more marketable, if it was? MR. LEVACK-If we know the capacities on the road, and we know what it costs to hook up, we can market that to the next buyer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I was just curious, that’s all. MR. LEVACK-Yes. We studied it. We actually had a high water user that looked at the building in the past, and we considered the feasibility of bringing it all the way up from Western Avenue to this site, and trying to get as many people to hook up on the way. MR. MAC EWAN-It will be a lot more cost effective when this industrial park takes off. MR. LEVACK-Yes. We see the advent of that park as helping the marketability of this property, and we see that as a positive process. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2000 FLR PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 38-2000, for FLR Partnership. CRT Construction is occupying a 2616 sq. ft .of the building for a construction office. New uses in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: SP 31-2000, Tax Map No. 118-1-4, 5.1; and WHEREAS, the above mentioned application, received 5/25/00 , consists of the following: 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) 1. Application w/map P-1 revised 5/31/00 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/29/00 Staff Notes 2. 6/26/00 Received – revised map 3. 6/22/00 Notice of Public Hearing 4. 6/14/00 Warren Co. PB - NCI 5. 6/8/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 6/29/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved for CRT Construction per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. LEVACK-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Good luck. MR. LEVACK-Have a nice night. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-What’s left of it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll welcome anyone who wants to introduce it. MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION FINDING THE DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK PROPOSED EXPANSION TO BE INCOMPLETE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PURPOSES, Introduced by Alan Abbott who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: As prepared by Staff. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury (“Planning Board”) received on May 30, 2000 a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Great Escape Theme Park, LLC/The Great Escape-Splashwater Kingdom, 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) WHEREAS, the Planning Board had previously issued a SEQRA Positive Declaration and on February 8, 2000 adopted a Scoping Document for the Great Escape Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), WHEREAS, Chazen Engineering and Land Surveying, Inc. (Chazen) was retained by the Planning Board to assist in the review of the DGEIS and has conducted its completeness review of the DGEIS, WHEREAS, Chazen prepared correspondence dated June 14, 2000 to Chris Round, Director of Community Development identifying those items omitted from the DGEIS or inadequately discussed for public review purposes, THEREFORE, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Great Escape Theme Park incomplete for public review purposes for the reasons identified in the June 14, 2000 correspondence as prepared by the Chazen Engineering and Land Surveying, Inc. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? MRS. MOORE-I have one other business. Sorry for the delay. I’ve had several potential applicants come in to the office and request if they could have a discussion item of a proposed project, and I have two of them currently, and I just was curious. MR. MAC EWAN-Give us a little bit more detail. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have one, if you’re familiar with the Church of the King, which is across from ACC, they’re proposing two things. Right now they’re proposing to have a temporary, or a permanent temporary tent for people to come in and visit the site, for almost like an Easter service, if you’re familiar with the, where they have people come from all over, and this involves close to 250 people, just sort of a dedication service, and it would potentially happen every year. MR. VOLLARO-It would be like a little Americade? Is that what you’re saying? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and they have adequate room on their site to accommodate parking, and they’ve proposed bathroom facilities and things like that. Their next proposal is to come in to build the actual church, and we’ve received information from them that shows us how big the church will be and how many parking spaces and things like that, and currently it appears to be adequate, but I want to know what the Board’s feeling is. It’s not, you haven’t typically done it in the past where you’ve held discussion items on proposed projects because sometimes the applicant gets into asking you to help design their project, and that’s Staff’s concern, and that’s one sense of it. The other sense is sometimes you want to have a preview of what someone’s going to bring in to give them additional guidance, similar to what we do for a PUD Site Plan, or a Sketch Plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, yes. We have done that with applicants in the past. MRS. MOORE-There’s some flexibility. I just wanted to get a feeling of the Board if they would go for something to that effect. MR. MAC EWAN-I suppose in the interest of being available to the public and wanting to start their projects off on the right foot, I can’t see it hurting to have them come in. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The other extent is that you get into extending your agendas to hear those items. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ll just have to see how it shakes out for the month of July, and if we have a chance to put them on in the month of July, great. If not, we’ll do them in August. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. RINGER-When we did this before, we had a public hearing with that. That was the church that wanted to go on to Montray Road. That was a discussion item. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MRS. MOORE-You’re correct. It was a discussion item, and we felt that it was important because there was so much, appeared to be public controversy, we felt it was important, at the Staff level, to notify the neighbors that we were going to have such a discussion item. So, again, I leave it up to the Board whether they want to hear that type of, if Staff determines that a public hearing should be held, if they would leave that up to Staff. MR. RINGER-How does Counsel feel about the Board meeting with a potential applicant without notice of any? MS. RADNER-Well, you’ve got to be careful in terms of, you can’t pre-approve a project or give somebody something that they can rely on. I mean, you had the evening start off with an attorney who stood here and basically said to you, why are you looking at this now? I’ve been pre-approved, basically, and you want to avoid those appearances. MR. RINGER-That’s why I’m asking the question. MS. RADNER-I think you would have to be very aware of that and very cautious not to give an impression you’re creating pre-approval. I think to have it for a discussion, particularly for the purpose of letting the public come forward and make their comments known so that you kind of know in advance what the issues are and can have them addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. I mean, as long as you make it very clear to them that in no way, shape or form, when they come in front of this Board, should they walk out of here with a consensus that they’re heading in the right direction or that, you know, this is what the Board’s looking for, or this is the sense, on the track toward an approved site plan. As long as they’re absolutely clear on that. What’s the other one? MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have another one. Well, maybe I have three things, but in regard, is the Board interested in seeing things that are seasonal permanent in nature, such as currently you review Wal-Mart’s display area. This subject, it’s a tent, it’s possibly going to happen every year. It’s possible it’s not going to happen every year. Is the Board interested in seeing that type of application? MR. METIVIER-We just had to do the produce stand. MRS. MOORE-Correct, you did. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not interested in seeing vegetable stands or Americade displays. That, to me, that should be an administrative thing. Maybe what you need to do is put a threshold. If your display, if your seasonal display exceeds X number of square feet, then it requires an appearance in front of the Planning Board. MRS. MOORE-Patrons, or potential patrons? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m looking at Heavy Commercial uses like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and places like that, but you’ve got a guy who has a vegetable stand that’s a tarp over a picnic table. MS. RADNER-Well, in the Wal-Mart/K-Mart situation, too, you had the situation where they’d come to you with a site plan that didn’t include these things, and so what they really were were. MRS. MOORE-Modifications. MS. RADNER-Right, where you’ve got somebody decides to put their picnic table in their front yard is a little bit different than Wal-Mart telling you, I’m not going to be using this area for anything but parking and then all of a sudden they’ve got bales of peat moss out there. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s the same for Americade. They come in every year. I think that ought to be a rubber stamp kind of thing. MR. STROUGH-Well, what we don’t want, though, is a guy with a picnic table and a tent over the top selling CD’s, right? MR. RINGER-They’d have to come to Staff to get an approval anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that’s right. MR. RINGER-You can’t have a vendor come into the Town and set up without a permit. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Transient Merchant Law. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it falls under that. MRS. MOORE-In regard to the church, this is their property. They’re doing a dedication service. Do you want to know that they’re going to potentially have 250 people there for, I think their project extends for three days? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. I would, because you’re looking at significant traffic. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at how you’re going to let 250, 300 people go potty. What are you going to do? MR. RINGER-Neighborhood concerns. MR. VOLLARO-I think that would also come under, I believe the Town Board of Health would want to get to look at that one, in terms of whether or not. MR. RINGER-They’re not going to have any sewers. They’re going to have port-a-potties, probably. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know, but still and all, they’d probably want to look at that, seriously. MRS. MOORE-I’ll just advise you of the other applicant that’s interested in having you take a look at his plans for discussion is an industrial zone where the Devine project was. Directly behind that an applicant would like to potentially put in a Light Industrial building to do light manufacturing. MR. MAC EWAN-Put in the building or take over the building? MRS. MOORE-No, he’s going to, there’s a parcel adjacent to K & R Supply. MR. MAC EWAN-To the east of it, there’s a vacant lot there. MRS. MOORE-Yes, he would potentially like to put something in. He’s provided enough information to say, you know, here’s the footprint, here’s the setbacks, here’s some drywells. He hasn’t performed elevation drawings or a stormwater management plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Why does he need to have a discussion item on that? MRS. MOORE-Because he’d like to know if he should spend the money to go further. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the wrong reason to come in here for. I’d say no to that one. MR. RINGER-Yes, I think Staff could help them with that and give them some. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody who shells out their 50 bucks it’s a crap shoot when they come in here. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So, you know, I don’t want to give anybody an idea, as a Planning Board, saying that, well, we embrace your idea, and then they walk out of here and we deny it, and, no. That’s the wrong reason, I think, to come in front of us. MRS. MOORE-Then I’m glad I mentioned it. MR. MAC EWAN-We did have one. Mega Save, we had a discussion item with them before they got off the ground. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No, I have nothing else. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ve got a couple. We’re going to have a workshop on July 12, in the th Conference Room. MR. ABBOTT-I’ll be I Florida. I’m leaving the 8. I’ll be back 16. thth 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) MR. RINGER-What time? MR. MAC EWAN-Seven o’clock, downstairs in the Conference Room, by Planning, July 12. It’s a th Wednesday. Site visits are the 15, 9 a.m. Hopefully a Town Van, out of the general pool, will be th available. MR. METIVIER-I won’t be able to attend on that day. MR. STROUGH-Craig, do you want the alternate to attend both of these, too? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-The subject of this meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-Two things, and feel free, if you guys want to talk about something above and beyond as well, call Staff and tell them you want that added to the agenda, but one thing we’re going to talk about is resolutions and preparing resolutions, and Mark is also going to give us a refresher on going through our EAF’s, which we seem to be having trouble with, as of late. I just think it would be good for us, because we have a couple of new members who haven’t had the luxury of having a Mark Schachner tutorial on SEQRA review. MR. VOLLARO-I go to his class at ACC. It’s great. MS. RADNER-I was surprised I wasn’t invited to this Workshop by Mr. Schachner, then. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s not fully aware of it yet. MRS. MOORE-Yes, he is. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he knows the date, but he doesn’t know what, he knows the date that he’s got to be there, but he actually doesn’t know why he’s got to be there yet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but he’s quick on his feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. He’ll pick it up after two or three hours, probably. MR. RINGER-Our meetings are the 18. th MR. MAC EWAN-And the 25, and I would hold out on the 27 if we should need it. How do the thth applications look coming in? MRS. MOORE-I have approximately 15 applications. MR. MAC EWAN-Two meetings. We tabled nothing. We’ve had nothing tabled out there. MR. ABBOTT-Yes, Mountainside. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s one. MRS. MOORE-Because it’s past the deadline, that’s August. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. He won’t be on in July. So we’re looking at two meetings, seven and a half each meeting. Still pencil the 27 as an alternate date if we should need it, but I doubt we will, unless th you want three meetings with five on each agenda. MR. RINGER-It just depends on what you’ve got. I’d do anything to avoid a midnight meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I make a motion we adjourn this thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/29/00) Craig MacEwan, Chairman 58