Loading...
2001-08-21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 2001 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER LARRY RINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-STENOGRAPHER MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open the meeting, and I’ll turn it over to Christopher. MR. ROUND-Yes. We wanted the opportunity, I’m Chris Round, for the public’s benefit, for the record, Community Development in the Town. We wanted to take a few minutes before the regular meeting started to talk to you about the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the status of that. You should have received a copy of the revised ordinance dated August 3. Tonight you should rd have received revised summary tables, and I think Maria handed those out to you. Those replace the tables that are in the Ordinance and they’re in the Citizen’s Guide that also should have been transmitted to you. There’s going to be a series of four informational meetings on the Ordinance. One is Thursday night here at the Town Center. That starts at 7 p.m. The next will be Wednesday the 29 at North Queensbury Firehouse. We’ll follow up in the first week of September, Thursday th September 6 at the South Queensbury Firehouse, and our last of the series of four meetings will be th September 11 at the West Glens Falls Firehouse, and they’re all at 7 p.m., and any and all of you are th invited. I know John Strough currently sits on our Steering Committee. He’s aware of that meeting schedule and is aware of the status of this, and I don’t know how much John has shared with you, but we’ve delivered, or Chazen delivered us an Ordinance in September of last year. We’ve been working, over the last nearly 11 months, revising the organization of that Ordinance, revising some of the content, not a lot of the substance, but refining the language. As you know, it’s a technical document, and changing a single word can influence the way a sentence reads or another Section of the Ordinance. So, we’ve been working on that for 11 months. The zoning map itself, there has been some confusion introduced into that, because as you know, the Town, or Warren County’s tax map base has changed. So all the parcel mapping for the entire Town has been revised, based on new standards that the State has, and based on improved mapping techniques. So nearly all the property boundaries within the Town have had minor adjustments. So that effects the overlying zoning. So we’ve had, spent a lot of time making sure that the zoning of old matches the zoning of new, and that any of the changes overlay the way they’re supposed to, but, so you have a new copy of the Ordinance, a new map in front of you. If you see any typographical errors as you review them, that’s what we want you to look for, any suggestions on content changes or if you’re not happy with any particular issue that’s been addressed, please let us know. All the changes that have been proposed in here are based on the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Steering Committee that was formed two years ago, to start on that task, provided additional input, and probably 90% of the time, the Steering Committee agreed with what was identified in the Comp Plan. If there wasn’t consensus reached, we did not make a change to the Zoning Ordinance. We do have available for you, and I don’t know, I apologize. Marilyn’s been handling the transmittals, but there is a summary of all the changes that were made from our last version. So it’s about a five page document. It’s an 8 and a half by 14 sheet, and it identifies an individual commentor’s concerns, and it identifies the location that we made that change. So if you don’t have that, please let me know, and we’ll make sure you have a copy of it. One of the things we did, in response to public comment, and our own internal concerns, that the organization of the Ordinance, there wasn’t a logical organizational set to this, and that it was not a readable Ordinance. So our revisions have been focused on that, make the Ordinance more readable. Make it easier to access the information, easier to find the information. So we took that a step further, and we developed what you should have is a Citizen’s Guide. The Citizen’s Guide is probably a six page document that summarizes the organization of the Ordinance, where you would go to find a particular piece of information about a particular subject matter, and then it goes the next step and it says, well, what are the most frequently accessed, or the frequently asked questions, you know, what’s my property zoned, what can I do on my property, you know, what other requirements do I need to know about zoning that affect my property. We put that in a brief document, and tried to make that presentable and readable to any individual, and that will be 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) handed out to anybody that asks for a copy of that. What we propose to do is when somebody comes in and has an informational inquiry or has a zoning question, we’ll provide them with a copy of the Citizen’s Guide. We’ll provide them with a copy of the zoning map, either, what we’re proposing to do is break it down into three sections, so that the parcel base gets much larger than it is in this current format. So this would be, relatively, you’d see the parcels would be three times this size. So you can readily identify your property and what it’s zoned. So we can give them that information, and then we do have a series of 13 brochures, and if you have a suggestion for another brochure, we have a series of 13 brochures that we’re trying to, in two pages or less, present concise information on a subject matter. The three that we have done and completed to date are, we have one on mobile homes. People often ask questions on what are the mobile home permitting requirements? Where can I place a mobile home? I have an existing mobile home. What do I have to do to redevelop my mobile home? Can I put a mobile home outside of a mobile home park? So we’ve tried to take a subject matter like mobile homes, answer the questions that are most commonly asked, and be able to give that to somebody, when they walk out the door, rather than rely on verbal communication. We’ve done that with some of the new areas that are being addressed in the Zoning Ordinance, such as commercial design guidelines. Those are brand new to the Town of Queensbury, and so people are going to have a lot of questions about Commercial Design Guidelines. So we’ll have a brochure about that. We’ll have them about the site plan review process, the building permit process. We get a lot of questions about fences, accessory structures, docks. We’ll have one developed, Bruce Frank here, I know that you’ve all met Bruce, our new Code Compliance Officer. Bruce has been helping us develop those brochures. We, hopefully, will have, we don’t have them all yet complete, because we don’t have a finalized Ordinance. We did not want to develop the series of brochures, have a change to our Ordinance, and then have to revise the brochure. So we’ve got enough to show the public an example of what it is we’re trying to do with these informational brochures. So we think that goes a long way towards addressing the complexity of the Ordinance and not being able to gain information. One of the criticisms, or one of the comments that’s made is that in ’88 the Town was rezoned, and I didn’t know my property was rezoned. I think we can all think of one project on the Aviation Road where somebody said that they didn’t know it was going to be rezoned to residential use. We’re trying to avoid that in the future. So we have this series of four informational meetings that we’ll be conducting. We have a copy of the Ordinance and a copy of the map on the Web. If it’s not up tonight, it will be up before the week’s end. We are mailing the Town Report that you’ve seen go out, we’re mailing a copy of the Town Report to everybody in the Town, and we will have four pages dedicated to the revisions, what are the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. What I have here, and I apologize, it’s in a smaller fashion. What we’ve tried to do is identified, there are only a limited number of zoning district changes, or where new zones have been developed or where an existing zone, the listing of uses has changed. For instance, the Highway Commercial zone’s gone from, it’s a straight Highway Commercial to Highway Commercial Intensive and Highway Commercial Moderate, and the moderate means that we’ve eliminated some of the allowed uses in Highway Commercial zones. So that’s what I mean when we’ve changed an existing zone. So what we’ve identified, we’ve identified those on two pages, and you can’t, I can’t show you them. They’re still in the development stage, but the newsletter will go out, and it will identify those areas of Town where the change is made. It will provide a brief narrative of what the changes are. So that if you’re property owner, and you read the newsletter, you’re going to know that either there is or is not an impact, or a zoning change for your property. We thought this was a better way to do it, rather than to mail out, I mean, this will go to every property owner in the Town. It will go out on the Web. So we’re trying to do everything we can to reach out to everybody, within reason. We’ve provided a listing of the summary of changes, and tried to describe, generically, what are those changes. We’ll have, if you have a question, we’ll be handing these out at the workshops, and so if somebody notices that there’s a change, they can then make an inquiry to our Staff, and find out what’s some more detail on that. So we’re really trying to reach out, in several different fashions, with the media. You saw an newspaper article on August 16, I believe it was, last week. This th newsletter, the Website, informational meetings. So we’re doing our best to make sure that everybody’s informed of what the changes are. We are going to have comments on the Ordinance. We hope to, after a series of four informational meetings, and any comment, written comment we receive, any oral comment, we’ll catalogue that comment. Planning Staff is going to develop a response to that comment. We’re going to share that with the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee may chime in with the identical response or may differ. We’ve had, as of late, we’ve had differences of opinion in the Steering Committee on the direction we should go with the revision of the Ordinance, and as you know, it’s very difficult to reach unanimity, let alone, or consensus, let alone unanimity. So we’re having a difficult time, on some issues, to reach consensus. So we’re going to prepare a responsiveness document. Here are the issues that have been identified. Here’s what we feel are some proposed responses, and we’re going to share that with the Town Board, when they look at adopting the Ordinance, okay, well, we’re not comfortable, one of the things I know that’s going to be debated, is we have proposed a limit on the building size on Route 9, the area north of Quaker Road, north on Route 9, all the way to the extent of the Highway Commercial zone, which is all the way up to 149. West side is proposed to be Highway Commercial Intensive, east side, Highway Commercial Moderate, and the Highway Commercial zone, both sides, we propose to limit building size to 40,000 square feet, to limit the growth of big boxes north, to limit the growth of big boxes outside of our Quaker Road corridor. The Steering Committee felt that was 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) an appropriate means to limit the growth of big boxes in the Town of Queensbury. Route 9 already has some existing traffic issues that we’re just starting to deal with, with The Great Escape improvements, and we don’t want to further aggravate those problems. We know we’re going to have a debate about that issue when it comes time for public hearing. So we’re prepared to put forth the reasons why we propose these things. It’s going to be important that we develop support in the community, Planning Board members such as yourselves, the public, for some issues that are going to affect individuals, but might have an a significant long term improvement and benefit to the community. So if you have any questions, if you’d please attend an informational meeting. We’ll get you copies of everything we’ve talked about tonight. Come to an informational meeting. They’re going to be very loose in format. There will be a brief presentation, like tonight, with the aid of the maps, with the informational drawings that you saw at last year’s meeting, and then we’ll try to field questions from the public, one on one with our Staff people and with the Ordinance in hand. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer anything about the process. We’re hoping to adopt this Ordinance before the end of the year. I know some people have said that’s a pretty aggressive schedule. Well, we’ve been working on this for a very long time. We think it’s a very good Ordinance. It’s not going to address every issue that affects the Town, but a Zoning Ordinance doesn’t address every issue that affects the Town. So, John, I don’t know if there’s anything you want to add from your viewpoint from the Steering Committee? MR. STROUGH-Well, I just didn’t know if, for example, that what’s going out to the public has been updated so that the public can deal with it appropriately. For example, there was some discussion of a parcel of property, I think it was on the corner of Potter Road and West Mountain Road, and it was zoned in line with the watershed property, where someone on the Committee felt that maybe a one acre residential zoning would be more appropriate. Has it been updated in that manner? MR. ROUND-The map has not. We’re at a point where we’ve got to freeze the information that we have, because we can’t continually incrementally make the changes. What we’ll do is we’ll catalogue that and identify that as a change that’s proposed, and then before we go to public hearing, those kind of things will be brought back to the Steering Committee and then once we have all those, the public comment and the Steering Committee’s input, we’ll make those proposals in the official map would go to the Town Board. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that sounds good, Chris. My only concern was that. MR. ROUND-Some of those get lost. MR. STROUGH-Or somebody says, well, listen, I went to all four meetings, and no one discussed that that property be rezoned one acre, and now all of a sudden, you know, it seems to appear that way. At least if we start (lost word) if there is a problem with it, we’ll deal with it then rather than latter. MR. ROUND-That’s a good point. We’ll try to flag that during the informational meetings, that there is a proposal out there to do that, and it’ll be with a magic marker on the map because it’s been difficult to keep this map current, but that’s a good point. MR. STROUGH-But I agree with you. I’ve reviewed it pretty thoroughly, and I like the way we’re going with this new zoning. I think it addresses a lot of the problems that we’ve experienced in the past. It’s updated everything. It’s got some innovative planning ideas in it. I think it’s a great direction. MR. ROUND-Good. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? Thank you, sir. MR. ROUND-Back to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Back to me. Let’s roll right into our agenda, then. CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 19, 2001: NONE June 21, 2001: NONE June 26,2001: NONE July 11, 2001: NONE 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) July 17, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 19, JUNE 21, JUNE 26, JULY 11, AND JULY 17, 2001, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 16-2001 TYPE II ROBERT SUTLIFF PROPERTY OWNER: KATHY SALOMON ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 576 SQ. FT. SUNDECK OVER AN EXISTING E-SHAPED DOCK. COVERED BOATHOUSES IIN WR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. LGPC, APA, LG PARK CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/9/01, 8/8/01 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-31.1 LOT SIZE: 0.42 AC SECTION 179-60 KATHY SALOMON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 16-2001, Robert Sutliff, Meeting Date: August 15, 2001 “Project Description: The applicant was tabled at the previous month’s meeting pending re-review by the County Planning Board for relocation to the sundeck stairs. Site Overview The applicant’s revised drawings were forwarded to Warren County for re-review. The applicant’s drawings were revised from shore stairs (land bridge) access to the sundeck to deck stairs access to the sundeck. The Warren County Planning Board denied the original application due to the land bridge; this is a consistent recommendation with the Warren County Planning Board when reviewing Lake George related structures. The Planning Board recognized if they were to make a decision at the July meeting a supermajority would be required. The Planning Board reviewed these options with the applicant and the applicant had the application tabled pending a re-review by the County Planning Board. The Warren County Planning Board indicated the project was “No County Impact”.” MR. ROUND-The Warren County Planning Board did, indeed, review the project at its last meeting and indicated there was No County Impact. So that no longer has an impact on your voting requirements, as was the case at last month’s meeting. The stairs from the bridge have been revised to access the sundeck, and I think that was the sole change to the application at that point, and I think the applicant’s here and ready to talk to you about their minor revision to their project. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MRS. SALOMON-Yes. My name is Kathy Salomon. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to bring us up to speed on where we are on your project? MRS. SALOMON-Yes. We went to the County and were told it had no impact, and so we’re back here tonight to have a vote, or if you have anymore questions or anything else. MR. RINGER-Craig, maybe I can bring you up to date, since you weren’t at the meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. RINGER-The Sutliffs came before us last month, and we had a public hearing and public comment. No negative comment from the public, the speakers that we had had recommended, or were in favor of the project. However, when we came time, we did the SEQRA on it, and when it came time to pass a resolution to accept or deny, Laura brought it to our attention that the County had rejected the project because of the land bridge. Because we were short on the Board, Tony had excused himself, and that left us with five members. We needed all the votes on the Board to pass this, which would have meant unanimous. The reason the County rejected it, as I said, was the land 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) bridge, which had been taken out and a staircase had been put in. So I suggested to the Sutliffs that perhaps they may want to consider going back to the County, to get a County recommendation of approval, or no impact, to reduce their, take away the unanimous vote that was necessary on the Board. They decided to do so, and that’s what they did. It may have been, with the vote, that it might not have carried last month. So that just brings you up to date. Everything has been done. The public hearing was closed. We did the SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, we’ll start with you. Any questions, then? MR. RINGER-No, I have no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one, and it really has to do with Chris Round’s last talk on the Zoning Ordinance. Right now our Ordinance talks about measuring the height of a structure from the mean high water mark, and I’m going to make a case to you, and I’ll write it up, for changing the Ordinance to mean low, and I’ll document why it should be that way, and on this one here I’ll approve it because that’s what our Ordinance says now, and I don’t think that’s correct, and I’ll let you know why in some detail. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re all set with it. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? Abstained? Okay. Anything you wanted to add? MRS. SALOMON-No, he summed it up perfectly. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from Staff? MR. ROUND-No comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, then? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2001 ROBERT SUTLIFF, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 16-2001, Robert Sutliff for Kathy Salomon. Applicant has constructed a 576 sq. ft. sundeck over an existing E-shaped dock. Covered Boathouses in WR zones require Planning Board review and approval. Revised information has been submitted as requested by Planning Board resolution dated 5/29/01. Tax Map No. 9-1- 31.1, and WHEREAS, the application was received 4/25/00; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/13/01: 7/17 Planning Board resolution – Tabled 5/29 Planning Board resolution – Tabled 8/28 Staff Notes 8/8 Warren Co. Planning Board – re-reviewed - NCI 8/1 Meeting Notice 7/17 Staff Notes 6/20 New Info (Drawings) 5/29 Staff Notes 5/22 Notice of Public Hearing 5/9 Warren Co. Planning Board resolution 5/2 Meeting Notice 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 5/29/01, 7/17/01 and 8/21/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved as per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 21st day of August 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Strough ABSTAINED: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, folks. MR. RINGER-You’re all set. MRS. SALOMON-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Is someone here from Pyramid? MR. ROUND-I don’t see the crew here. MR. MAC EWAN-Is someone here from Getty? All right. Let’s move on to Getty. SITE PLAN NO. 23-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED GETTY PETROLEUM PROPERTY OWNER: GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC. AGENT: RONALD FORTUNE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF RIDGE RD. & RT. 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISING FACILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GETTY GAS STATION WITH CONVENIENCE STORE. NEW USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 39-2001, SV 40-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 TAX MAP NO. 27-3-7.22 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing has been left open and it will be open tonight. It’s been tabled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-2001, Getty Petroleum, Meeting Date: August 21, 2001 “Project Description: The applicant was tabled at the previous month’s meeting to address CT Male and Staff comments. The applicant was informed to obtain an engineering sign-off prior to Planning Board review of the project. Project Analysis (Section 179-38): Site Overview The applicant proposes a 2,000 square foot convenient store with fuel service for diesel and gasoline. The architectural drawing of the convenient store represents a one-story brick building with a cupola. The building will be red brick with white siding near the roofline. The canopies are to be red with an illuminated yellow strip. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) (Staff would discourage the internal illumination of the wall signs and the yellow strip on the canopy.). The applicant has met with the Beautification Committee who recommended a sprinkler system for landscaping maintenance. Staff confirmed the following with the applicant ?? Sheet A-2: two 250-watt shoebox fixtures (elevation drawing) would not be installed because there are four wall mounted light fixtures (LSI lighting proposal) to be installed under the eaves of the building. ?? Sheet LSI: four wall mounted light fixtures Labeled, as “C” are 175 watts each not 250 watts ?? Retaining wall detail: the applicant has submitted a separate detail sheet for the “verslok block” retaining wall ?? The free standing sign is to be 64 square feet Suggestions: Staff would suggest the following: ?? no internal illumination of the wall signs ?? no internal illumination of the diesel or gas canopy ?? reduce the number of vehicle canopy lights from 10 to 5 ?? ensure that all light fixtures have downward light with no lateral lens design ?? sprinkler system for lawn and landscaping care (As recommended by the Beautification Committee)” MR. ROUND-The project applicant was tabled. Most of the issues that were identified previously were engineering related, and they were instructed to get an engineering signoff from our consulting engineer, C.T. Male Associates. You have a copy of C.T. Male’s August 17 letter in front of you, th identifying several issues that they think are part, and I’ll read from their, “Based on the information provided, we feel that the applicant has addressed the principal items of concern. There are some minor drafting corrections that should be made prior to the zoning administrator signing the plans. These revisions are noted in the accompanying memo dated August 17, 2001.” Signed James Houston, Senior Civil Engineer C.T. Male. That’s Staff notes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. ROUND-I know Mr. Vollaro had several questions. Bob, would you like me to walk through those right now? MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we do this. Why don’t we hear the presentation from the applicant and then we’ll just let each member go with their questions, whether they ask them of you or the applicant. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. FORTUNE-Yes, good evening. My name is Ron Fortune. I’m representing Getty Petroleum at this location. I didn’t receive that write up. I don’t remember the reduction in lights, and I just. MR. ROUND-It’s dated the 21 from Laura Moore. Laura’s the Staff Planner that you’ve been st dealing with. Laura is on vacation this week. So it may have, I don’t know how it got dated, well, the meeting date’s today. I don’t have a date on the preparation. I can give you a copy. MR. FORTUNE-I’m just trying to respond to the number of lights, as far as the reduction. I know that we had another site plan showing it, and I’m not sure that the five, the reduction to five, that’s the main. Is this okay for me to be going at this point? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. FORTUNE-The typical canopy layout, L-1, is showing 10. Is that where, the 62, the front one, and reducing it to five? MR. ROUND-Yes. That’s a recommendation on her part. MR. FORTUNE-I have some difficulty with that, but I can go in later with that. That’s okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any time you want to delve into it. The floor is yours. MR. FORTUNE-Basically, our project as described has two canopies, showing two, we’re showing two entrances, one from 9 and the other one from Route 149. Our truck traffic pattern is shown by 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) the larger arrows, as a one way path, and then our regular customer travel path is two way on both exits, and we’re trying to separate that general car travel from the larger truck travel. It’s already there. We have one island that has two sides with access currently, and with this arrangement, what happens is that there’s actually two separate fueling points where a truck can have the two tanks, one on each side, and each spot allows both tanks to be filled without him moving or jockeying around or trying to decide. MR. VOLLARO-It would be easier if you took the mic and got up and pointed to what you’re talking about. So we can all follow what you’re train of thought is up there. MR. FORTUNE-Again, these arrows indicate the travel pattern of the trucks, and then right here would be one placement of a truck fueling point. Basically, here’s one fueling point with the master dispenser here, so that the individual can read the volume of product coming out on this side, the driver’s side of the vehicle, and there’s a slave portion of that same dispenser over on this side, where it can be fueling both sides of his truck. There’s no jockeying or indecision on his part as to where to cue, each one of these positions take that away, all right. So this one here does the same thing. He has a master and a slave. So he can fill each side of his tank. So it’s a very straightforward type of fueling, rather than the position of the one that’s here, where the trucks are filling on, or deciding, out in here, where they’re going to be filling, their right hand or left hand tank, and then going to one side or the other to fill up. So that will be taken away, again, and the flow of traffic, again, getting it off the road, back in here, and out, and then, with the regular car customer, currently, we’re in this general area. I don’t show this on this plan. In your package, there’s hidden lines underneath this future tank replacement location, is where the current customer for just the standard automobile, or your regular gas customer is, and those fueling points now changed to where they’d be right here, here and here, and then on the opposite side, the inboard side of these islands, or dispensers, and there’s three products of choice here, and this one here has a four product choice. We do have some cars where we don’t really want them to be fueling out in here. We want them in here. So this dispenser has a four product choice. Our parking is along here, along here, and along here. Employee parking is in here. A forty foot cut here, and a forty foot cut here, and our sign, freestanding sign, our lights, area lights, and they’ve been greatly reduced. There’s some area lights here, internally, no lights along this outside perimeter, or inside perimeter, and there’s a 50 foot buffer strip here, and then this 75 foot strip along here for the corridor, for a setback. Here’s our canopy this showing the one out in the front, absent of the Getty traditional logo that we have, and then this is the car island, basically, that’s, excuse me, this is the truck one right here, and then our building, again, a peaked roof. It was not our first choice, but we changed the roof styling from a year ago, and then the brick, the red brick, choosing that, at the wishes of this Board. The rest of the plans set technically I think our one outstanding item is the septic system. We’ve submitted today to the Health Department the revised septic plan package, and we believe that that’s pretty much straightforward. We have a Beautification stamp that we’ve gone through, and that’s the plan set, and their recommendation was to install the sprinkler. Basically, the interior, there is sit down. The interior of the store, there’s sit down provided. A ten door walk-in cooler, two entry doors, our cashier area where they have visibility for the trucks, and visibility for the cars. Our dumpster area, then a back door in this area here, public restrooms. The facility will have a fire suppression system on both and underneath these canopies up within the canopy deck, and then this area here will have a control for that, just in case of a fire. So it’ll be State of the Art. It’ll be to current reg’s, New York Building Code. The tanks are currently to remain. They’ll be upgraded from the top of the tank, with new piping, new submersibles, new sumps that sort of thing, and brand new piping up to the new dispenser locations. In the area defined, I think all the plans have the area as to where the slopes are, how the drainage will be taken care of, so, technically, through C.T. Male, I believe this is a design and a development that will work. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you address the lighting issue on the canopies? MR. FORTUNE-As far as the lighting, we usually have a standard of 400 watts under the canopies in the deck, and our reasoning is we have people there opening their wallets, getting out credit cards. We want a very safe environment, not only for our customer, but also for our attendant. We’ve reduced this, prior to this submittal, down to 250 watts. Basically reducing our light lumens. I think the maximum is somewhere around 51, if I’m not mistaken, in this general area. Again, it’s almost, I would say it’s a 40% reduction, compared to what we usually have, and we feel that if we reduce that now a half again, some of the general accepted tasks underneath that canopy, checking the oil, and again, trying to work safely around that area for safety, it’s critical for us to at least have what we’ve offered here, with the 10 lights under that area. MR. VOLLARO-Is the LSI drawing on that, the illumination drawing dated 7/11, is that your latest one? MR. FORTUNE-I believe so. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that shows zero lumens off the site. Is that correct? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. FORTUNE-I believe so, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORTUNE-Our interest is lighting in along here, our perimeter where our activity is, and then there’s some lighting here. We are a little deficient here, but again, there is some lighting along in here. That’s basically what’s represented on that LSI plan in my memory. MR. VOLLARO-What kind of fixtures are under the canopies? MR. FORTUNE-They are metal halide. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m really interested in, is there any side, are they straight down or are there any side illumination? MR. FORTUNE-In L-1 they would be noted, the type of fixture. They’re basically a boxed light with a very short side lens, where you wouldn’t get any splash at all, and that’s shown on L-1. MR. VOLLARO-It’s on L-1? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. Canopy Light Detail. It shows a two inch reveal on the side of each lamp, in the left hand lower corner. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see it. Okay. MR. FORTUNE-The box is eight, and the actual, the lens goes down to ten inches. MR. VOLLARO-I see that. I don’t see any side illumination on that box. MR. FORTUNE-The box, no. The lens there is a little bit. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I would just like you to give me a little, just a quick rendition on your part of the internal circulation on that site between trucks and cars. Just quickly go through a typical scenario of trucks and cars operating on that site with respect to internal circulation. MR. FORTUNE-Well, basically, anyone, any trucker that needs to, there’s signage here that says, you know, again, use the other exit, but our general traffic pattern for our truck traffic is this clockwise motion, one way. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s coming off 149, up north on. MR. FORTUNE-Route 9. MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s Ridge Road, 9L. MR. FORTUNE-9L. You’re turning in, and then this is the clockwise direction, one way traffic pattern. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORTUNE-And then any stacking will be out back in here, out back to here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORTUNE-Our customer travel coming in here, again, this is the throat for them. Here’s the curb cut here. Again, they would be traveling in and out here, and then this is the general travel in for them and out for them as well, and that’s it. It’s very simple. MR. VOLLARO-So I could be facing, if I was coming into your facility, I could come in off 149, and I could be looking at a truck coming right, coming out, I could be, if a truck had just finished cueing? MR. FORTUNE-Right, this is two way, yes, in and out, yes, for both cars and trucks. MR. STROUGH-No, that’s only one way for trucks. MR. FORTUNE-Excuse me, one way out for trucks, but cars have two way here. MR. VOLLARO-Cars can come in that entrance? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. FORTUNE-That’s right. MR. RINGER-And exit. MR. VOLLARO-Now, on the entrance off of 9L, that’s just an in for truck only? MR. FORTUNE-Right, but an exit and an entrance for cars. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know what’s confusing, the fact that you have that double arrow. It looks like that’s a two lane entrance for the trucks right there, but in reality it isn’t. MR. FORTUNE-Yes, right. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess I’m going to have to ask a question of Chris. Chris, there was a requirement, and I know that you’ve talked to several people since I’ve talked to you about this, but there was a requirement to take a look whether Scott Sopczyk, had a chance to look at this, as far as his operation was concerned? Did that ever happen? MR. ROUND-You’d asked whether the C.T. Male or Transportation Council had looked at on-site circulation. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. ROUND-I spoke to Jim Houston today, and he didn’t think that there were any concerns about, I mean, there’s adequate on site area for any kind of internal movements, and he didn’t see a conflict. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I know that was requested, however, and he said it was, he just sort of overrode that? MR. ROUND-Well, the engineers didn’t think there were any issues to address. You asked them to look at on-site access, or access, circulation on the site, he didn’t think there was an issue, or he didn’t suggest any changes to the site. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know. For me, personally, looking at it, it looks like there could be a good deal of congestion on that site. So I still have a problem with it, I think. Okay. I’ll go from the top of my list, and I’ll go through this rather quickly. You do intend to change, on Drawing S-5, where you’ve got the line going from the septic tank to the drain field, you’ve got the line labeled 2A, 305 linear feet and 280 linear feet. Which one is correct? MR. FORTUNE-Right now this plan before the Health Department, and we’re deciding on how to, with the grade change, we’re deciding on how to use a pump, whether it’s a two pump system or one pump system, to get over to where the septic system is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORTUNE-So the length is varied, and I don’t know what C.T. Male will come back with. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the set of drawings that we have on site plan don’t completely depict what you’re going to be doing. You’ve got something going in another design area to take a look at that? MR. FORTUNE-Well, what it is is that the, again, there’s a question of where the pump chamber will be on the site. As far as the distance that is listed, that is wrong, all right. They should be consistent. MR. VOLLARO-Right. There’s two descriptions of the linear footage there, and if that’s gone into a design change, I think that that’s, then we’re not approving these drawings. These drawings will be modified in the area of the septic design. Is that correct? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. The Health Department is reviewing with C.T. Male our last proposal for how they wanted, how C.T. Male wanted the actual pumping to take place, whether it was a two line pressure system with two pumps, and we were just willing to comply. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to caucus for a moment with the Chairman. Would that be part of our motion, that that be? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. MAC EWAN-If we were inclined to do a motion of approval, it would be contingent upon a DOH approval. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-Bob, to address your concerns, I spoke to Jim Houston in regards to, you had mentioned, it’s in regards to the septic system. I think C.T. Male indicated that they’re not in favor of using the alternating siphon dosing chambers, and if you have a pump system, the pump system would take the place, and if you’re using two pumps or a single pump and alternating which field that you’re dosing, a pump itself can do that. You don’t need a dosing chamber and a pump to do that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true. MR. ROUND-So they suggested just eliminate the dosing chamber, and just delete that off the drawing, and I think that’s what the notes say. So I think there’s a decision that has to be made on the part of the applicant, you know, what the linear feet of pipe. Jim Houston didn’t indicate that was a critical issue. It’s just it has to be whatever the Health Department and the applicant decide. That has to be identified on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s in his August 17, 2001 letter? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-In his attachment to, talking about Drawing TS-25. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Then he talks about the slope of the effluent pipe, etc., etc. Is that what you’re talking about? MR. ROUND-Yes. So that’s caused some conflict. So if you eliminate a dosing chamber, it changes your linear feet of pipe. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. I understand. MR. ROUND-The other issue you had identified is that originally when this project was proposed, the septic field was proposed as it is today, north/south orientation, and that is perpendicular to the slope. They had suggested early on, if you’re going to, why not reorient the east/west parallel with slope. That would eliminate the amount of earthwork or grading that you would have to do, and also the north/south orientation, the original didn’t identify a grading plan to accompany the septic layout. So, taken without a grading plan, it looked like the septic layout would have been exposed to the surface, based on that, so this submittal addresses that concern that you had identified earlier. Not necessarily to reorient the system. Just the grading plan had to accompany the system layout. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the orientation of the laterals can stay the way it is, as far as the drain field is concerned, but you’re going to change the grading over the top? MR. ROUND-Correct, and the grading plan that’s existing reflects that. So there’s no change, the grading plan that exists today does accommodate the septic system. There’s no grading plan change. It’s just the original submittal did not have a grading plan. This one does, and the current orientation is acceptable to C.T. Male, and the grading plan is acceptable. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Except that the drawings I look at have the laterals orthogonal to the grading. MR. ROUND-Well, they are north/south, but the grading does accommodate a septic system placement. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. As long as we get that into whatever we’re going to talk about. Now, I just wanted to get a confirmation of something, that the APA was notified on the relocation of the water disposal system? C.T. Male’s letter of 7/13/01, where C.T. Male talks about the APA being notified on the relocation of the wastewater disposal. If that was done, I have no question. I just want to confirm that that was done, because I didn’t see it in my packet. It’s C.T. Male’s 7/13/01 letter. As soon as I can raise it I’ll give it to you. Yes, it says, this is a letter from Edwards. It talks about. APA approval. Applicant references approval letter from APA dated 6/18/01 and the wastewater disposal system was relocated on the plans of 7/2/01. The APA should be made aware of this for their concurrence, and I just didn’t see an APA concurrence reply. If it’s in there, fine, but I didn’t see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Get back to us on that one? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. ROUND-I have a copy of that comment. The applicant has a copy of that comment. I don’t have any correspondence from the applicant in our files that the APA has been informed. So that is an issue that you have to address. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t see it. At least I didn’t have it in mine either. There was a drawing in here that Staff supplied, and I can’t locate it right now. Maybe you can, wait a minute, I do have it. Hold on. I think Staff, the remark was back in the Decker Company. I’m just curious on this. Staff sent out a copy of the lighting illumination plan and says please find enclosed 16 copies of the LSI computer generated lighting plan. Attached to this transmittal you’ll find an 11 by 17 copy of the plan with an area light in the back of the property that’s been circled. Is this area light that you were questioning during the conversation with Ron Fortune on this office today. I just didn’t understand what the meaning of this was from Staff. I just have a note here, let Staff clarify this, in case there was a question by Staff on that particular light, and it’s the light that. MR. ROUND-What’s the date of that transmittal, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-That letter of transmittal was dated 7/11, attention Laura Moore, from Getty Petroleum. MR. ROUND-I think Laura’s Staff notes reflect the current status of the review of the lighting plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just didn’t know what this was, and I made a comment on it, and I’m just going to let it go because I don’t know what it means. I’m not going to take a lot of time to find out. Just a note on the Fire Marshal’s letter. I guess that’ll be part of our documentation. So that’s okay. We’ve got to change the sign to 64 square feet, instead of 65. The sign now reads 64 square feet, at least the sign drawing that accompanies this. I think all that has to happen is that the sign has to be redesigned to fit the 64 square foot requirement. It’s got 65 on the bottom there. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. The one is, as far as interpretation, when we measured out the, just the lens of the light rather than the box, we came out with as little as 58 square feet, or if the Board desires that not to be the case, then the price sign box could be narrowed from the 58 dimension to a 55 dimension, and that would take care of that. MR. VOLLARO-You can redesign that slightly to get into the 64 envelope, I’m sure. That’s what you’re saying. It’s a pretty easy fix, right? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Along that issue with the sign, could we get you to hold those gas prices for a year? MR. VOLLARO-Not like that. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got? MR. VOLLARO-The four wall mounted lights, they’re 175 or are they 295, on the LSI drawing? MR. FORTUNE-I believe that was cleared up with a statement from Laura Moore. MR. VOLLARO-Is that 175? I believe it is. The drawings are still. MR. ROUND-They’re 175, not 250. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay. I think that ends mine. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a couple of questions. The propane gas tank that’s in the northeast corner of the lot, is that going or is that staying? MR. FORTUNE-That’s really the dealer’s, and he would have to come back for approval with the local Fire Marshal for that, but we’re not representing it anywhere on the plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I know, that’s what I’m concerned about, because if you’re talking big 18 wheelers are going in and out of there, is that in the proximity of where they’re going to be traveling to fuel up? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. FORTUNE-Well, those trucks are going in there now, not to be, but again, Getty Petroleum, it’s not their tank. It is the dealer’s, and he would have to, if he chose to sell propane, he would have to come in to the local Marshal for positioning of that and proper bollards and so on. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I understand what you’re saying, except we’re looking at this site plan, and there’s nowhere on this site plan that that propane gas tank is located, and it’s still going to be there, unless he comes in and is told about what you just, and is reminded of that, but right now, we’re looking at a site plan that doesn’t show that propane gas tank there, which really is there, and I have a problem with that. So, I don’t know how you can circumvent that. MR. FORTUNE-Well, during the construction, we will be removing it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You will be? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then that’s what I wanted to hear. All right. Because you didn’t say that. Okay. Next is, there’s a dumpster on the property right now. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That looks kind of shoddy, and it’s not fenced in. Will the new one be fenced in, because that’s really in a place where it’s going to be within view. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. The details show that it is enclosed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure, and what is on the southwest corner of the lot that looks like, I think you might have mentioned it, and I didn’t quite catch it. It looks like some kind of a tank or some kind of a structure that has the gasoline or something coming out of that I don’t see on the drawing now, and I was on the site yesterday. There’s something right there right now in the southwest corner of that site, and I don’t know what it is, but it’s not on the plan right now. So that would be removed, too, probably? MR. FORTUNE-I don’t really know what you’re talking about. You think it’s maybe an above ground kerosene oil tank? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. FORTUNE-Okay. Right now there’s a dispenser right here to take care of the kero, the alternate fuel, right here, and so that’ll clean up, and you’re saying it’s in this general area here? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. FORTUNE-This is, again, the current area of activity is somewhere in this general area only, and I think our curbing now is somewhere in here, and then there’s the existing foundation. There’s a concrete foundation up in here. So we’re not using, you know, but a small portion of the property. So this, again, the activity around here is awfully moved back and that particular, that tank will be underground, or a portion of one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, when the big trucks are coming from the, well, let’s say they’re coming from the east and they’re going west, okay. So they’re not allowed to turn into that first ingress right there. MR. FORTUNE-They’re not allowed to turn in here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So there’s going to be a sign there that says you have to go to the intersection and hang a right? MR. FORTUNE-Yes, Do Not Enter. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then the ones going east, there’ll be a sign right before they approach the intersection? Because how will they know, if they go through the intersection, how will they know they’re not allowed in the lower entrance if they weren’t told before they hit the intersection that they’re east bound? So I was wondering if there’ll be some kind of sign on Route 149 telling them? MR. FORTUNE-I think that basically they’ll get the, you know, they’ll get the message as to, again, the travel pattern of the site. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I travel that road all the time, and the traffic goes really fast there, and I can see many of them going past that and going, gee, and then they swing right in at the last minute, but I’m just saying, I’m there all the time. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. We had to establish some type of travel pattern, and we wanted to take and have a double entrance here, and we were not allowed to do that, which would have kept the car customer away from the truck traffic. We have that now, and with the activity that’s there at the site, I mean, it’s, with the truck traffic, it is a little, we feel that this is just so much better, and they jockey back and forth now, and we think this is more defined, and our regular customer, this creates a location for them and a defined area for them to go. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, in other words, if a car decides to exit on the Ridge Road? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And they’re going to have to, okay, and then there’s a big truck coming in, so, yes, so that car that’s coming out had better take a real good look to the left. Because that truck’s going to just barrel right in to just get off Route 9, just to go into the exit. I mean, usually when you’re entering some place, you don’t, well, you do look, of course, but you feel that that’s your right of way. MR. FORTUNE-It is a good line of sight there, like anywhere else, any other entrance, I don’t think that there’s really going to be a problem, and the activity that there’s now, it’s not like it’s, you know, it’s an intersection. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It will be, when you put this structure up, you’ll get a lot more activity. MR. FORTUNE-We hope. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what you want. MR. FORTUNE-We’re hoping. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I just appreciate all the efforts you’ve made to address the concerns from prior meetings. MR. FORTUNE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, it may have gotten by me, so I just want to go through it. Now, Staff says here it discourages internal illumination of the wall sign. I guess the signs on the building they would like to see not illuminated? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. We’re hoping that, the Getty Mart is channel letter, and the message on the building, we would like to have it internally illuminated. That’s our typical package. Whatever this Board chooses, I guess, is the way it’ll be. We’re hoping for at least the Getty Mart to be where those channel letters on the building would be able to be internally illuminated. As far as the, it’s just hard, with the style of building, to accent any lighting on that other, if we had more of an overhang, and we’re trying to keep the building as simple as we can, yet. MR. STROUGH-You would be willing to limit the sign’s internal illumination to just the Getty Mart area? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. This can be, the other building sign, this right here, we can indirectly light that, you know, it would be fine, but this, we’re hoping to keep this as our channel letters, internally illuminated, individual letters. MR. STROUGH-Now, is it usually that whole strip going under the eaves, is that usually all illuminated internally? MR. FORTUNE-No. The yellow band on the canopy is lit, but the building is not. As far as down lighting for the sidewalk, we try to have a little soffit lights, just enough to shed light on the sidewalk. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. STROUGH-So it’s traditional that the only internal illumination on the building sign is just the Getty Mart area that is above the entrance? MR. FORTUNE-Right, and then also we would normally light that other merchandising sign, internally, but in the interest of the Board, if they choose, or Staff, we’ll indirectly light that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now Staff also wondered if you could remove the yellow stripe on the canopy. MR. FORTUNE-I’m hoping that you would allow the yellow stripe. That’s kind of our signature, and we’re trying to limit it with taking the Getty off of the canopy. We’d just have the freestanding sign and the building Getty Mart as the two separate entities, and that over, I think the last time that I was here, they felt that I was over marketing the sign with the word “Getty”, and we got to this point. So when I came back, I just tried to keep it as close to that, from what we had discussed back then. MR. STROUGH-Did you agree to add a sprinkler system? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. That was not a, in fact Beautification basically required it, and we had no problem, at that time, with it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Have you ever used a cedar shingled roof in any of your gas stations? MR. FORTUNE-We tend to stay away from it. It’s just, you know, again, we try to keep, we’ll put an architectural shingle on there. MR. STROUGH-I see that, in an architectural gray color. I just thought I’d feel you out to see if you’ve ever used a cedar shingle before. MR. FORTUNE-We try to stay away from it. It’s a gas station. It’s, you know, fire, we try to keep, there’s a different fire rating on this stuff. This has been, I would hope that you wouldn’t ask that of us. We’ve been asked, sometimes, to put it on canopies. We avoid it. It’s not conducive to a gas station. MR. STROUGH-Well, I like the architectural shingle, but if you were comfortable with the cedar shingle, and you’ve used it before, I, personally, would rather go that way, but I hear your argument. MR. FORTUNE-And we would rather not. As a marketer of petroleum, we would rather not put the wood on the building. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So, basically, I’m right down to the last of what I have. I think that you basically have agreed, and I think maybe the other members of the Planning Board, that you will eliminate, or you will not eliminate, but you will limit your building’s internal illuminated signs to just the Getty Mart, as represented in those plans. MR. FORTUNE-Other than the freestanding sign. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m talking about building, just the attached, and you’ve also agreed to the sprinkler system? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m still concerned about the entrance. The way it’s designed now, it’s pretty much on the Ridge Road or 9L just a free for all. I mean, there’s nothing, no curb cut. It’s all wide open. If you have a big truck. MR. FORTUNE-Excuse me. Currently out there now it’s a free for all. Here we’re restricted to two, 40 foot cuts. Excuse me. MR. METIVIER-Yes, I know it, but I’m wondering how the trucks are going to come around onto 9L and swing in. Is that egress going to be big enough, or are you going to start running into problems with trucks having to back up and jimmy themselves into the facility? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. FORTUNE-Well, it’s our desire to have them wider, but, yes, they can make it. We’ve got a nice radius. Again, this has been reviewed by the State also. I chose, first, to have two driveways, and we had a plan that would work and was State approved, but what it was is that it was desired by the Town, in the previous submittal, to have the one cut on 9L. I wanted to separate the truck travel from the car customer, a recreational type customer, and just, we were trying, the Board was concerned about the distance from the intersection back, to make sure that we could get as much distance, and again, we’re maxed, as far as 9L is concerned. This one on here, I think it would be, if the other one was farther down, they wouldn’t be able to see the other entrance, and I think that would create more of a problem. I believe that we’re not going to have any trouble. Otherwise we’d be doing something different. I believe that a truck coming down 149 can see the other entrance, knowing that there’s no, he can’t enter that one. He’s going to choose the other way, and I believe that this is, there’s a nice travel pattern there. There’s plenty of room out front. If someone did get in there, they could get around to the back. We’re trying to discourage that, but it’s something where there is a turning radius in there for them to do it. MR. ROUND-Could I just comment on that as well, Tony? They are 40 foot wide entrances. Typical entrances are 20, for regular car traffic, 24 foot wide. So that allows, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Lowe’s truck entrance. You’re talking about between a 40 and a 50 foot wide entrance. Plus the radiuses, they’re not typical circular radius entrances. They do have a flare to them so that they have an effect of larger radius, and there was a traffic plan submitted to C.T. Male, Bob, that identified that the maneurvability on site, that t hey can meet those minimum truck radiuses. There are stipulations. There’s a certain truck chassis and they model it and they say, yes, can this turn on site, and those are demonstrated on the plans. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. We don’t want to build something that can’t be utilized, and the thing is we have our transporter in there. We have to make sure that they can function, and we believe that this is a workable compromise. MR. METIVIER-Is there any chance of switching your employee parking and your dumpster site? MR. FORTUNE-I think it’s more that this was pretty much where Staff and C.T. Male ended up with it. I don’t like it, either, but I think at the same time, for the dumpster truck to get in there, it was kind of tight for them, too, and then it just didn’t work. This was, you know, the dumpster, the truck can get in there and get out, and we’re just going to have to be good stewards to keep that closed up. We have two, basically two containers there. So we believe we can take the volume, and there’s no real excuse for us to have a cluttered area (lost word). MR. METIVIER-And you’re in complete agreement with the Beautification Committee’s recommendations? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Because that corner really does need to be cleaned up a little bit. MR. FORTUNE-Yes, definitely. MR. METIVIER-It really does. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I think your plan is much better than what you submitted before, and it looks really good. Cathy brought up the one question, and I’m really concerned about it myself. Trucks coming east on 149, how are they going to know that they’ve got to go up 9L to get gas? And I don’t think you answered that. I don’t know if there is an answer to it, but it is a concern. MR. FORTUNE-Yes, there is. They can’t go in there, and the thing is that they’ve missed it and they’re going to have to go to someplace else. They’re going to have to go up to Fort Ann. They missed it, and then the next time we’ll hope we’ll catch them on the way back. I don’t know what else to say. MR. RINGER-You hope that they’ll go to Fort Ann, or we hope they’ll go to Fort Ann. We hope they wont try to turn around or try to go in that next exit. I have a concern that they are going to go by it, unless we can somehow address it. MR. FORTUNE-I mean, short of putting a sign that says truck entrance, over on 9L, near where the light is, for someone at the light, whether they can see that through the landscaping, I have no idea, but I don’t see any other reason. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. RINGER-It is a concern, and Cathy brought it up. I hadn’t even thought about it until Cathy brought it up, but it could be a real problem. MR. FORTUNE-And our thing is that we tend to favor the truck travel, or any travel, on the side of the road that we’re on. That’s just a typical design criteria that we have to deal with, and we’re on this side of the road, and we’re addressing that issue. I mean, I’m not trying to be smug in how I’m answering you. I don’t mean that. MR. RINGER-I realize that, and I think you’ve done a great job, and it looks good, but when Cathy mentioned it and I started to think about it, it is a problem there. I see it being a potential problem. MR. STROUGH-Well, do you think adding signage on that corner, Larry, directing? MR. RINGER-I don’t have an answer for it, but I do think it’s a problem, and signage, anything would help. The one thing I wouldn’t want to see is them going by 9L and then trying to go in the second entrance, and that would create all kinds of problems inside there, you put an 18 wheeler in there. MR. FORTUNE-But the thing is they can get around to fix that problem. They can get around in there. It’s just that’s, you know, we’re not going to advertise that. We don’t want them in there the wrong way. Period. And even if I had the two curb cuts on 9L that I want, I would still have the same, I would still have that same problem, that does not fix that problem. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything else, other than that. It is a good design and it’s great and everything, but it is a concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Trucks heading westbound, will they be allowed to turn in on that entrance that’s on 149, or do you want them to circulate around off 9L as well? MR. RINGER-All the trucks go to 9L. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing goes in 149. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe, Chris, you can add a little bit of history. With the re-working of 149, is there going to be a center turning lane in that neck of the woods? MR. ROUND-Not in this area I don’t believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-How far up are they working 149? Is it inclusive of this area? MR. ROUND-It will affect this area, but most of the improvements are additional shoulder width, getting rid of some bad vertical and horizontal curves, but not anything to allow a center. MR. MAC EWAN-When they come to major intersections, are they reworking the intersections? MR. ROUND-I don’t have a fresh image of what the intersections look like in my mind, but I think the applicant consulted the. MR. SCHACHNER-I think they’re changing, proposing a change to geometry of Bay and 149, basically. If you think about that, it’s not a real good right angle. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-But as I recall, and I haven’t looked at the plan in a while, but I don’t recall any change in the configuration or the, to number of lanes at Ridge and 149, which is what we’re talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the concern I’m thinking of here is that if the trucks that are heading westbound, and they’re going to turn on 9L to use that 9L entrance. Is there enough of a radius on the current 9L, configuration for them to turn that corner? MR. ROUND-Yes. They’re well aware. 149 is a designated interstate truck route. I mean, that’s the purpose of the improvements is to help improve trucks. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that, but if they turn onto 9L, is there enough of a radius for them to swing a truck onto 9L without going into the other lane? MR. ROUND-Yes. All the intersections have to comply with that. They’re looking at the intersections themselves. I think the truck pattern behavior that everybody’s talking about, there’s 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) going to have to be, there’s a learning curve on the part of people visiting the site. I know we, at Lowe’s, Lowe’s has a separate truck entrance. They’ve been open for I don’t know how many years. Truck drivers are still using the entrance that is not a truck entrance, and they find out they get on and they’ve got to drive all the way over. So after they do that two or three times, they figure out, hey, there’s a nice 40 foot wide truck entrance just a little further north. I’ll get into that. So that’s not the best solution, but that’s just the way things are dealt with. MR. FORTUNE-One of the arguments that you use is that, you know, our return customer is going to know and find that this is a real efficient place with the way the dispensers are set up and, again, it’s to satisfy our current customer, and we believe that, again, that’s who we’re marketing to. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The only other question I had is regarding your illumination plan. When you said that that yellow stripe is illuminated on the canopy, is that figured into your illumination as well? MR. FORTUNE-Basically it’s just a translucent piece, and, no, it was not. Excuse me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How much of a difference would that make? MR. FORTUNE-I believe it’s just the translucent. It’s just for identifying that stripe and nothing more. There’s no down light to it. There’s no white portion of it that’s down lit. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it illuminated by fluorescent light behind it or something? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. FORTUNE-But it’s completely enclosed to that yellow. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. That’s all I had. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. FORTUNE-My concern over reducing the five lights, or the canopy lights from the 10 down to five. I feel that that would be an unsafe requirement. I think that’s the only thing that I have a concern about, per Staff. They wanted to reduce my 10, 250 watt lots from 10 down to 5. I don’t believe that we could read the dipstick reading, and then just the idea of the safety issue would be, I feel, an injustice to my customer. MR. VOLLARO-Does your illumination plan now reflect the 10, the way your illumination plan is set up now? MR. FORTUNE-Yes, it does. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what was the main reason that Staff wanted to reduce it, because there’s no residential area around it? MR. ROUND-I apologize. Laura’s been, she passed some things off to me, but I think the illumination plans proposed, they have effectively reduced the volume, the lighting of the site. It’s very difficult for us. We have a guideline that’s proposing, and proposing, I think, a 20 lumen on the ground. This exceeds the 20, that 20 guideline, but so do a lot of the other uses in the area. So, when we try to make judgements about lighting plans, you have to put it in context. So this is an improvement, and it probably will look very nice in comparison to, or very similar to what Stewarts has, which was produced several years ago, and I think that’s probably what Laura’s comment was directed at. Is there any way to further reduce the lighting volume, and I think one of the comments, also, was can we get rid of the side lenses. A lot of those lights, if you’re familiar with the Hess down the street here, they have, it’s a similar type of light fixture, and it’s commonly used in canopies, and they are, they’re a surface mounted light with small side lenses, and they do stand out a little bit more than a shoebox or a recessed light might. So I think John’s comments were directed at that. How do we further soften the lighting impacts on this while still handling the applicant’s concerns for safety, but I think they’ve done a reasonable, made a reasonable attempt at that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments? MR. METIVIER-Can I ask one more? And I apologize for this, but have you ever considered switching the direction of the arrows, so they come in off of 149, and they get back onto 149 through 9L? I mean, you have 40 feet there on 9L. That way you can have your entrance for people coming both ways. So there’s no question, no missing, and there’s enough room and a controlled light to get back on to where they want to go. I mean, is that a possibility? I just think, overall, the flow of vehicles coming both ways it would work better. Or am I still missing something? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. STROUGH-Have a two way entrance off of 149? MR. METIVIER-No, not two way. Actually, you could have a two way entrance off of 9L because of the width of it. So cars that want to come in can come in off of 9L, but as for the trucks, your filling station could come in off of 149, and then when they want to come back out, they come back out on 9L and then can go east or west. You have a light right there, which, you know, even on the busiest days, except for Americade, you have good ability to get out into the traffic with that light. Whereas, on 149, you really don’t. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you know what would be a problem on that? Sometimes the traffic that’s westbound is backed up as far as that entranceway. So if somebody wanted to, was going east and wanted to turn in, he could be blocked because of the traffic, the light is backed up, and also, now everybody has left the light, and they want to resume their speed, and then all of a sudden, 300 yards later, somebody’s at a dead stop waiting for the traffic to go by so he can go in that way. MR. RINGER-Good point. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that, to me, initially, it sounded good, but I think that would be an issue to look at, too, Tony. MR. FORTUNE-Preliminarily, we went through an awful lot of designs, and then it’s also, you have your engineering firm going through it, and I think we’ve come up with a compromise that, it’ll work there for the volume that’s there for us, for the intersection. MR. METIVIER-I think the problem is right now there is no problem. It works now. MR. FORTUNE-Again, we have an open, apparently you’re trying to control, you know, what we have there now with direction for width of, because it is open, and I don’t think there is going to be a problem, because there isn’t one now. This is more directed, with the curb cuts that are assigned and aligned. They’re farther away from the intersection. I think we’re doing a, the development is doing that intersection some favor. MR. STROUGH-And if you notice down the road some significant problems, we can always deal with that, too. I mean, you’ve made changes. MR. FORTUNE-I’m not sure what you’re. MR. STROUGH-I’m just saying if this traffic presents some major problems, with you or the traffic flow, we can readdress it. I mean, it’s not written in stone. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. It may be as simple as signing, somewhere, if there is an issue there, to get a truck entrance or something, a signed truck entrance, even at our freestanding sign, if that works with this Board, if it’s not working out there, if that’s, I don’t know, as far as analyzing it, we think that we have it servicing and designed for the right hand side of the road, and favoring that, our portion of what we need to be doing for that feed of that site. MR. VOLLARO-What kind of data do you have, in terms of ratios, trucks versus cars? What’s your experience at a Getty Station like that? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. I don’t have the sales slips to give you actuals on this. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking for something that you may have a gut feel for. MR. FORTUNE-We go usually by gallonage, and I know the gallonage is, I think it’s 40% of what the car. It’s been too long for me to have those numbers. I’m sorry. I can get those for this Board if you need them. MR. METIVIER-I’m willing to bet, from what I know of that intersection, there’s probably four to one, cars to trucks. MR. FORTUNE-It’s just that we get a volume on the, you know, one versus, one has 10 and the other one has 50 to 100. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute and we’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m just asking, does the site have a proven water source? MR. MAC EWAN-Good question. We’ll get it answered for you. MR. SALVADOR-My concern is that this facility will be operating a public water supply. I believe they said something about the convenience store having seating capacity. They will be using water to service restaurant type customers, and they’ll probably be required to get a permit from the State Health Department. We’re encouraged, as operator’s of public water supply, to, Number One, disinfect the water, or to keep it safe. Two, to conserve water, and believe me, sprinkling lawns is not an example of water conservation. There’s a requirement that they put a sprinkler system in. Is there a requirement that it be effective? And is that going to be in conflict with the other requirements they’re going to have to meet with regard to operating a public water supply? MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. I just had a concern, also, about the traffic flow and all and for what Tony had mentioned. My own concern is, I’m not concerned at about traffic coming off of 149 turning onto 9L. These truckers know how to drive, to turn. This is obviously a State highway. It has the right turns and all. My concern is coming back on to 149, and if a truck wants to go in the direction of Fort Ann, it would be more logical, to my way of thinking, that they came out at the traffic light at 149 from 9L and turned left there, rather than trying to get into going left onto 149 to Fort Ann, when, as Cathy says, a lot of times that traffic is blocked up there and they’re going to have to wait, and that, to me, I think, would be a hazard. That’s all I have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to come back up, Mr. Fortune. MR. FORTUNE-Where’s your source of water? MR. FORTUNE-I didn’t say. We have a well. The well is shown on our site plan. It was brought up in the notes that we were to basically get it below surface. Right there is the location of the well. The next item, as to the direction. If it was going, if we were changing the direction of this road, or travel path of clockwise versus counterclockwise, the issue would be the same here, on 9L, with them heading north. Another thing is that, with this traffic heading out to 149 and making a left turn, they are blocked in our traffic rather than in the road, for our internal. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we jump back to that well for a second? MR. FORTUNE-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Internally, are you going to filter your water? MR. FORTUNE-We have to provide potable water to the Health Department for serving coffee. So I’m sure we’ll be monitoring the well. MR. MAC EWAN-You didn’t answer my question. MR. FORTUNE-I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to be filtering your water at all? MR. FORTUNE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. What’s the requirements? Do you know? I mean, is there any kind of requirement as far as distance between a well to these storage tanks and stuff? MR. ROUND-The Department of Health will regulate water, public water supply. We don’t, the Town does not. Separation distance to? MR. MAC EWAN-From a well to where storage tanks would be, gas storage tanks, that sort of thing? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. ROUND-We don’t, locally. I’m sure the State has a standard. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think, just one other subject here. I think Mr. Salvador has a point. When we’re asking that well to provide water for lawns, automatic sprinkler systems, whether or not the amount of gallons per minute or the capacity of that well is capable of doing that. I don’t know. MR. ROUND-That’s something for the applicant to handle. I mean, if you made it a requirement or you didn’t, and the applicant wanted to install a system, he’d have to deal with that same issue, as far as whether his water supply is capable of doing that, but I guess to drive an additional well, or a single well, I mean, from a water conservation standpoint, I don’t think it’s an engineering issue. From a water conservation standpoint, it’s a broader issue. Do you want to be mandating that you use water for irrigation purposes? Is there a water conservation program on a regional basis? Do we have a water supply problem on a regional basis? And that’s not something we’re dealing with at a local level at this point. There hasn’t been an issue. I don’t know that you’re going to address it with this site plan. MR. STROUGH-Do you, offhand, know the capacity of the well? MR. FORTUNE-No, I do not have the capacity. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it becomes his problem, John, I guess, as Chris says, if they have to drive another well to satisfy the requirement for sprinkling, then that’s what they’ll have to do, either that or this well will be capable of maintaining enough flow to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are we on the issue of the APA? MR. ROUND-They had indicated, they have provided correspondence to the APA, or APA had provided us correspondence that said they’d reached a nonjurisdictional determination. They need to make sure that that’s consistent with that. I think the comment was that there had been some minor septic layout changes. The AP A made the nonjurisdictional determination based on the plans submitted to them previously. The applicant should make sure that that nonjurisdictional determination is still valid, based on the site plan that the Planning Board is approving, or entertaining for approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Chris, I couldn’t find if it was a Long or a Short Form. Do you know? MR. ROUND-There’s a Short Form. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought it was. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GETTY PETROLEUM, 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. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) 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 21 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2001 GETTY PETROLEUM, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No.23-2001, Decker & Co., Inc. for demolition of existing facility and construction of a new Getty Gas Station with convenience store. New uses in HC zones require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: AV 39-2001, SV 40-2001. Tax Map No. 27-3-7.22, and WHEREAS, the application was received 5/30/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/17/01: 8/21 Staff Notes 8/9 Getty response to CT Male letter of 8/3 8/9 Transmittal of revised to CT Male 8/8 Revised Information received 8/3 CT Male Associates engineering comments 8/6 New Info received 8/6 Beautification Comm. comments 8/3 CT Male Associates engineering comments 8/1 R. Fortune from L. Moore 8/1 Meeting Notice letter 7/30 L. Moore from C. Jones 7/30 M. Gosline from C. Round 7/26 C. Round from CT Male Associates – engineering comments 7/24 CT Male Associates engineering comments 7/17 Planning Board Resolution 7/17 Staff Notes 7/16 R. Fortune from L. Moore – staff notes (faxed) 7/13 CT Male Associates engineering comments 7/13 L. Moore from M. Ryba 7/11 Planning Office from R. Fortune – Lighting Plan 7/6 New Information received (revised application & maps) 7/6 Meeting Notice 6/26 Staff Notes includes SV 40-2001 ZBA resolution and AV 39-2001 ZBA resolution 6/25 Fax to R. Fortune from L. Moore 6/22 Public comment received from B. & S. Aronson 6/21 CT Male Associates engineering comment 6/20 Fax to J. Edwards from L. Moore 6/19 Notice of Public Hearing 6/18 R. Fortune from R. Quinn (APA) – Jurisdictional Determination 6/13 Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation 6/6 Meeting Notice 5/24 Pre-Application conference notes 5/16 Application received 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/26/01, 7/17/01 and 8/21/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved as per resolution prepared by Staff, and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the septic system will get the approval of the New York State Department of Health, C.T. Male, and the Adirondack Park Agency, only if applicable. 2. That the identified drafting corrections, as identified by the C.T. Male letter dated August 17, 2001, be made prior to the Zoning Administrator’s signing of the plans. 3. That the internal illumination of the wall signs will be limited to the illumination of the Getty Mart, as depicted on the plans. 4. That a sprinkler system will be installed for lawn and landscaping care. Duly adopted this 21st day of August 2001 by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-And, Larry, I didn’t know if you wanted to add signage to the freestanding sign directing truck traffic to the 9L entrance, or not? MR. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. STROUGH-Okay. No condition five, just the above four conditions. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. FORTUNE-Thank you, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MR. FORTUNE-Thank you for your time everyone. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2001 FEIS PYRAMID CO./AVIATION MALL PPOPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A +/- 125,000 SF GLA DEPARTMENT STORE ADDITION WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. ALL USES IN ESC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 1-98/SP 14-98 TB ACCEPTANCE OF FEIS; NOT KNOWN AT THIS DATE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/13/01, 7/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 98- 1-1, 98-1-2.1, 2.2, 5.1, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, 5.24, 5.25, 5.26, 5.27, 5.3, 98-5-4.1 LOT SIZE: 64.86 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-27.1 JON LAPPER. AND RUSS PITTENGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on June 19 was tabled. So it’s still open. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 21-2001, FEIS Pyramid Co./Aviation Mall, Meeting Date: August 21, 2001 “Project Description The applicant was tabled at the previous month’s meeting pending the acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the adoption of the Findings. The applicant proposes a 125,000 square feet department store addition to the north side of the existing mall. Project Analysis (Section 179-38): Site Overview The addition involves major renovations to the north side of the Mall; this includes removal of pavement, landscaping, adjustment to the drive pattern and parking layout. The lighting to the north of the building will be relocated; no new parking lights are anticipated. (The board may request if the sign, building, sidewalk, or landscaping will be lighted.). The parking lot lights to be relocated are 45 feet in height. (Staff would suggest the light poles be lowered to no more than 20 feet as suggested in the proposed zoning ordinance) The elevation drawings were provided with the Environmental Impact Statement. The building will be no higher than the existing Mall. The building may have architectural treatments that project above the main structure. (Since the tenant has not been revealed, the board may request the height of any architectural detail or details of any wall projected items. Staff would suggest any architectural treatments be consistent with the mall colors and style.) Traffic, Circulation, Parking The drawings indicate a change in traffic flow and parking arrangements to the site. The significant change is the parking arrangement to the new store entrance is perpendicular to the store. The majority of the mall parking is horizontal to the stores. The entrance and exit to Friendly’s is restricted to one internal access. The parking on the ring road has also been removed. The new department stores loading area has access to the ring road. Staff would suggest an alternate location for loading be provided so the ring road is not blocked at any time by Department store deliveries. The Environmental Impact Statement response to pedestrian/bicyclist indicates the primary goal is to accommodate vehicular traffic and the existing site does not promote or encourage pedestrians or bicyclist. However, there is an opportunity to add a sidewalk connection from the Aviation Road sidewalk to the northeast corner of the new department store. The re-arrangement of parking does include a proposed bus stop to the site. Staff would encourage the Planning Board to require the applicant obtain an arrangement with the Glens Falls or other Transit services to accommodate those without vehicles. In addition, this proposed bus stop area should be able to accommodate people loading, unloading, and waiting for bus services, this may also include an internal waiting area (i.e. some benches and refuse containers outside and inside the mall). The traffic analysis completed with the Environmental Impact Statement concluded there are impact to the Route 9 and 254 intersections. The applicant is required to pay a fee in lieu of mitigation toward Route 9 and 254 road improvements. The NYSDOT will be reviewing the site plan and may identify additional mitigation (i.e. signal coordination). Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The mall utilizes municipal water and sewer. Any improvements to these connections will be required to be inspected and approved by the Water and Wastewater Department. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that addresses the re-arrangement of green areas. The Environmental Impact Statement evaluated the stormwater with proposed conditions. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) The applicant has provided a landscape plan that only shows the planting plan for the immediate area associated with the proposed department store. The information provided indicates some of the proposed guidelines were achieved, memo to file landscape calculations 8/15/01. The site contains at least 17% green area (as indicated in the applicant’s site development data sheet) or 416,543 square feet of green area on the entire site (required is 48,402 square feet). The plans indicate there will be Austrian Pines and Honey Locust along Aviation Road in front of the new department store (as memo notes: 4 shade trees in landscape strip; a 3 foot high hedge or 18-40 inch berm; and then for exterior an additional 4 shade trees; the Honey Locust is not listed as a screen or shade tree) The Findings Statement indicates Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat is not located on Pyramid Mall property. The adjacent Niagara Mohawk property does contain some habitat areas that also accommodate the Pyramid Mall’s stormwater retention areas. Staff would recommend any landscaping maintenance debris be deposited in an appropriate manner, specifically not in the Niagara Mohawk right of way. Suggestions Staff would suggest the Board request the following: 1. Architectural details of the proposed addition including height, color, and style 2. Additional site detail for the proposed bus stop area including additional benches and waiting area 3. A pedestrian pathway from the Aviation Road sidewalk to the mall 4. All plantings to be 3 inch caliper or larger 5. A screening tree as identified in the proposed zoning ordinance should be chosen to replace the honey locust 6. All landscaping maintenance debris to be deposited in an appropriate manner, specifically not on the Niagara Mohawk property 7. An alternate location for loading be provided so the ring road is not blocked at any time by Department store deliveries” Attached is a copy of the Findings Statement to be adopted by the Planning Board. MR. ROUND-The Planning Board has seen this project previously. You do know that it’s a 125,000 square foot department store addition to the Aviation Mall. A portion of the 125,000 square foot is actually going to be within the existing building envelope that’s on the site. The project was subject to an Environmental Impact Statement. A Final Environmental Impact Statement was presented to this Board. The Town Board, as Lead Agency, accepted that Final EIS and accepted SEQRA Findings several weeks ago. You have a copy of those SEQRA Findings in front of you. The Planning Board itself has to adopt SEQRA Findings. The Findings that you have in front of you are identical, nearly identical, to the Town Board’s Findings. MR. RINGER-Chris, we do we have to also approve? MR. ROUND-All involved agencies have to adopt SEQRA Findings. So if you were, it’s a little bit reversed. Typically you folks are the Lead Agency and the Town Board has to adopt the Findings Statement. In this case, the Town Board was Lead Agency, and you have to, similar to the Veterans Field EIS project. The Town Board was the Lead Agency. You folks adopted SEQRA Findings, nearly identical to what the Town Board adopted. MR. RINGER-So when we’re Lead Agency the Town Board also? MR. SCHACHNER-If there’s Town Board jurisdiction. Most of the actions for which this Board is the SEQRA Lead Agency don’t involve Town Board jurisdiction, but for example, you know that the new agreement on rezoning applications, if they involve a particular project, in that sort of instance, if you were to issue a SEQRA Positive Declaration and require an Environmental Impact Statement, you would have to, you and only you, as Lead Agency, would review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, conduct the public hearing, accept the Final Environmental Impact Statement, but as Chris says, all involved agencies, in the case where an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared, must issue and adopt SEQRA Findings prior to them taking any action, all involved agencies. If there were 15 involved agencies, everybody would have to issue a Findings Statement. MR. RINGER-And if some agency decided not to approve, then it would have to go back to? I guess that’s my question. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn’t go back. This doesn’t happen often, but it has happened. No agency is bound by the Findings of any other agency. So, in fact, it has it has occurred. It makes for very unhappy applicants, but in fact once in a great while a particular involved agency feels that it cannot 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) make the same SEQRA Findings, or even Findings consistent with those that have been made by some other agency, and in some instances, if you have multiple approvals required, in some instances a project ultimately will not receive all the approvals it requires because one particular agency has a problem with it. That does happen, not often, but it happens. MR. RINGER-I was just curious, more than anything else, as to why we were doing that. MR. ROUND-This Board is familiar with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, because we have seen several in recent history, and that’s not typical in many communities, unless you’re dealing with several large projects, as the Town has dealt with. So that’s, it’s a little bit foreign, but you are experiencing that process. So the first thing you have to do tonight is adopt SEQRA Findings, or at least you have to adopt SEQRA Findings prior to issuing a site plan approval. So you could choose not to adopt Findings tonight. If you have site plan issues, as we discuss the site plan, and that you’re not able to reach an agreement with the applicant about what type of site plan you’re ready to adopt, that would allow you additional time, but I will, if you’d like me to go through now what exactly is in those SEQRA Findings, and hearing no objection, I’ll go forward with that. The SEQRA Findings, I did have the opportunity to speak with Bob Vollaro, I know, and I think briefly with John Strough on the issues that were of particular concern to this Board, and similarly to the Town Board, and those were, from a traffic standpoint, the traffic, the Findings identify that there is a negative adverse environmental impact, and that impact, instead of physical improvements to the 9 and 254 intersection, the Town Board has accepted cash in lieu of mitigation. That payment is a dollar per square foot of new facilities constructed. That amounts, it’s not, for this particular first phase, what you folks are seeing, let me step back. The Findings are reflective of the zone change that the Town Board has approved, and that zone change contemplates, and the FEIS contemplates another phase of development occurring, what we call a potential future development, and I’d like to compliment you on some of those words. Rather than Project A and Project B, we’ve chosen some titles for these projects. So the possibly future development, which are the lands that are currently occupied by the former Seven Steers and the Ho Jo’s hotel, etc., so the Findings identify the traffic impacts for both the site plan that’s in front of you, and for possible future development. So the traffic fee for this project will be something less than $125,000, and that will go into an escrow account that the Town will utilize for payment for future improvements to 9 and 254. That’s going to be paid at the issuance of a building permit. The same thing when they come back for a site plan for any future development. They’ll have to pay a dollar a square foot for that possible future development on what we call the northwest lands, and that will go into that fee. So there is a traffic impact, the way the Findings that the Town Board adopted dealt with it is payment of a fee. Aesthetic impacts. There are potential aesthetic impacts to the community. What we’ve found is that we will limit the building height. It was requested that 80 feet be allowed with the rezoning. We’ve limited the building height to 50 feet, as it appears to the, those elevations that face the highway system, that face Route 9, or, excuse me, that face Aviation Road, and that face I-87. So those building facades that face the exterior of the site will be limited to 50 feet. That will not preclude the project developers from building an 80 foot elevation internal to the site. So if you’re familiar with the site, the site does rise, as you move to the west, and that would allow for a natural placement of a structure that might be, have an exposure at a higher elevation on the Aviation Road side, and a lower elevation, allowing for a greater reveal of a building façade internal to the site. So they could have an 80 foot façade, facing the Mall, and a 50 foot façade facing the outsides. So that’s what we’ve found in one respect to aesthetics. The other is that is that the Town Board Findings, and the Findings in front of you will allow the Planning Board to shape landscaping along the corridor, and internally, as a part of the site plan approval process. So you have that tool, as you look at this site plan, to further improve the aesthetics of the site. Staff has offered comment on the landscaping plans. You’ll see that in our Staff notes. The LA Group has responded, on behalf of the applicant. You folks will have your own opinion on aesthetics. Lighting affects aesthetics as well. We suggested several minor changes to the lighting configurations. There are going to be need to relocate some existing lighting structures. The applicant’s proposed a modification to those lighting structures as originally conceived. The Staff accepts those reconfigurations. You folks will have to look at those issues. Stormwater issues, the Findings, we’re comfortable with stormwater issues. I think there are several engineering concerns when it comes to dealing with stormwater. We have engineering comments. Frank Palumbo from Sear Brown is here. He can address some of those issues, and Frank’s familiar with the other details of the project. Pedestrian concerns. We identified that we could deal with pedestrian concerns in the Findings at site plan. The applicant has proposed a pedestrian connection between this new retail facility and the sidewalks that are located on Aviation Road. You can look at that issue tonight. Karner blue butterfly habitat. That was something else that was identified as a concern to the community, during the FEIS and SEQRA Findings. There are no either habitat sites or existing populations that have been inventoried on the project site. So we did identify that through a site inventory, the applicant did. There is some potential habitat off the site. We identified, historically, the Mall has, and this is not a part of SEQRA Findings, but this is just a comment on the site plan. We have identified that, historically, the landscaping maintenance contractor on the site has disposed of lawn clipping debris off of the project site and onto either Niagara Mohawk lands or City of Glens Falls watershed properties, you know, where the water towers are. That has the potential to negatively impact a blue lupine habitat, because it prohibits the 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) blue lupine from emerging through the ground and seeking its natural growth height. So the applicant, as part of their comments, has agreed to control that maintenance issue. If you have any other questions of the SEQRA Findings, I can answer those. You don’t have, I mean, you have had not a lot of time to look at the SEQRA Findings, but they are consistent with what the Town Board found. Staff, myself, Frank Palumbo feel that they deal effectively with the potential environmental impacts. Cash in lieu of mitigation is not something that’s handled all the time with traffic. We hope that that is a fair share assessment against the applicant, and that’s going to pay for the Town’s local share of a State funded project that may occur at 9 and 254 in the future. I don’t know if there’s anything else you’d like me to touch on. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve got some questions on the Findings Statement. MR. ROUND-I don’t know how you want to do it. I think you want to do two things tonight. You want to become more comfortable with the Findings and potentially, hopefully adopt those tonight, and you also want to look at the site plan and provide any comment on that. Because they do go hand in hand. It’s just that you can’t issue a site plan until you’re comfortable and adopt the Findings. You can do that, you can do both tonight, or you can choose to do both, do one, being the Findings, tonight, and do the site plan at a later date, or do both at a later date. MR. MAC EWAN-Does any other Board members, other than Bob, have issues with the Findings Statement? Let’s address them right now, then. Go ahead, Bob, go first. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have wrestled with your numbers every way I know how, with respect to you’re coming up with 70,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area in the modified project, and I cannot get to that number with your numbers. No way. MR. LAPPER-That number was how we started, but Chris did not agree with that number either. So that the way that the Findings read, it is 125 minus the 23,000 that is being removed that is already there now, where the furniture store is. MR. VOLLARO-If you can put, you know, I’ve got to see you exercise these numbers, myself, in order to feel, I come up with 67,000 square feet, no matter how I do this. Now, I’ll let you wrestle with the numbers and tell me how you go to where you got to 70,000. That’s what I need to know. I’ll let you do that. MR. LAPPER-We didn’t get to 70,000, because we were trying to take into account an approval that was granted at the time that the Penney’s was relocated, which was for an additional department store on the back, behind where the CVS is, and so we were saying that that was an existing approval, because it was granted by the Planning Board in the mid 90’s. Chris said the one year period expired, but we implemented that because we did part of the construction to build the Penney’s, and at the end of the day, it really wasn’t necessary to continue that discussion because, I mean, we didn’t get credit for it with respect to the traffic mitigation, but we agreed that the payment would be made based upon the 125,000 square feet, less the area that is actually located, constructed there now an is going to be removed. So we just dropped the issue for the sake of the Findings Statement. So our number of new space that’s being constructed is 125,000, less what’s there right now, which is, what? MR. ROUND-23,500. MR. LAPPER-23,500. MR. VOLLARO-23,500, yes. MR. STROUGH-So it’s 101,500 square feet? MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. LAPPER-Correct. So that’s the project that’s before you. MR. ROUND-Bob, for consistency, the project was described this way so we continue to describe it this way. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, back in May, this year, when this project first came before this Board, I asked the same question, because I went into my notes and I played with this mathematical exercise back then, and I still didn’t get the right answer. So I raised that issue back in May. MR. ROUND-And the math does not work. MR. LAPPER-We rounded from 65 to 70. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. ROUND-Yes. So I think that’s what Bob is getting at. MR. VOLLARO-So if it’s a round off, let’s say it’s a round off. So that we understand. MR. ROUND-It says plus or minus 70,000 square feet, and it is not. It is 67. MR. LAPPER-67. MR. VOLLARO-It directly impacts your dollar per square foot. MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t because the dollar square foot was only based on the 101,500. MR. ROUND-We identified that it is 101,500. MR. VOLLARO-So long as both of the, our Board members understand that there was a smoothing of these numbers. MR. MAC EWAN-Issue resolved. Let’s move on to the next one. MR. VOLLARO-Are you satisfied with that, Mr. Chairman? Okay. Fine. It says on Page Two that New York State DOT provided comment on the project in correspondence dated August 2, 2001, even though it did come in kind of late, I guess. What was their comment, encapsulated? What did they say? MR. LAPPER-They had five comments, two of which were identical to comments that Sear Brown, Frank Palumbo had raised, and we had already addressed that, but they were, DOT was only commenting on the May 2 submission, which was the original submission, and as the process nd continued, a the Town Board level, with Sear Brown review, we worked through some of these issues, but for whatever reason, DOT didn’t respond until three months later, and when they responded, their respond said we’re responding to your May 2 submittal. So some of those issues nd we had already addressed. The other issues were relatively minor. They would have to be addressed before we get the DOT permit. One was, can you check and see what the accident rate was on Aviation Road. I mean, stuff like that, in terms of the computer simulation. They came out, during this process, with a new July 1 software program. Our traffic engineer ran it on the program that st was in effect before that, and they said, for their permit, they’d like us to run it under their simulation or the new regulations and see how that compares. So those are, you know, relatively minor issues but we’ll get through that with the DOT permit because we can’t, in addition to this permit, we still need a DOT permit. MR. VOLLARO-I think the Findings Statement makes that very clear, as you read through it, that you’re subject to the DOT permit. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-But I was just wondering what their comments really were. Just to check out my math, the parking spaces, the 2,689 spaces that wind up with a ratio of 4.06, that’s based on the total Gross Leasable Area of 661,000 square feet. Is that right? Is that how you got to that? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just trying to make sure. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. PITTENGER-Russ Pittenger from the LA Group. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Russ, thank you. MR. VOLLARO-This has to do with the Foster Avenue situation on Page Four, and while there is no current, and also, Foster Avenue is also touch on on Page 14, I believe, but while there is no current plan to do so, in the event the Town causes an extension of Foster Avenue be constructed, the applicant has expressed a willingness to consider, just for my own, what’s the intent? MR. LAPPER-In order to make a connection to Foster Avenue, which was something that was discussed back when we had a much larger 850,000 square foot proposal, there is a private property owner who owns five acres between the Mall property and Foster Avenue. He has come to the Town, over the last few years, saying, gee, if I had my residential project and it got rezoned to commercial, it might be worth a lot of money, essentially, if a commercial property. If that ever came to be, the Town, at that point, would have the ability to require a connection because his property is 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) in private ownership. He owns it right now. So there’s no ability, unless there’s any condemnation. Our traffic report, verified by Sear Brown, certainly doesn’t require that kind of a connection for this size expansion, but in the future, Chris was trying to reserve the right that, if that happened, and you want to connect to the ring road, the Pyramid ring road, that Pyramid’s saying, we’ll work with the Town. The issues with Pyramid are in terms of how the design of how it would relate to the ring road, as it relates to department stores parking fields. So there’s not a conceptual problem, but just if that ever came to be, Pyramid would want to have the right to get into discussion about what the design would be. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, on that same point, you note correctly that there are two separate references to the same concept. MR. VOLLARO-Page 14 is the other one. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and I think Page 14 is the one that you might want to focus on as governing, because the language on Page 4, which initially was also at the end of the Findings Statement, you might find not very meaty. MR. VOLLARO-I was going to get into that. MR. SCHACHNER-In that a willingness to consider doesn’t really commit anybody to much of anything, but if you look at the language on Page 14 which was actually modified prior to the Town Board’s acceptance of the Findings Statement, there there’s an actual binding obligation on the applicant to participate in the establishment of a mutually acceptable connection and to be financially responsible for the cost of the site improvements that relate to that connection that are on the applicant’s property. That’s a much meatier, if you will, I mean, that’s a binding obligation of the applicant as a result of the adoption of the Findings Statement by the Town Board at the very least. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I read that statement, and I underlined the word site improvements, which leads me to believe me that they would be responsible for the cost associated with site improvements, and not cost associated with off site connections of Foster Avenue. Is that correct. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. Your understanding is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d like to hear what the rest of my fellow Board members might have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Go through your portion of it and then we’ll go down to Mr. Strough, because he has some questions regarding it. Everyone else seems to be pretty comfortable with it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Under the municipal revenues and finances. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What page? MR. VOLLARO-Because this happens to be a project that is before the Planning Board, traditionally or otherwise, we have always stayed away from statements concerning revenues and finances. Some of my Board members and colleagues have told me that that’s not a purview of this Board and we shouldn’t ever be getting into that sort of thing, and I’m wondering should or should not that stay, if this is our unique set of Findings. MR. ROUND-The EIS, the Environmental Impact Statement preparation process, asks you to look at various ranges of potential impacts, and one of those is impacts on municipal revenues and finances. So, in this balancing act that SEQRA asks you to look at, you have to weigh the benefit of a project to the community versus the negative impacts, and one of the ways you see project developers, and you saw Great Escape chime in, here is a potential positive impact of our project, and I think what, maybe Mark can jump in, and when you’re talking about a business owner’s economic decisions, based on, he needs so much density in order for him to achieve a certain goal, so he can make it economically viable, that may not be the concern of the Board. So this is not making a judgement about somebody’s operational issue. It’s, what is the impact on the community when this project is constructed and operational. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. All that’s true, but I don’t want you to take from that that from now on when you’re doing site plan review you should all of a sudden start getting into economic analysis. MR. VOLLARO-That was my next question, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and what’s different about this, although I’m also interested in knowing what the applicant’s SEQRA expert, Mr. Orlando, thinks, but what’s different about this, that was a 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) joke, what’s different about this is that there’s been an Environmental Impact Statement prepared, okay. 99. something percent of the projects that you review don’t, whether you’re lead agency or someone else has lead agency, do not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The balancing that Chris just referred to is specific to Environmental Impact Statement projects, where, in that context, agencies are allowed to weigh not only the environmental factors, but also balance what’s called the socioeconomic factors, and in fact, agencies are allowed to take the position that there may be very bad environmental results, I’m not suggesting that’s true here. I’m just speaking generically, but they’re allowed to take the position that the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the significant adverse environmental impacts. So, what’s different is this is an Environmental Impact Statement or what we call a SEQRA Positive Declaration project. When, in the future, you deal with other SEQRA Positive Declaration projects, it’s perfectly appropriate to, as Chris says, look at the economic impacts on the community, but don’t start doing that on site plan review or you’re absolutely right. Your fellow Board members and your Counsel will tell you, that’s not part of your consideration under site plan review or subdivision review. MR. VOLLARO-Good explanation. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Orlando would have said the same thing. MR. VOLLARO-I’m on Page Five, five paragraphs down. It says, “Given these factors, the Town Board finds that amendment of the zoning classification”. Should the Planning Board be included in that, the Town Board and the Planning Board, or should it remain Town Board because that’s a Town Board purview, as far as? MR. SCHACHNER-Choice Two, we would suggest, the second thing you said, the latter. It should stay Town Board, because the Town Board, in fact, is the entity that did that. Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. It was just a question. I guess on Page Eight I just have a question that the applicant defined acceptable, as a Level of Service E. This is in the last paragraph on Page Eight, the middle of the paragraph, where it talks about the applicant defined acceptable as a Level of Service E. I find that kind of difficult to accept, but that’s an applicant’s definition, and does this Findings Statement, I guess this Findings Statement, by being accepted, accepts the applicant’s definition of service. MR. ROUND-No, it doesn’t. MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t. MR. ROUND-Frank’s here. I think the following sentence reflects that. Frank actually wrote this. FRANK PALUMBO MR. PALUMBO-Bob, since the Findings Statement also should be based on the information that was provided in the Environmental Impact Statement we, as a matter of trying to state the record of what was found in there, was that the applicant submitted information that said that E was acceptable levels of service. We were trying to set a basis for how we were determining what was an appropriate mitigation. So we stated the fact that they felt it was an acceptable level of service. Then we went on to state that DOT normally generates that on a case by case basis for determination. So we were really just setting the record, in terms of how that, what the debate is over what’s acceptable and what isn’t, which leads down toward what the mitigation measures were of that dollar per square foot. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s how you got to that, essentially. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. We wanted to just have enough information that stated that on the record, in the Findings Statement, because there was a lot of, traffic was the major aspect of the Environmental Impact Statement, and we did not want it to be a contested view of, yes, it is acceptable, no, it isn’t acceptable. We just wanted to state where each party stood on that and how we formed that basis for the mitigation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-Just as an aside, DOT defines D as an acceptable level. MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. ROUND-And not E. MR. VOLLARO-Not E, yes. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. ROUND-And generally they don’t like to go from D’s into E’s, but they will allow you to, if you’re at an E to remain at an E. MR. PALUMBO-Right, and we also, I mean, further down in there is other language that we asked Chris to present to the Town Board, that they included, was the fact that that dollar per square foot is the Town requirement for mitigation, and that anything that DOT will require of them during their Highway Work Permit is extra to that. They will not be able to use that dollar per square foot to apply toward signal coordination or anything else that DOT may require. This was our basis of what we felt that the Town proportional impacts of the system were merited. MR. VOLLARO-So that dollar a square foot is not a constant to be applied to all mathematical analysis is what you’re saying. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s reflected in the existing language at the bottom of that full paragraph on Page Nine prior to Section B, called Possible Future Development, the discussion that Frank just referenced. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay, and I see that. I had said something in here that photo simulation is depicting the views of the Department Store E were reviewed by the Town Board. We just got them tonight. I guess that’s what this is. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s referring to that on the Board. MR. ROUND-Yes. They were part of the FEIS. MR. VOLLARO-Never got them, I didn’t. Never saw them. It’s just a comment. Other Board members may have it. I don’t have it. They weren’t attached to my FEIS. I know that. Were they attached to yours, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Point made. Let’s move on. MR. VOLLARO-You’re pushing this, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I wasn’t. It was just to say you got your point across. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Under Page 11, Sear Brown had, and I guess it was Mr. Palumbo that came up with the comments on stormwater report by the LA Group. You had fairly extensive comments on that stormwater report, if I remember. MR. ROUND-So you’re off Findings and you’re on the letter. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’m in Findings on Page 11, 15 Utilities and Drainage. MR. SCHACHNER-The bottom of Page 11. MR. PALUMBO-Then are you referring to the comments that we just made. We had many comments on stormwater for the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and I think the LA Group answered your comments in a very recent letter that I read just here. MR. PALUMBO-Well, I would say that they set forth how they’re going to be addressed. MR. VOLLARO-It’s their response to your letter. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-The nature of the, in the Findings Statement, we were satisfied and presented that to the Town Board, that we were satisfied with the level of information that was contained for the zoning application that was made and what they were seeking and the data that was in there, with the knowledge that when they came for site plan review, that there would be much more detailed information for us to review the specifics of that. We felt comfortable with the amount of, the way that they generated their report for the Environmental Impact Statement, and that there would, in general, on merit, not be significant impacts to the stormwater system moving off site into the Town and the State systems, and so that’s why we’ve put forth in there what our considerations were there. Now as you are reviewing the details plans for site plan review, there will be more information for us 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) to make further evaluations of. In my mind that does not change what we are finding here. It’s stuff that would be specific to the site plan, and not necessarily moving to off site issues. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-If there’s changes to the language you want in the Findings Statement in front of you, make those suggestions for changes. I mean, after you go through your concerns if there’s a consensus on how you want it changed, please do that. Because it is your Findings Statement. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I realize that. I’m finished, Mr. Chairman, with my comments. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. I, too, agree with Bob that the wording of the attempt to try and include what size addition we’re actually dealing with is very unclear, and I would like to see the description of the expanded Mall made clear, so that the description rationally and linearly comes to a conclusion of 101,500 feet. It’s very confusing to the reader, and any future reader. I mean, for example, you talk about the 23,500 square feet. MR. LAPPER-Are you looking at the top of Page Two, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. On the top of Page Two, you use the word eliminate 23,500 square feet. MR. LAPPER-And that means demolish. MR. STROUGH-Right. On Page Three, on the bottom of the second paragraph, or, no, in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, that starts with the modified project seeks, you use redevelop 23,500 square feet. MR. LAPPER-I guess redevelop is probably a better word. MR. STROUGH-Well, see, you add this to the mix of the 23,500 square feet that we’re going to redevelop or we’re going to eliminate. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re going to eliminate and then redevelop, and they’re both right. MR. STROUGH-To the 34,000 square feet that was originally proposed but never done, or a part of it was never done. I mean, it’s just not made very clear what’s happening here, as far as the square feet addition that we’re talking about in the expandable. MR. LAPPER-Well, I think what’s simple is that the building, the new department store will be 125,000 square feet, and the rest of this really has to do with prior approvals or prior construction, and however you get there, it’s 125,000 square foot building. MR. STROUGH-Well, then if we go to site statistics on the plan, we have an existing GLA, a Gross Leasable Area, and Mr. Orlando, is there a difference between what they might add in square feet versus Gross Leasable area? I mean, they seem to use the terms Gross Leasable Area and Square Footage interchangeably. I don’t know, but I have a feeling that some of that space is not Gross Leasable Area. MR. LAPPER-In the Town Code, interior Mall area is not considered Gross Leasable Area. MR. STROUGH-That’s right, but those clarifications are never made on this building addition, and I’m sure not all of the 125,000 square feet is Gross Leasable Area. MR. LAPPER-It is. MR. PITTENGER-It’s a tenant that builds and leases a space, as opposed to community space. MR. LAPPER-The Mall space. MR. STROUGH-Well, you see trying to filter through all these, the 34,000, the 23,000, the 101,000, okay, then the existing Mall, as it is right now, as it stands, is 591,000 square feet. MR. LAPPER-Right. That’s the number that we’re using. MR. STROUGH-And what it will be is 661,000 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, John. You’re right. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. STROUGH-Right? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-So there’s going to be basically 70,000 square foot. MR. LAPPER-The 591,000 includes the 34,000. That’s what’s approved. MR. STROUGH-Well, then that’s not existing. That’s what I’m saying, it’s not existing. MR. PITTENGER-But the spaces are provided for, I mean, the comparison is there. MR. STROUGH-But it’s not existing. MR. PITTENGER-Correct. MR. STROUGH-See this is. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s just on the map, though, John. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s here and it’s here. I mean, they use the same kind of end results that aren’t jiving, and I think these things aren’t fitting together nice and neat. I would just like, I don’t have a problem with what you want to do. I just want everything to jive. MR. LAPPER-But we were just trying to tell the history that there was a 34,000 square foot addition that was approved, and it didn’t get built. MR. STROUGH-Well, and I’m thinking 10 years down the road. Ten years down the road we might have to go back to these Findings Statements. It’s not clear now, and it certainly won’t be clear 10 years from now. MR. LAPPER-I guess the only thing we’re seeking approval for is to knock down 23,500 and replace it with 125,000, and I think that is clear here. MR. STROUGH-Well, then I would just say that. Make it simple and just say that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is it relevant that 34,000 was approved at a prior time? MR. LAPPER-I guess it’s relevant to the applicant because they did get the approval and they did build part of that project, but I don’t think it’s important now because all we’re asking for is for 125,000 square foot building. So even though that’s historically correct. MR. STROUGH-See that would be fine with me. I don’t have a problem with that. I just have a problem with how you eventually get to it, and then the wording of eliminate versus redevelop, you’ve got to straighten that out. MR. LAPPER-I guess for the sake of expediency, the Town Board approved it in this form, and if the Planning Board wants to change the word so it says redevelop in both cases, I mean, that’s just not significant, to me, and I presume to the client. MR. STROUGH-Well, redevelop and eliminate seem to be two completely different things in my mind. MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s going to be demolished and then it’s going to be redeveloped. So, if you would like to change it, redevelop is fine with us. If you want to change Page Two. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think anybody else on the Board has got an issue with it, John. MRS. LA BOMBARD-With those two words. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ll move on. The parking spaces, on Page 4, right on the first paragraph. We’re going to end up with, or you’re going to end up with, 2,689 spaces. Correct? Now that does not include, I’m assuming it doesn’t include the reserve parking at this time? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and in my mind, where I see some of your reserve parking, you know, it’s not to my liking. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. LAPPER-The one up the hill, past the Friendly’s? MR. STROUGH-There’s the one across from Friendly Ice Cream. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-I wouldn’t want to see that expanded, knowing what I know, which isn’t much, because looking at the grading plans, I really had a tough time trying to determine what you’re going to do in that locale. MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s most likely that that would happen in conjunction with the future development, in which case that whole area would be re-graded and redeveloped. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well that’s fine with me, and I think you guys have enough parking spaces, and I think we’ve had a problem with having too many parking spaces in the Town. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. STROUGH-And so I’m in agreement with you there. I’m not running contrary to you. What I’d like to see there, though, is that in the event the applicant determines it’s necessary or appropriate, reserve parking areas identified on the site plan can be constructed, I would like to see, upon the Planning Board’s approval added to that. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what it’s saying. It’s saying consistent with Town approvals. If you’re going to expand your parking area, it’s going to require you coming back in front of this Board. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s fine with me, then. MR. LAPPER-We would only come back if there was a site problem that we needed spaces, or if a tenant said, look, we don’t have enough spaces for our customers. MR. STROUGH-Well, I mean, if you’ve got 2,689 cars at your Mall, you’re doing pretty well, and, you know. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re in agreement that, if they’ve got to expand, they’re going to come back here anyway. They have to. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, Yogi Berra would say, nobody goes there anymore, there’s no parking spaces. MR. PITTENGER-I think the reason that the expanded parking places were designed and included in this package is so that, in the event that there were a lease agreement with a certain store owner that required four and a half cars per space, we would have the opportunity to construct those, and already have the site plan. MR. STROUGH-All right, but you would construct the reserve parking areas, and that would come before us once more. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess, Greg just pointed out, we should probably talk about that. We’re doing our best to educate tenants and get them to reduce their requirement. Tenants like seven, like K- Mart, and then the Town standard has always been five. So if the new anchor tenant comes in and says they want four and a half, that’s really why we provided that reserve parking field, so that that, so to correct what I said before, the tenant may require that we have to build that reserve. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if K-Mart likes it, and at the time that’s what the Town Code said. You could put two other K-Marts in. I don’t think you’d fill up the parking spaces, but that being aside, I don’t have a problem with that, but I would like to see Planning Board review on this before it got expanded. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess we’re asking for that review to happen in conjunction with the site plan, because we do have, the existing Sears and Penney’s have the right to demand that. MR. STROUGH-All right then, we’ll deal with that when, because I’ve got a problem with the clarification of the grading plans and seeing what I’m seeing. So I can deal with that. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. LAPPER-But that would be a site plan issue rather than the Findings Statement. MR. STROUGH-On the same page, Page 4, five paragraphs down, we talk about the Greater Glens Falls transportation, on Page 4, and it just says public transportation by the GGFTC buses will continue to be accommodated. MR. LAPPER-It should be the Greater Glens Falls. It’s not A/GFTC. There’s no “C”. GGFT. MR. STROUGH-So drop the “C”? MR. LAPPER-Right. Bob talked to them today. So we’ve got an extra “C” on Page 4 that’s got to come out. The acronym under Section Eight. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Accommodated. Are we going to accommodate them in the sense, is there going to be a particular spot? MR. LAPPER-We have that for today to discuss. We have a letter. Bob spoke to them today, as a site plan issue, as to where the bus stop. Chris asked us to look into that, where the bus stop is and how it works. MR. STROUGH-So we’ll deal with that in site plan. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STROUGH-On Page Six, I think Chris or, the bottom part of the second paragraph talks about the setbacks, and I kind of got confused there. I guess there was a, when they re-did the bridge, there was one setback? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And then when, then there’s another setback for Aviation Road corridor. MR. LAPPER-When they re-did the bridge, they took some of the entrances to the Seven Steers, and when they took it, they took it at a different setback from what was previously there. So we have a jagged edge. MR. STROUGH-So. Okay. All right. I see. MR. ROUND-There’s an access taking, and they’re not going to be able to construct drives at those locations, either. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but they just won’t have to apply that to the setback. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. STROUGH-And I also had a problem, as did Bob, with the language that the applicant defines acceptable as Level of Service E. I think we could just drop that, because I don’t find a Level of Service E acceptable. MR. ROUND-That’s what the applicant’s position is. That’s not what the Town finds or the Planning Board finds. MR. STROUGH-Well, okay. So you’re saying it’s not a big deal? MR. ROUND-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think Frank’s explanation appropriate. I mean, that was language, I mean, that whole description is a narrative description of how the traffic analysis was undertaken, and how it was evaluated, and it’s a factually true statement, meaning it’s a factually true statement that the applicant felt that way. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Thank you. Now, the mitigation fee, which is a dollar per square foot of Gross Leasable area, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And the Gross Leasable Area for the modified Mall project is 101,500 square feet. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. STROUGH-So that would be $101,500 dollars? MR. LAPPER-Unfortunately. MR. STROUGH-And in the future northwest development. MR. LAPPER-Can be up to 150,000 square feet. MR. STROUGH-And what if you come to us with a proposal that exceeds 150,000 square feet? MR. LAPPER-Then we’d have to go back and amend the SEQRA because the SEQRA only addressed the potential impacts of up to. MR. STROUGH-So they would also amend the mitigation fee at that time? MR. LAPPER-Most likely. MR. LAPPER-It’s all re-opened basically. MR. STROUGH-Now, the only other thought I had was that if this mitigation fee of a dollar per square foot will be applied only to the Route 9/254 intersection. MR. LAPPER-Well, we didn’t condition how the Town spends it. I mean, it’s being paid into the Town’s general fund and it’s not. MR. STROUGH-The language in here. MR. LAPPER-That’s the reason for it, but it’s not a requirement of the Town. MR. ROUND-Maybe, John, do you want to expand on that point. Do you have a concern that that’s? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, the way I read it, it refers to Route 9/254 intersection, the one dollar per square foot of Gross Leasable Area. It refers to Route 9/254 again, several times, only to that project, and makes it appear that that is ear marked for that. In that, what I’m wondering is couldn’t we be a little bit more creative, and what if we wanted to use it for the Foster Avenue connection? MR. ROUND-I think the impact is to 9 and 254. So that’s why we’ve, there’s a project on the TIP, on the Transportation Improvement Plan, to approve 9 and 254, and so that’s what we know. So we would want to apply this money toward the impact of the project, so there’s a direct connection between this fee in lieu of mitigation’s and to the impact that we’re trying to address. MR. STROUGH-I understand that. MR. ROUND-If, in the event we exhaust, we have money left over from this for, 9 and 254 doesn’t get constructed and there’s another project that has a benefit to 9 and 254, such that we can demonstrate that, yes, we are going ahead with Foster Avenue connection. Foster Avenue does provide a benefit to 9 and 254. I think that the money could be utilized for those purposes. MR. STROUGH-You think? MR. ROUND-Well, they’re going to cut us a check, and I don’t think there’s going to be any, if they want to come back and challenge the Town that the money was spent inappropriately, I think that’s a valid concern, John. So if you want to revise that language to say, and any other improvement that may have a benefit to 9 and 254, I think that’s a good thing. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and it would open it up a little bit. Okay. MR. LAPPER-What Greg’s saying is that Pyramid would certainly prefer that the money get spent to improve that area of Town rather than 149 and Ridge. MR. STROUGH-Well, my thoughts are this. It’s not likely, but what if New York State says, okay, we’ll pay for the Route 9/254 intersection. MR. LAPPER-That actually could happen. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. STROUGH-Okay. That actually could happen. So now we’ve got a potential of $251,500 that we could put towards Foster Avenue. The way it’s worded here, I don’t know if, legally, we could apply it to the Foster Avenue extension. MR. VOLLARO-John, is that because of the way 14, Page 14 is written, where it says any related site improvements occurring on its property? It pretty much takes Foster Avenue’s extension off property out of the picture. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I think this is apples and oranges here. I think you’re talking about Paragraph 11 on Page 14. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I wouldn’t focus on that. I’d focus on Paragraph Eight on Page Thirteen, and I’d go with Chris’ suggestion, which is we can very easily add a phrase or a sentence to indicate that the mitigation fee can be used for improvements at related, you know, at locations of related impacts or something to that effect. I’m not trying to write the sentence right now, but I think Chris just said that he supported, correct me if I’m wrong, that he supported something that was a bit more expansive in that context so that it wouldn’t be strictly limited to the particular 9/254 intersection. I think we’re saying that’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ve got that resolved. Let’s move along. What else have you got? MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I like the part that says, within 60 days of this Findings Statement the applicant shall submit an interim landscaping plan to the Town Planning Board for the northwest lands along Aviation Road. I say that for the benefit of the public that’s here. MR. LAPPER-We are expecting to announce that we have a signed lease next week. We are hopeful that that will be the announcement, and a tenant, not for the big department store, yet, but for the northwest lands, which is what that was relating to, that comment. MR. STROUGH-So, in summary, I guess I could boil down to, I would just like the wording of the square footage that we end up with clarified, and whether we use the word eliminate or redeveloped, I guess that’s not an issue, and that we’re going to re-word, as Chris Round suggested, any related improvements to the Route 9/254 intersection would also be covered with the mitigation fee, and I think Mr. Schachner’s working on that now. Okay. Well, thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other issues with the Findings Statement? MR. VOLLARO-I just had one, and then I’ll get off this. On Page Three, just pulling this out, it says, this is under the modified project, this will result in a net expansion of 70,000 plus or minus, plus or minus, plus or minus square feet of Gross Leasable Area, net expansion. On Page 9 it talks about the net increase is measured at 101,500. What is the net? MR. ROUND-What was the second reference, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-The second reference is on Page Nine where it says the net increase, this is in the second paragraph, middle of the second paragraph, the net increase is measured at 101,500 square feet for the modified project, and on Page Three it talks that this will result in the net expansion of 70,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area, which again relates to the modified project. MR. RINGER-That’s because that 34,000 from your (lost word). MR. VOLLARO-I just want them to kind of define what it is. MR. PALUMBO-One of the things is that we always, when we were reviewing the traffic studies, one of the first things that we established was that we asked the applicant to modify the report and their Findings accordingly was that that 34,000 square feet was never built. There was never any traffic generated towards it. So I think maybe a simple addition on that Page Nine to say the net increase with respect to the traffic square footage assumed in the traffic analysis, because that section on Page Nine is really related to what was factored into the traffic analysis and therefore what was factored into the mitigation fee. We, all along, as they were presenting it how this was from a land use standpoint and how many square feet they had out there from an overall, what it all added up to, it was appropriate for them to make a case for the 34,000 square feet because it had been previously 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) approved, but it never generated any traffic. So there was some separation within the Environmental Impact Statement of those numbers. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just for somebody in the future that reads this, the net expansion of 70 versus the net increase of 101 could be a confusing thing when somebody reads through this document, three, four years from now. MR. LAPPER-They’ll read these minutes and they’ll never be confused. MR. STROUGH-I guess we’re down to two things, then, just a rewording to make clear the description of the square foot addition that we’re actually dealing with and how logically and linearly that you get there, and then expanding the wording of the usage of the mitigation fee. MR. LAPPER-I guess we have a question about the usage of the mitigation fee, only because the Town Board set it out this way, and I’m not sure that the Planning Board changing it, in terms of the money, because the money’s being paid in accordance with the SEQRA review that’s already been completed, and I don’t know if the Town, I mean, Pyramid would like the money to get spent on 9 and 254, because that’s going to help the Mall, and that’s how we arrived at that number. MR. ROUND-The language that we’re looking at, I don’t know, I think that is a legal question, whether the Planning Board finds a little bit differently, is that going to allow the Town Board to spend the money a little bit differently. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I was not interpreting the clarification to expand the range, mostly because of the language on Page Nine, which seems pretty expansive already. The language on Page Nine in the large full paragraph says the Town Board concluded, and now says and Planning Board finds, but obviously didn’t say that before, but it already said that the Town Board concluded that the applicant does contribute to the reduction in the highway system levels of service, and is therefore responsible to contribute a fair share proportion toward future improvements necessary for the Town and/or New York State DOT to undertake for the resolution of cumulative impacts on the highway system, and I think that language, the balance of that paragraph and the existing language on Page 13 in Paragraph Number Eight, doesn’t really seem to necessarily limit directly to the Route 9/254 intersection. It does say the cost of intersection and related improvements, for example, in the first sentence in Paragraph Eight. MR. LAPPER-We’re comfortable with this language. We would just rather it didn’t get changed. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don’t know how the Planning Board feels. What I was writing was something along the lines of, I didn’t finish yet, but something like this traffic impact mitigation fee may also be utilized by the Town for other improvements to the highway system due to the cumulative impacts discussed in Paragraph Eight, and that’s as far as I got, Eight something, you know, discussed above. MR. ROUND-I’d suggest, utilized by the Town for other improvements to the highway system, due to the cumulative impacts discussed in, and whatever section referenced. Such improvements should have a demonstrable impact on the level of service operations at 9 and 254. So that satisfies these guys, that it does go back and there is an improvement to 9 and 254. MR. SCHACHNER-In other words, adding something maybe in less words, you know, related to the function of the intersection of 9 and 254. MR. STROUGH-Just open it up a little bit. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but that would also accommodate, I think, the applicant’s desire that this money not be utilized to improve, as the applicant said, the intersection of Route 149 and 9L, which is not in very close proximity to the project. MR. STROUGH-My example was if we wanted to spend the money for Foster Avenue. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, which is in reasonable proximity to the project. What I’m asking is, is the Planning Board comfortable with language that expands it slightly but still keeps it within the same general area, which would, I think, accomplish the applicant’s concerns that the mitigation fee not be utilized for something that’s truly at a great distance. MR. MAC EWAN-I would agree with that. MR. VOLLARO-I’d be happy with that. That keeps it in the general area. MR. LAPPER-We are in agreement with that. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. VOLLARO-It’s not necessary that our Findings Statement and the Town Board’s Finding Statement march in lock step, though. Is it? MR. SCHACHNER-No, but it is necessary that they not be mutually inconsistent or contradictory. Do you follow what I’m saying? MR. VOLLARO-I do. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s important. They don’t have to be identical or march, when you say march in lock step, if you intend to approve the project, then you can’t issue a Findings Statement that requires the applicant to do something that is contradictory to what’s required by some other agency or the applicant will not be able to fulfill its approvals. MR. VOLLARO-That’s certainly logical. Yes. I understand that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Why don’t we just move into the site plan while he’s kind of re- working that. MR. ROUND-Sure. MR. LAPPER-If we could just make a general comment about the site plan. We’ve met with the Planning Staff. We have a review letter from them, and we have a review letter from Sear Brown, and we concur with all comments. We made some changes. We made a lot of changes that we’re going to talk about tonight, but the only issue of disagreement is with respect to the location of the loading dock. We’ve made some safety changes that Sear Brown asked for, but we don’t have a feasible alternative to put it in a different location, because of the site design and the building design, but in every other respect, it is our intention to comply and make minor technical changes to the plans as required. Our engineer met with Frank’s stormwater engineer, as recently as today, to just go over some technical stuff, and we don’t see that there’s disagreement, and it was our intention to document that today with the LA Group letter to you, which included building elevations, and with that general comment, Russ is here to go over the specific response to the letter from the Town and the letter from Sear Brown. MR. PITTENGER-Thanks. The package that we dropped off to Chris this afternoon for distribution to you that includes the building elevation, we might as well start with that. The first issue that the Staff indicated that they had a concern with was better understanding the character and style and colors and materials of the building. What you have before you on the last page, which is the color copy, is a typical section provided by the proposed tenant. The materials are indicated in the various heights of the parapet walls. The materials that they intend to use in the front of the building an on the entry façade is a split face box. Around the back of the building, they paint it in similar colors but go to a smooth face block. The differences in the building that you have before you and the one that we’re proposing are obvious, in that the entrance that’s portrayed on the top elevation, which we would call the front, would be located on the right hand portion of the building, not where it’s located on the left. So it would indeed face west toward the Northway, and the bottom elevation, which is the one that would really face the main entrance to the Mall, that they consider to be the back, we would treat with the same detailing as the other portions of the building, in terms of the color stripes. Obviously, the right elevation, which is the second one down, would be interior wall within the Mall. So that one would receive no treatment, nor would there be any necessary. The left elevation that shows looking at the loading docks, which would be the elevation that’s facing Route 254 or Aviation Road. The color bands would continue through the loading dock area. So there are some modifications to this plan, but we included it to indicate that the general color would be tan, but there would be yellow stripes running through it. There’s a red accent at approximate head height, as we can see by the doors, with a darker brown color at the bottom. So it’s all masonry building. A parapet would emphasize the entrance. The elevations are on there, so we’re at approximately 32 feet above grade for the parapet, and the bulk of the building is at approximately 20 or 23 feet. The building will slope from the west toward the east, although it would be enclosed by a parapet wall. There are a couple of accent lights. There’s a decorative light at the entrance to set it off, and I anticipate, although I do not have details for the loading dock area, but I anticipate there will be some lights there, although I don’t have information on that. What I’ve also provided, two pages before the elevations, is actually a signage detail for the entry to the store, and what I’ve tried to present to you, without going too far, are the letters that would indicate the store would be internally lit. They would be a primary color, in contrast to the natural color of the block. They’re approximately, well, there are some indications on dimensions there. They’re approximately five feet high. So they would be internally lit, but that is basically the extent of the signage. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have, at least I don’t have, I’m not following you, because I don’t have, the only thing I’ve got is this. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just before that. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got it. MR. ROUND-This right here. MR. PITTENGER-And I apologize, because the earlier fax materials did not include this detail of the sign. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got it. This is all part of paper recognition. MR. ROUND-They’re not color coded, okay. MR. VOLLARO-Once you’ve seen them once, you know, but if you haven’t seen them before, you have a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-How does the six foot logo and the five foot letters compare to some of the existing signage that’s there at the Mall? It’s hard to put that into context. That’s why I asked. MR. LAPPER-The signage will comply, as far as the Mall owner is concerned. If the tenant decides that they want a Sign Variance or an extra sign on the Aviation Road façade, they would have to come before the Zoning Board. So what we’re showing you is just what would comply, and that is intended to be a sign that, size wise, complies with the Code. MR. PITTENGER-Yes, and it certainly fits in with what’s at the Mall today. MR. ROUND-We asked the applicant during our Staff meeting, is that, you know, one of the impacts is aesthetics. So please give us some indication what the building layout is and give us an indication of what kind of signage is going to be on there, rather than have, you know, is it going to be some floating thing, is it going to be wall mounted. So this is what they presented, and it will have to comply with whatever requirement, unless they obtain some other relief from the Ordinance. MR. METIVIER-I mean, it would never be bigger than the Sears signs, right? MR. LAPPER-Well, the most recent example, we were in for the Bon Ton sign where, because they had an entrance on both sides, we asked for two signs, but, you know, size wise, it’s appropriate with the scale of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-So are those five foot letters also for the Bon Ton, do you know? BOB ORLANDO MR. ORLANDO-Off the top of my head, I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER- Close to that anyway? MR. ORLANDO-Probably, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That was really all I wanted to know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Would you just point to that map and show me where the entrance is, the glass doors entrance. MR. PITTENGER-The main entrance is here, close to the Mall. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So this drawing does not depict. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I understand that. I just wanted to see it. MR. LAPPER-It would be a mirror image, probably, of what’s on the top. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-Because the entrance would be to the right side of the building, rather than to the left. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And where is the rear elevation on that? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. LAPPER-The rear elevation would be inside at the back of this store room for Old Navy. So there is no rear elevation. MR. PITTENGER-The rear elevation on this plan would be this one, but the treatments, the color treatments that are proposed for front would be carried all the way around the three sides. In other words, the plan that you have shows three sides of a color treatment, and the back side it’s not colored. Technically, this would be the back, but instead we’re not going to paint, this is an interior wall, but (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-He needs that microphone. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I’ve got you, Russ. MR. MAC EWAN-We record our minutes. MR. PITTENGER-Yes, I apologize. The rear of the building normally would not receive a color treatment, but in our case, we would make the rear of the building a similar in color to the right and left elevations. The right elevation on the elevation view would actually be an interior wall, would not be required to be colored, the interior. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, I am just trying to think what the color of the Mall itself is, the rest of the outside façade of the rest of the Mall, including the JC Penney store and Klein’s. Isn’t it more of a cream, pinkish? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s a little more neutral. MRS. LA BOMBARD-More of a neutral cream maybe with more of a taupe or something. MR. LAPPER-This is a little more interesting. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So what my question is, is this orange or is this? MR. PITTENGER-This is a color copy, and it is more tan. It’s orange a little bit in the copying, but it’s more of a rich tan than an orange. It’s not a bright orange. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. The tan would, and then the bottom is more brown? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, because I was thinking, that orange probably wouldn’t go with more of that creamy, pinkish. MR. PITTENGER-I believe, it’s more of a tan color. MR. MAC EWAN-If you remember, the Penney’s store doesn’t quite match the rest of the Mall. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, you know, I guess, all this time I kept thinking this glass door was going to be exactly on the north part of that building, but it really. MR. PITTENGER-It’ll be near the parking lot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Now, is there going to be some kind of a curb or a berm or something built up where trees would be planted like on the outside of that, or would the parking lot, on the north side, or would the parking lot spaces come right up to the building? MR. PITTENGER-Well, we have a circulation road through there. We also have a sidewalk. Before you hit the truck loading area, there is a bump out to make a maneuver, and we do have a landscaped, you know, an area there. It’s not large, but in general, what we’re trying to do is pull parking as close as we can to the front door, as a requirement of the tenant. Certainly in the area, on the north side, we do have some existing vegetation that will be remaining in there and we’ll be planting some. The grade change to the east is substantial. Directly to the north, it’s fairly level in there. We will be planting some trees, but not really close to the building. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I mean, I just always see in my mind the conceptual drawing that you had looking on lower Aviation Road, as you’re coming up the hill, and seeing that addition on the Mall. It was the architect’s rendering. MR. LAPPER-In the area where the corner of the building is? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s the one. I didn’t even see that there. MR. LAPPER-That is going to be planted with Pine. We talked about that with Chris in his office. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Gotcha. I didn’t even know you had that one out there. Thank you. I’m going a little blind here. I never even saw it from where I was sitting. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-We kind of jumped in the middle of your presentation here. MR. PITTENGER-That’s okay. Really I was going through it step by step, and I encourage the discussion at each section. If anyone has any questions about the materials, I can answer what information we have. MR. LAPPER-You’re on Chris’ letter. MR. PITTENGER-Item Number Two is we were asked, in Chris’ comment letter, to contact the bus people, and there’s a letter attached that Bob Orlando can speak to you about. MR. ORLANDO-Yes. I spoke with Kevin White, the Director of Greater Glens Falls Transit, and currently today our bus stop is at the middle entrance, if you will. It has the Bon Ton sign treatment on it. There’s interior and exterior seating for the customers and in speaking with Mr. White, he had no issues as it currently stands, and no problem with it. I described to him what we’re proposing to do, and that that bus stop would stay in that same area, still afford the customers interior and exterior seating, and he saw no issue with it whatsoever. MR. LAPPER-It’s also right near the entrance to the new store, the bus stop. MR. VOLLARO-The bus stop that’s on the drawings now would contain cover and seats, is that what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-The cover would be, it’s right next to the doorway, and there’s seats right inside that entrance. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s on Drawing S-4. S-4 doesn’t really show that kind of detail, I don’t believe. MR. ORLANDO-I don’t believe it does, either. MR. LAPPER-There are benches existing, though. MR. ORLANDO-Yes. There’s existing benches there today. MR. MAC EWAN-What they’re saying is most of the people who are waiting for the bus are waiting inside the doors, in the entrance to the Mall. You walk right in those double doors right there, there’s half dozen benches in there. MR. ORLANDO-Yes, and there’s a vestibule as well, if you’re waiting right inside the door, if it were raining or snowing. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s an existing bus stop. MR. VOLLARO-I know. I’m just trying to orient that existing bus stop to this entrance of this Proposed Department Store E, and the bus stop is right here. Now that bus stop is there now. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So all of the enclosures are there. MR. RINGER-There’s no enclosures. MR. MAC EWAN-You can wait right inside here, inside the Mall. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Well, I know that there is a note in Staff note that talks about asking about enclosures of that bus stop. MR. ROUND-I think the applicant’s addressed there’s adequate waiting and cueing facilities for Transit users, and I think Kevin White’s comment reflects that. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. VOLLARO-In other words, as Craig was saying, right inside the Mall? MR. ROUND-Right, and there are vestibules. You’re able to get out of the weather, and stand for the bus, to see the bus coming. MR. PITTENGER-The next issue on the Staff memo that I referred back to is included on the page following my memo to Chris Round. There’s a proposed route for pedestrian access to the Mall. We’ve had extensive discussions about this, and we’ve looked at different alternatives, and we certainly are willing to accommodate pedestrian access into the Mall. Historically, the Mall is a car oriented location, but we think we have an alternative here for the pedestrian connector that at least crosses places so we have a raised sidewalk through the median, through the islands. We have crossings that we’ll paint crosswalks where there’s an existing stop. Where we hit the ring road, as we head toward the expanded Friendly’s parking lot, we propose to put in a painted crosswalk and also sign that for vehicles to yield to vehicles and pedestrians in crosswalk, then they would get back on to a sidewalk that’s raised above the road surface and proceed to the east and then to the property line, and assuming that we have the ability to future tie in, or to tie in through DOT’s right of way to the existing sidewalk that currently exists on the south side of Aviation Road, that would provide a fairly direct route to a portion of the Mall that’s close to the ring road and Aviation Road, and also in a location where people want to get to. Many of the alternatives that we looked at require that people go, proceed and then come back west or cross at the truck loading area where we may have some other traffic control, but that really, it seemed like we should have a route that is such that people will use it. If you have something that’s not really practical, people just won’t use it, and they’ll just go across the parking lot. So we’re trying to control and yet accommodate that kind of movement. MR. VOLLARO-On the northeast corner of the building, I’m looking on the floor here, because these drawings are pretty big. I’m looking at S-4, and at the northeast corner of S-4, there seems to be a doorway. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And so I just arbitrarily plotted a pedestrian path into that doorway. MR. PITTENGER-Well, it’s an emergency exit from the store. MR. VOLLARO-That’s an emergency exit? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s not something that somebody could into? MR. PITTENGER-Not really, no. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s a mistake on my part. MR. PITTENGER-Well, actually, that’s where I really wanted to bring it in because I thought it was the closest part and it seems logical to cross there, but then it puts you at a point where you have 400 feet to go back and 400 feet back in to really get into a store. There’s nothing there but a loading dock and a lot of wall. So that’s why we thought, rather than. It really does go to where the bus stop is. We anticipate a lot of the traffic will be coming this way. We didn’t feel like we could bring people here, drop them here, and then bring them back and in. So what we were really trying to do is realize that this is an entrance, at least, on the western portion of the Mall and try to be as close as we could in this kind of. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the path that you’re choosing, the one that you’re outlining with your finger? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. There, and then over. MR. LAPPER-That’s in the submittal. MR. VOLLARO-Look at this. There’s nothing like not having reviewed something before you get here, you know. MR. PITTENGER-Well, I mean, it was here for two hours already I think. No, I apologize for the lateness of the submittal, and I appreciate your indulgence in. MR. VOLLARO-Look at that. Gee, you know, all you’ve got to do is point me in the right direction. MR. PITTENGER-Next time I’m going to point. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. PITTENGER-Comment’s Four and Five refer to comments about the planting design for the project. I had inadvertently selected a tree type that was not on the list of recommended plants for future planting considerations. So we made a substitution of Honey Locusts to Little Leaf Lyndons and also agree to increase the size of the shade trees from two and a half to three inch caliper to the three inch minimum caliper that’s recommended in the planting guidelines. Five and Six I think I’ll address, there was some landscaping debris that was deposited back on the NiMo right of way. Mr. Orlando tells us that people leave all kinds of things on the Mall. His staff does not dispose of landscaping debris on the NiMo right of way. They will clean it up and try to police it better, but it wasn’t resulting from his operations. It was something that just kind of happened because the Mall’s a big place. MR. LAPPER-But grass clippings will not be placed there. MR. PITTENGER-Certainly not by the applicant. The seventh issue, bullet point in Chris Round’s memo of Staff concerns were regarding the loading dock, and I think, if we can, I don’t know if we want to deal with that. Actually, that’s been addressed in the letter that I drafted, in response to Mr. Palumbo’s issues on the site plan, and we can either deal with that now or save that until last, but that really is the main, I feel that, well, let’s just keep going, unless you have any issues on the landscaping, the planting substitutions, we’ll just keep going. MR. MAC EWAN-Fine. Move along. MR. PITTENGER-Great. Okay. Now I’m going back to the first page. We received an extension of comment letter from Frank Palumbo, and admittedly, we have quite a bit of modifications to do on our drawings, but I think the key here, and if I could, correct me if I’m wrong, I think that our philosophy on the treatments of our systems are correct. We have some details to provide. We have some clarifications to do. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me. Are you talking about the August 17 letter now? th MR. PITTENGER-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PITTENGER-I’m talking about, yes, my response to his letter. MR. VOLLARO-To the August 17 letter. th MR. PITTENGER-That is correct. I think, if you look on the second page of that letter, there’s probably 14 comments that we’ll just do, that we know we have to do, that we recognize that have to be done. We have provided a comprehensive stormwater report, however, it wasn’t really coordinated with the site drawings, and some of the information in the stormwater report was not put on the drawing. We also have had some discussions regarding more additional detail on the sanitary system, but I think that those are directly solvable, and we’re going to prepare to address those in our submission that we would like to get back in to the Board and to Frank for his review, two days from now, on Thursday. I think that the main issue that we really would like to talk about is one that we really don’t have a lot of flexibility in. MR. MAC EWAN-Russ, can I get you to back up? Repeat that again about submissions and Thursday? MR. PITTENGER-What we would like to do is provide a modified package to the Town for Frank’s review this week. We think we could turn this around in two days. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PITTENGER-And have a completed drawing that addresses all of his comments. MR. LAPPER-They’re mostly engineering, technical issues. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re looking to get it back on the agenda when? MR. LAPPER-Next week. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re going to have your submissions in to the Town on Thursday? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes generally go out on Friday. Are you going to be able to review, comment and have Staff notes distributed by Friday? MR. PALUMBO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So, that issue’s dead. We’ll look at doing something next month. Unless we do something like a special meeting or something. I just don’t see people turning things around that quickly. MR. LAPPER-We’re pretty much saying that we concur with everything that Frank’s asking for, and we’ll just need to provide it so that he can check it off the list. MR. MAC EWAN-But there’s also an internal review that’s got to go on, and getting time for Staff to distribute that stuff. I mean, like the stuff that we had placed in front of us tonight, you know our position is that we like to have time to review things, and when stuff is put on the table the night of a meeting, it doesn’t give this Board the opportunity to really review the projects that we’d like to, in the way we’d like to. MR. LAPPER-We’d understand if a special meeting were possible at the beginning of September. We’re just anxious to get this project going. If you could do a special meeting, we’d appreciate it, but, again, we’re concurring. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s a detail I think we can work out. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. PITTENGER-We have had discussions, consistently, with the Town Board, and also with Frank regarding the maneuvering of the trucks entering the loading dock area, and the fact that they would have to do some of their maneuvering in the ring road. In Frank’s letter, he indicated that that was compounded by a grading issue in the loading dock area. We’ve looked at that and we feel that we can address the slope of the truck loading area, and we’re brainstorming today. I’ve also included in the package a Sketch Plan, which is after the ones with the arrows indicating the route, that indicates the grading of the truck loading area which addresses some of the concerns that Frank had. I think that regarding some of the other ones in the maneuvering and the potential conflicts between cars on the ring road and truck service deliveries, I think we can address through some of the operational issues. This is a situation that is not uncommon in other stores. This has been constructed. I think it’s critical for our purposes that the Board understand that the tenant, they have a prototype that they’re hesitant to vary from. MR. LAPPER-Because of the location of your storage area in the building, on the opposite side of the main entrance. MR. STROUGH-How is the grading of this dock site different than Caldors? I mean, isn’t it similar? MR. PITTENGER-I don’t know how Caldors is graded. MR. LAPPER-Because the site drops off toward Aviation Road, so we’re bringing it back up. MR. PALUMBO-Jon, excuse me. I just wanted to make sure that I had something clarified. Did you say that the loading dock has to be opposite of the main entrance? MR. LAPPER-The main entrance to this store. MR. PALUMBO-Well, the main entrance has shifted down to that interior corner. You have it on the opposite corner. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but the main entrance is on the west side of the building, and the loading dock, the storage area. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. You’re just saying it has to be on the opposite side of the building. It doesn’t have to be directly? MR. PITTENGER-Correct. MR. PALUMBO-It’s not the same corner. MR. LAPPER-We’ve looked at other alternatives, but because that’s the main entrance to the Mall, right now, where the Food Court is, that we think it would be a worse location if we moved the 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) loading dock to that inside corner of the building, because that’s where the main entrance for pedestrians. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. I mean, I’ll let the discussion continue. I just wanted to make sure that when you said that that you weren’t saying that it had to be at the same end of the building as the main entrance. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. PALUMBO-All right. MR. PITTENGER-I’m going to run through the last couple of ideas that we came up with, that we feel mitigates some of the concern or hopefully for the Board, Staff and the review engineer’s consideration. We made a phone call today to a similar store and asked them about deliveries. They receive one tractor trailer per day, but we’ve provided in this memo that we anticipate that that will not exceed two tractor trailers per day. Those trailers come in from the distribution center. Typically, we are saying in this memo that they will be there between 8:30 and 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon. In other stores, they limit that eight to noon. So they have some control over the operations of the loading area. There are also some smaller trucks that do come in, a Fed Ex truck, a UPS truck, but the number of tractor trailers that actually come into this site are very few and they also occur in the mornings, which is not, you know, it may even be before the Mall opens depending on the distance to the distribution center, that those maneuvers are one truck a day. It’s not constant problem. So we wanted the Board to consider that. We also intend to treat the ring road in that area to make car and people traveling on the ring road aware that there’s trucks exit and entering that area by striping it off and providing some signage. So we think that this new information gives both the Board and Staff and review engineers some more input into the consideration of the appropriateness of that design there. MR. STROUGH-Doesn’t the Caldor dock also access the ring road? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it does, in the back of the Mall, the Bon Ton. MR. STROUGH-That hasn’t been a severe problem that I’ve noticed. MR. PITTENGER-No. It’s been no problem whatsoever. What I’ve indicated in the remainder of this memo really is that we have reviewed the comments. We feel that we can address them in a timely manner, and that our systems and our main designs are correct. It’s the detail and some more fleshing out that we have to do with it. We are prepared to do. MR. LAPPER-There was one other issue that Chris had asked us about the parking lot lighting, and Russ has made a change that the lighting on the opposite side of the entrance by Friendly’s, Russ had proposed four headlights, and those would be changed to two headlights which would just minimize any offsite light spillage, soften that. MR. PITTENGER-I can quickly go through that if you want. Thank you. This is a copy of the demolition plan which you have in your plan set, and what I’ve done here is try to highlight the lights that exist there and the proposed locations. These yellow highlights are the cobra heads which are out on Aviation Road currently. These two small yellow lights here will remain. Those are two head 30 foot poles. They’re double headers with 400 watts fixtures in each one. These two black lights are the tall, 45 footers, four head, general Mall parking field lights that would be displaced by the building, and we intend to move those into the parking field to accommodate the lumination. These blue lights are lights that are indicated that can remain. We have an opportunity, perhaps, to move them, just to get them out of the parking lanes. We could gain a parking space by sliding them perhaps 10 feet. These red lights here are lights that have to be moved because they would be in the driving lane or we’re doing re-grading in the area. So we have two big lights that have to be moved because of the building, we have two lights that have to be moved because they’re in the driving lane. We have five of the small two headed lights that we would like to relocate to this upper parking area, along this entrance road here, and one in this Friendly’s parking lot. MR. STROUGH-Well, why would you move them into the upper parking area if that’s not, I mean, that might not happen for a while. MR. PITTENGER-They would be stored until that was constructed. I mean, this is our design. MR. STROUGH-That would be part of the expansion of that reserve parking, should that occur. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. I mean, there’s a big four header up here now, but with our re- grading, that would have to be shuffled around, but that’s our plan, which is a slight variation from 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) what we have presented to you, but by reducing these lights in here to the two heads, it keeps pretty much the same light level as it exists now. MR. STROUGH-Well, didn’t Staff suggest that the height of the lights, the pole height be more in line with the Town Code the way it’s going to move? MR. LAPPER-Let me answer that. Staff did suggest that, and we had a detailed discussion with Chris and Laura about that a few days ago. The issue is that, under the new guidelines, there would be 20 foot poles, but a lot more of them, and certainly that makes sense for new facilities, but here, because we’ve got all these parking fields, if everything was the same except right next to the new department store, it was a different layout, it would just look, it just wouldn’t match. So what we’re saying is that we’ll accommodate the smaller lights on the entrance road, and certainly the new northwest lands, when that gets developed, would be done with the smaller lights, but to take, all we’re really doing here is relocating two of the big ones, and it just wouldn’t make sense to change the lights. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And that’s it for us. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy, we’ll start with you. Questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’ve got a question. Let’s start right out with this. I’m looking at the site statistics sheet, cover sheet, and I’ve already addressed this before, when I tried to get the Gross Leasable Area, and I’m safe in assuming that 591,000 square feet is not all Gross Leasable Area, although it’s listed as Gross Leasable Area. MR. PITTENGER-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And it’s not a real total either because it’s not existing, part of it. MR. PITTENGER-It includes the 34,000 that was approved but not built. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, see, these figures keep, I can’t make everything jive. I’ve said that before. MR. PITTENGER-I’ll be happy to fix that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Friendly’s Ice Cream, existing 50 foot setback, proposed 90 foot setback. MR. PITTENGER-That’s because, as part of the zone change, it included measuring the setbacks in a different manner, measuring it from the edge of pavement. So this proposed complies with the amendments to the ESC, that 25A regulation. MR. LAPPER-The building doesn’t change. MR. PITTENGER-The building doesn’t change. MR. STROUGH-All right. Okay. MR. ROUND-Just a clarification. The ESC zone modification, we don’t propose, we didn’t propose to edge of pavement. I mean, it was proposed to be measured from the edge of pavement. The Town Board found that it should be measured from the property line, and the ESC zone was modified for a 40 foot setback as well as the Travel Corridor Overlay setback. So that should. MR. PITTENGER-Okay. So what I said was wrong. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. ROUND-Okay. So the building hasn’t moved. So the setback is measured from the property line or the highway right of way, and it is 40 feet. MR. LAPPER-That was on there to be proposed. MR. ROUND-That was the submittal at the time that the FEIS was submitted. MR. LAPPER-We’ll fix that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What else, John? MR. STROUGH-I have a hard time trying to delineate how many parking spaces you have, where they’re located, what directions they’re going in. MR. PITTENGER-That was part of the product that Sear Brown gave us. It was to actually put numbers in the spaces. MR. STROUGH-And some of them are eight foot widths? MR. PITTENGER-No, sir. MR. STROUGH-It’s listed as eight foot widths. MR. PALUMBO-Some of the handicapped spaces you have listed as eight foot, right up by the entrances. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-On S-4, you have 96 eight bays at eight foot width. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-But that doesn’t meet Town Code. It has to be nine foot minimum. MR. PITTENGER-There’s an eight foot space in between each of those eight foot bays. So that there’s three bays of 20. MR. STROUGH-It’s not delineated as handicap parking. I don’t see, see, what I’m saying is I see just what you put down. MR. PITTENGER-I understand. I’ll be happy to clarify that, but eight bays at eight feet would be 64 feet. So the 96 would be indicative of the bays in between. MR. STROUGH-The pull out in the FEIS, it shows me a building firmly on the plateau, but the cross section shows me a building that goes down the slope. I mean, am I right in thinking this building is supposed to be that building, they’re supposed to be the same building? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-Those are really conceptual drawings for potential future development. MR. STROUGH-I’m just saying they don’t match up. MR. LAPPER-Well, the 150, the box, we were showing you an envelope of how you could fit a 150,000 square foot building on that site, and then, secondarily, we were showing you if what Chris was explaining before, if you had 50 feet facing the road and 80 feet in the back, what that would look like. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s fine. Again, my notes, between square foot and Gross Leasable Area, I keep on having, running into problems with that. Pedestrian bicycle access. Are there any bike racks around the Mall? MR. ORLANDO-Yes, existing bike racks all around the Mall. MR. PITTENGER-In fact, in this proposed department store, there’s a bike rack at either side of the entrance, and a typical design. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now I noticed that you dismissed, in part of this, and I mentioned this before, of potentially connecting the Mall, not the Burger King parking lot, but with the, I mentioned 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) going to get a movie, and going to the restaurant. Remember? The possibility of connecting those two parking lots doesn’t look like it was seriously looked into. It looked like you more or less are not interested in doing it. I mean, am I reading this right? MR. LAPPER-We just feel that because of the grade change that it’s not feasible, and because we don’t control that property. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know, but I’m wondering did you even inquire of the owner of the other property if they were maybe mutually interested in working out something? MR. LAPPER-I guess there’s just a cost effective issue, but beyond that, and we’ve had discussions with DOT about that, taking traffic out to that traffic light at Toys R Us. It’s so close to the main intersection, it doesn’t serve the purpose. If Foster Ave. ever happened, and we’re not advocating that it should or shouldn’t, but if it ever happened, it would bring traffic all the way over to where Foster Ave. is. MR. STROUGH-Well, I could see that potential. MR. LAPPER-But if you bring it out to where Toys R Us is, it’s still so close to the main 9 and 254 interchange that it doesn’t help congestion. MR. STROUGH-I can see your point of view. All right. Stormwater I’m going to go back and take another look at. I had a whole bunch of questions, and I’ll go back and see your reply. Okay. Most of these others are stormwater, we’ve already talked about issues, and I’ve got to read stuff. Thank. MR. PITTENGER-I think that the plans that we resubmit will have a higher level of detail than the plans you have, for stormwater related issues, although the stormwater plan, the concept is not really going to change much. There’ll be a lot of clarifications, though. MR. STROUGH-All right. Okay. Thank you. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I just want to ask one question. We don’t have to be concerned about any outside displays, merchandising, anything like that, fences? MR. LAPPER-Would you do special, if you have a special event with motor homes or something? MR. METIVIER-No, I mean, more like, let’s say, for instance, Lowe’s, garden center, stuff like that, outside merchandising. MR. ORLANDO-There’s no garden center on this store, as it’s currently proposed. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. ORLANDO-There’s really no opportunity for outdoor display area. MR. METIVIER-Wonderful. Say no more. MR. ORLANDO-I think that anything they might have would be out by the door, but I don’t think it’s typical. MR. METIVIER-No, that’s fine, but you know what I’m getting at. MR. RINGER-The thing is, we get Wal-Marts and stuff like that that put their lawn and garden and their fertilizers and all that stuff. In the summertime they want to use their parking spaces to merchandise their summer equipment. MR. LAPPER-That’s not this store. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want one question. The view you have on the bottom, the store itself. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. PITTENGER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-The color of the store. MR. PITTENGER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Is that closer to what you think it’s going to look like, or is this closer to what you think it’s going to look like? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good question. MR. VOLLARO-Where are we with respect to colors? MR. PITTENGER-I can say that what you’re holding in your hand was given to us by the tenant as their current color and materials. This was constructed, I would say that what you have in your hand is closer to what the tenant proposes. MR. VOLLARO-This is closer to what it’s going to be. MR. LAPPER-It’s more earth tone than orange. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. It’s more of a tan color than orange. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if it’s a tan color it’s closer to that. If it’s orange, it’s closer to this. I’m trying to get where, because I’m not sure this is totally consistent with the way the Mall looks now, and maybe this is design criteria by. MR. LAPPER-I think for next time we can. MR. MAC EWAN-For the next meeting, when you make your submissions, give us something that’s more representative of the actual materials you’re going to use, samples. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I couldn’t live with that orange. It’s got to be more earth tone. MR. STROUGH-Bob, would you ask them, since it’s your turn, I can’t. Would you ask them if we could get that other view that said that we got? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, with the EIS you’re talking about. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-With the Final Environmental Impact Statement, we didn’t get, it was not attached to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, neither of those views were. MR. ROUND-There was an addendum, and they were transmitted to you. The evening I was here, they were at the door and everybody was to pick them up. MR. VOLLARO-After you get beat about the head and shoulders for a few hours, you forget things like that. MR. ROUND-We do have, we have the copies. I have extra copies. I brought them back to my office after that meeting, but the Town Board, it may have been because the Town Board hadn’t accepted it yet, but we’ll make sure you got a copy of it. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What else have you got? MR. ROUND-Other than the proposed relocation of your parking lot lights, which we understand, and I agree with looks pretty good, is there any proposed illumination of signs or building other than, in other words, I haven’t seen on any of the drawings any proposed building illumination. MR. PITTENGER-The sign characters are internally lit. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, other than that. MR. PITTENGER-And there’s decorative signing that I’m aware, decorative lighting on either side of the entrance, as indicated on that plan that you’re holding. MR. VOLLARO-The little white dots? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They are lights? MR. PITTENGER-Yes. They’re decorative lights, and I believe there must be some kind of lighting on the emergency door and at the loading dock , but I don’t have information for that, but nothing that I’m aware of that lights up the store, the landscaping or any spots or any hanging things that I’m aware of at all. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So if I had a lighting plan in front of me, nothing, these little spots certainly wouldn’t change the lumens on the ground for a lighting plan. MR. PITTENGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think. MR. PITTENGER-I think they would throw a fan up and down, as I look at those, it looks like they kind of throw up and down, to just kind of highlight the entrance. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-The questions that I had were on the actual entrances to the proposed new store. You show the main entrance and you show some doors, but are those doors only emergency access? MR. PITTENGER-That is correct, and employee access. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I’m thinking of, you know, like Sears or Penney’s where, you know, you have side entrances to get into the stores. MR. PITTENGER-I’m sorry. There is an entrance into the Mall from the store also. There’s an outside entrance. There’s an entrance from the Mall. MR. HUNSINGER-But for example, there’s no entrance on the north side or on the east side. MR. PITTENGER-No, there is an emergency exit, that is quite a bit of upgrade. We have to do a little bit of detailing on the stairs or ramp to get out of there, and then there are some exits out the back, what would be the east side of service stuff, or it goes out to the gas meters out there and things like that, but there’s really no. MR. HUNSINGER-That kind of surprises me. Is that by the tenant’s design? MR. LAPPER-The reason is because the east side is where the storage, the back room storage. MR. HUNSINGER-That I understand, but the north side, you know. MR. LAPPER-The north side, the way it lays out on this site, there’s not significant parking there. So you wouldn’t want to encourage people to come to that side. MR. PITTENGER-I think, also, that the design of the store is such that there used to be an in a strip, or be an in to something else where they’re butting up against other stores, and in a strip or something like that. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s the way they lay out their merchandise and everything else. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct, and even, it also becomes a loss prevention issue. The more exits you have, the more places that people can steal your merchandise. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the question, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions? Comments? MR. PALUMBO-In my letter you’ll see that I did raise the concern, and I had significant concerns about the loading dock. I’m not expecting that that would change. I understand the tenant requirements on that, but I just, because of some of the discussion that came up, I thought I should make a couple of comments about it. I wouldn’t compare it to the Caldor, per say, because of it’s 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) location. It’s location is on that front ring road. That front ring road is what is the primary connector between all three of those entrances. So my concern there is about the trucks pulling in to that area. That’s my concern, and I raised the professional concern and the comments based on the grading, first and foremost, because it was sloped significantly away from the building, right toward that ring road. I had grave concerns about that, if a truck were to start to roll, it would roll right toward that ring road. Most loading docks you’d probably see are sloped back toward the building. So I don’t want to overplay it or downplay it, but I just wanted, you know, the awareness of that clear. They did drop the slope down, but I was just a little concerned when we were comparing it to the Caldor, because I think the traffic flow in front there is for your consideration. I’m not saying that it’s doable or not or what, but I wanted it clearly focused on. Also, in general, knowing, and even witnessing earlier tonight, this Board looks at things in very good detail, and I think with the next set of plans, I think that there’s an expectation of a greater level of detail, so that you’d be able to focus on those things more clearly. Right now I think that they have started to address them from the conceptual level, and I do hope that on that next set of plans you’ll be able to focus in on many of the things that you normally do, such as that full internal circulation. There was one area that I also pointed out in my letter that was a concern as well, and as you were talking about the bus stop, that was that whole configuration of the parking lanes coming in that becomes a primary feed. The main entrance drive now loads right down towards where the bus area is, and you have a parking lane coming out. You have a main drive coming in. The drives along the building are skewed, so you start to have traffic that’s facing each other, in opposing lanes. So I wanted you to take a close look at that to see whether or not you felt that that internal circulation worked there in a safe manner. So there were many of the items that you raised that I had also raised in my letter, and I’m hoping that with the next set of plans that detail is worked out so that you can fully evaluate it. MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-We have no dispute with any of those issues, and we’ll get it to you immediately. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ve kind of been jotting down a laundry list here. If anybody wants to add something to it, or disagrees with it, let me know. First and foremost, you’ve got to revise your plans pursuant to Frank’s letter dated 8/17. We’re also going to revise the Findings Statement to include the language, the changes that we want. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want me to read you a proposed one right now? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, sure, if you want. MR. SCHACHNER-Proposed to add this in the paragraph number eight on page thirteen, which is the paragraph that talks about, or one of the paragraphs that talks about the dollar per square foot mitigation fee. It’s a short sentence. It says, this traffic impact mitigation fee may also be utilized by the Town for traffic improvements at other locations which are reasonably related to the function of the Routes 9 and 254 intersection. MR. MAC EWAN-Doable? MR. STROUGH-Good. I like it. MR. VOLLARO-That works. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. The wheels of government move smoothly sometimes. MR. STROUGH-Also, Craig. MR. ROUND-We’ll clarify the building square footages in a couple of locations. MR. STROUGH-What I’m thinking of, Chris, is, you know, maybe they wouldn’t have to make it, change the wordings of the Findings to be attached to the Findings a clarification of 125,000; 23,500, 34,000; 101,500; 591,000; 661,000 square foot versus Gross, you know, and make it a package that explains everything and makes everything else fit into place, as just an addition to the Findings. That way you wouldn’t have to change the words of the Findings, just, this is what we’re referring to as a supplementary. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think you can do that. Can you? MR. ROUND-I can do, it’s easy enough to change the Findings. MR. MAC EWAN-With respect to the Findings Statement. You can’t, like, add an Addendum to the Findings Statement. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. SCHACHNER-No, then it’s part of the Findings Statement. So I don’t care if you physically add it as a separate page called Addendum, but I mean, it sounds like Chris is comfortable changing the Findings Statement in the minor ways you’re talking about, to make the minor clarifications. Clearly, the applicant has no problem with that issue at all. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-So, I think you should just do that and not create a new set of documents. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Couldn’t we just add a sentence that said, 34,000 square feet will be demolished and the total new building will be 125,000 square feet? MR. ROUND-I’ll share it with you before we. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. You guys put your heads together and work on something, and we know what we’re looking for, to come to some agreement on that, okay. Color selections and/or material samples of the proposed building. Obviously, you’re going to revise your plans pursuant to all the documentation we went over tonight. The request for the missing photo renderings that were in the FEIS. MR. LAPPER-That’s a request to Chris. MR. MAC EWAN-Who will probably call you and ask you for copies, okay, and that’s all I had. Is there more? MR. STROUGH-Well, they’re going to change the GGFTA to whatever. MR. ROUND-Yes, I’ve got that. MR. VOLLARO-I think you got it, Craig. I don’t see anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The public hearing is open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to leave it open. I don’t anticipate anyone wants to speak tonight. I didn’t think so. I’ll leave it open. Okay. Motion to table, please. MR. LAPPER-Is there any reason to keep it open? MR. MAC EWAN-I think just in keeping with the way we do things. I mean, we still have an application open, and I really don’t see any reason to close it. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to make a, when are we going to do this in September? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not going to put a date on it, because depending on how much homework they’ve got and how quickly they get it to Staff, then Chris will get in touch with me and we’ll come up with a date. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I mean, to think that you’re going to get everything done by Thursday, I would think would be a stretch, unless you don’t have a personal life or anything. MR. RINGER-If you leave the public hearing open, then you’re going to have to re-advertise the meeting. MR. SCHACHNER-If you leave a public hearing open, you are supposed to continue it to a date certain. The theory being, as Larry correctly points out, that the numerous members of the public who are interested in commenting know when to come back. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s tentatively shoot for, today’s the 21. st MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to try to get it in next Tuesday. That’s what your target is. MR. MAC EWAN-How about we shoot for Tuesday, September the 4? I don’t hear any th objections. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. SCHACHNER-I’m assuming you don’t need me here for the remainder of the meeting? MRS. LA BOMBARD-You mean have a special meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s what we’re going to do. Is that doable? MR. SCHACHNER-Not for me, but don’t hold it up on my account. MR. HUNSINGER-The day after Labor Day. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The day after Labor Day. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think that’s a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That means that you need to have your submissions to them by the 29. th Does that give you time to review and distribute or not? I need a date from you guys. Chris? MR. PALUMBO-If that’s intended for us, as we were talking before, to get it to you by, and get it back to Chris for distribution on Friday the 31, I would request the 28, one week in advance of the stth meeting. That gives us basically two days, two and a half days to review it, and get that information to Chris. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you need to have your submissions to the Town by close of business on the 28. Doable? th MR. LAPPER-Not a problem. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Frank? Is that doable? MR. PALUMBO-Done. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s 9/4. Okay. Motion to table, please. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2001, FEIS, PYRAMID CO./AVIATION MALL, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Tabled until a meeting of September 4, 2001. [Tabled to revise plans pursuant to Frank’s (Palumbo) letter dated 8/17; to revise the Finding Statement to include the language, the changes that we want; color selections, and/or material samples of the proposed building; to revise the plans pursuant to all the documentation covered tonight; a request for the missing photo renderings that were in the FEIS.] Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM SPEAR, SPEAR REALTY CORP. AGENT: ROBBIE LANKFORD, PASTOR ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 4 HUNTERBROOK LANE APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY UTLIZING THE FORMER PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE BUILDING FOR THE NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-18, CHURCH IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 5-1989, SP 57-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/8/01 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34.2 LOT SIZE: 1.45 ACRES SECTION: 179- 18 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) ROBBIE LANKFORD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 32-2001, New Hope Community Church, Meeting Date: August 21, 2001 “Project Description: The applicant is requesting to utilize the existing building as a church facility. The applicant was informed by the Building and Codes Department that no interior alterations could be performed until site plan review. The Building and Codes Department has issued a Temporary CO pending site plan review and approval. The applicant was not aware of the site plan review requirement prior to occupancy. Project Analysis (Section 179-38): Site Overview The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs: the applicant proposes to utilize the existing building with minor exterior changes. The applicant proposes to construct a 14 square foot rubbish containment area for 3 to 4 -39 gallon garbage containers, and an 80 square foot shed for lawn maintenance equipment. The applicant does not propose a sign or any other changes to the site. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The parking area has 56 parking spaces that would accommodate 280 people. The applicant has indicated increasing their existing membership to 200 plus is a long-term goal. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant has provided an engineering review of the septic system capacity that could accommodate the proposed volume of people. Areas of Concern or Importance: The Beautification Committee of 1989 reviewed the previous site plan for the Prudential Building (SP 57-89). The planting plan that exists today is in conformance with the previous requirement that no trees or shrubs be planted to the east side of the building except a Crabapple tree.” MR. ROUND-Just so you know, they currently occupy the facility. They did make an inquiry to the Building and Codes office. There were no interior alterations to be performed, or necessary to be performed until site plan review, and the Building and Codes office, without our knowledge, did issue a temporary CO for the facility. Just so you know it was not at the applicant’s, the applicant didn’t do anything knowingly wrong by occupying the structure. I just want to make sure you know that. Basically, there’s not going to be any changes to the facility. They’re going to occupy that as is. It is an office. It was formerly used as the Prudential office. There’s not a lot to talk about with this particular project. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty cut and dried. MR. ROUND-I did receive correspondence just today on this. Just to make you aware of that when you get to the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. ROUND-Yes. I think with this type of use typically the concern is site needs, adequate parking facilities, and they did, Laura did comment, there are 56 parking spaces on site. Assuming five people in a car, you could accommodate up to 280 people, and I think the long term goal of the organization is to accommodate up to 200 people in their membership. MR. RINGER-Isn’t five per car, that seems like an awful high number? MR. ROUND-That’s excessive. I’m reading that, that’s why I didn’t repeat it on the record. I don’t know where she pulled that number. MR. RINGER-When I read this. MR. MAC EWAN-She’s not here to defend herself. Let’s not take pot shots. MR. LANKFORD-My name is Robbie Lankford. I’m the Pastor of New Hope, and we would actually, we’d like to go beyond 200 hopefully, but at this point we’re well below that. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Chris? MR. ROUND-That’s it from this end. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. LANKFORD-Well, I think it’s pretty straightforward. I assume you have my letter that’s kind of explaining what we’re doing. We’re just basically asking your approval to use the Prudential, former Prudential building as our church facility. Not really looking to use it for anything out of the ordinary, just basically for worship services, for bible studies, and things of that nature, primarily using it on Sundays, and different things throughout the week, and pretty straightforward. Just using it for our church purposes. We would, just to kind of let you know where we are, I think Chris kind of shared this a little bit. Basically the way the building is set up right now, we can only have 49 persons or less in there, and so we’ve talked to the Building and Codes Director, Dave Hatin, and also with the Fire Marshal, and we’re working with them, pending your approval tonight, we’re going to make the changes that need to be made to the building for us to have, you know, the number of people we’d like to have in there for an assembly type gathering. MR. MAC EWAN-And what kind of changes would those be? MR. LANKFORD-Well, basically, Dave and Chris Jones have informed us that we would need to, I think I put this in my letter, that we would have to change two of the exits. We’d have to widen the exits, which would mean we’d have to change three doors, because one of the exits actually has an interior door going out of it. So we’d change two exits. We’d have to put a fire alarm system in, and that’s pretty much all the changes that need to be made. There’s some ADA requirements, Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, some door knob kind of things have to be changed, the bathroom, there has to be some adjustments in the bathroom for that kind of thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m just curious, they’re not handicap accessible in the restrooms in there now? MR. LANKFORD-They are, but the thing about it is this building was built as an office building, in 1989 and was fully up to Code for that, but from my understanding from David, now that we’re changing the type of occupancy, we have to re-visit the Codes for an assembly type of gathering, of usage, and so, at that time, there is handicap access in the bathrooms, but it has to be brought pretty much up to Code for today. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. LANKFORD-No, that’s pretty much it, unless you have any questions for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I didn’t have any. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I’ve just got one concern. It says in the Plan A, Drawing Number A, I guess it’s identified as, and it shows where your, you know, it was labeled as Agent’s Area, Agent’s has been slashed, and Worship Area, I guess, is now the identified area, but the notes on there says the floor load of 100 pounds per square foot, and the limitation of occupants to 28. Well, obviously you’re planning on having more than 28 people there, and maybe Chris Round can help me out here, but, you know, why wouldn’t those limitations still apply to this situation. Do you see what I’m saying? MR. ROUND-Could you go over that again? MR. STROUGH-I’m on Drawing A. MR. VOLLARO-A-1? MR. STROUGH-A and it looks like a question mark. It didn’t come out very good in the Photostat. MR. VOLLARO-A-2. MR. STROUGH-A-2, in the lower right hand corner it says A-2. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got it. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. STROUGH-And do you see where it says Agents has been slashed and Worship has been written in. Do you see that? In the main room, right in the center of the main room. MR. VOLLARO-Got it, yes, Worship. MR. STROUGH-And above that it says floor load 100 pounds per square foot. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. STROUGH-And total area is 2848 square feet. The maximum occupancy is 28. MR. VOLLARO-I see that. MR. STROUGH-Why wouldn’t those restrictions still apply to this situation? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think this whole thing is probably based on the floor joists and the load that floor joists would take. MR. ROUND-I don’t know that that’s a Code issue from, it’s not from a structural standpoint. It’s probably from an occupancy class standpoint. MR. LANKFORD-And that’s what I was going to say. I think this is probably a figure based on the type of occupant that’s going to be in this building, which was a business kind of occupant. I know, as far as square footage goes, I’m not sure about floor load, but as far as square footage goes, the number that you usually use in assembly kind of things, there’s about 10, and Dave said 15, 15 square foot per person. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but with a floor load of 100 pounds per square foot, it makes me think that these are floor joists and not a cement slab. Do you know one way or the other? MR. LANKFORD-No, I don’t. MR. STROUGH-Do you, Chris? MR. ROUND-I think this structure is built on slab. MR. MAC EWAN-If it had a basement. MR. ROUND-There’s no basement. MR. LANKFORD-Right, there’s no basement. MR. STROUGH-Well, there could be a crawl space, Craig, but, and your access could be from an exterior access point. It might not necessarily be, all right, well that’s the only thing that has me concerned. Otherwise, it’s fine. Go ahead. I just had a concern with right there. That limitation’s noted right there. MR. ROUND-The problem is using an existing plan for this new occupancy, we’ll make sure that the Building Department’s aware of that, that they won’t, I mean, there’s a structural issue there. If there is a structural issue, we’ll make sure we fully examine it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Fine. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Is the building sprinklered? MR. LANKFORD-No, it’s not. MR. RINGER-Isn’t there a regulation, Chris, on so many 100 people you have to be sprinklered? MR. ROUND-It’s for new construction, construction of new facilities, you have to do that, and the Fire Marshal will examine it. If it’s a change in occupancy class, there is a trigger there when you have to look it. Don’t quote me on this, but it depends on, if it’s a wooden structure, and it’s a 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) change of occupancy class and it’s building size thresholds as well. So it depends on how large the structure is, and whether you’re mixing issues. So, Dave would handle. MR. RINGER-Well, we had the Y in here I remember for that Homer Avenue thing, and they had to keep it under 100, because if they went over 100, they had to be, the number may be wrong, occupancy, but they had to be sprinklered if it was over 100. MR. ROUND-Okay. Yes, Dave picked up on that and that’s a Building Code issue, and they would identify that. MR. LANKFORD-And we’ve had Chris Jones in the building walk around and just kind of go through with us what we would need as far as. MR. RINGER-My concern is we give them approval and they do all the work to alterations and then find they’ve got a sprinkler the thing which could be quite expensive. MR. ROUND-That is a Code issue, and they’ll advise the Reverend accordingly. MR. MAC EWAN-Along those lines, why isn’t this room sprinklered? It doesn’t have a sprinkler system in it? MR. ROUND-It’s invisible. TOM NACE MR. NACE-It’s the type of construction, Craig. MR. ROUND-Yes. It’s masonry versus steel versus wood, occupancy class mixing, etc., time that the building was constructed, whether that applied at that point, and there’s several other variables. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything. I was just looking to have that one question answered. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I went first. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you did, didn’t you. Anything else from Staff? MR. ROUND-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a letter? MR. ROUND-I have a letter from Frank DeSantis, Frank V. DeSantis. We just received this today. “I’m writing on behalf of Bay Associates the original developers of Crossroads Park, grantors of the property which is the subject of this application and current owners of Lots 3 and 5 of Crossroads Park. A Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions was filed on September 21, 1989 in Book 769 of Deeds at page 205 in the Warren County Clerk’s Office that restricts the uses to which this property may be placed. Specifically the premises may be used for “professional offices” only. The proposed use as a church is contrary to the filed covenants. Section 179-5 of the Town Zoning Ordinance recites that where the Ordinance is more restrictive than covenants between parties the ordinance shall control. Implied in this section is the fact that where covenants between the parties are more restrictive than the ordinance such covenants shall control. Please make this letter part of the record of the Public Hearing scheduled for this Application. Sincerely, Frank V. DeSantis” MR. ROUND-So, I think he’s indicated that there is a deed, there is a covenant or a deed restriction on the property that’s something that the applicant should be aware of. We do, if the Ordinance is more restrictive than the covenant, the Ordinance would apply, whether that provision was in our Ordinance or not. So if we prohibited church uses in our Ordinance, which we cannot, by law, and a 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) covenant did not restrict it, it would apply whether 179 articulated that or not. So, the reverse is not true. We do not enforce, as Bob Vollaro knows full well, we do not enforce deed restrictions or covenants. Those are private contractual issues between a landowner or a grantee and a grantor. So it really has little bearing on your decision, but it does have a bearing on a potential impact on a. MR. HUNSINGER-So who would enforce the deed restriction, the current owner of the property? MR. SCHACHNER-Whomever, private parties. The point is that the second statement. I haven’t seen that letter before. I’m hearing it for the first time, as are you, but the second statement in that letter is not legally correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I understand. MR. SCHACHNER-Where he says and therefore that implies the flip side. That’s legally not correct, an in fact deed restrictions, private contracts, agreements between private parties and the like, are not things that we have the legal authority to enforce. As a practical matter, that may mean that, as is the case here, that an approval, if in fact you approve this application, may not end up being a valid approval, from the standpoint of enforcement of the restriction or covenant. It wouldn’t be invalid that the Planning Board approved it, but private parties do go to court seeking to enforce deed restrictions, covenants and other forms of private agreements, and sometimes they succeed, but that’s not our business. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RINGER-Were you aware of that covenant? MR. LANKFORD-Well, the only thing I know about the Bay Road Associates is there was a merger into several other companies. So I don’t know if there was any changes or I don’t know. That’s just something we’ll have to check into obviously, but, no, I wasn’t aware of that. MR. ROUND-Yes. It came to us today, this afternoon. We’ll provide a copy to you so you have it. MR. LANKFORD-I’d appreciate that. We’ll definitely check into that, for sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. With that, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 32-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH, 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 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) 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 21 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2001 NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 32-2001 for New Hope Community Church. Applicant is currently utilizing the former Prudential Insurance building for the New Hope Community Church. Pursuant to Section 179-18, Church is subject to Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 48-3-34.2. Cross Reference: SB 5-2989, SP 57-89. Lot size: 1.45 acres. Section: 179-18, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 7/25/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/17/01: 8/21/01 Staff Notes 8/14/01 Notice of Public Hearing 8/8/01 Warren County Planning Board- NCI 8/1/01 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 8/21/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 21st day of August 2001 by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-With the condition that the Building Department will address the floor load and occupant limitations as noted in Drawing A-2, to see if there might be any limitations that would apply to the proposal before us. MR. HUNSINGER-They do that anyway, don’t they? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought they did anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-They do that regardless, don’t they? 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. STROUGH-Well, I wanted to condition the approval that the Building Department will address the notations in Drawing A-2. MR. ROUND-It’ll be done, regardless whether it’s included or not, though. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We don’t need to put it in if it’s going to be done anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think I need to put it in, if they’re going to do it anyway. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LANKFORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. DISCUSSION ITEM: PROPOSED VARIANCE/SITE PLAN FOR HAYES & HAYES JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. LAPPER-Marilyn did a three page analysis, which we liked a lot. So it should be read into the record. MR. RINGER-The Staff notes are only one line anyway. MR. ROUND-It says, “Please review information provided by Staff memo dated July 31.” Just so st you know why this project is here, initially this project has been submitted for an Area Variance application to allow a greater density than is permitted under our current zoning density. We did find that the application, the variance application, was not complete, but we will be referring, you know, we had asked that, in lieu of a formal referral from the ZBA, we said this project is going to make that request. When you do receive the complete application, but it’s advisable that you go in front of the Planning Board, as a discussion item, to discuss these issues, because, as you know, we’ve run into this cart before the horse kind of thing that we, if the Zoning Board issues a variance, is the Planning Board obligated to grant a site plan that’s consistent with the variance issued? So we want to make sure that we’re both communicating. So Marilyn did develop a three page memorandum, and it does indicate that the Planning Board has been asked to provide an advisory recommendation on the concept plan as it pertains to the application for an Area Variance. I’m going to paraphrase some of this. You do have a copy of this in front of you. The comments were developed on, after review of our Comprehensive Plan, the zoning code, Subdivision Ordinance and SEQRA Regulations as they currently exist. The property is 33.53 acres, and was previously home to the Ashton asphalt and concrete batch plant. 31 acres are located in the SR-1A zone and the remaining 2 acres are in the Rural Residential Three Acre zone. The project applicant, Hayes and Hayes, have identified the clean-up cost, you folks have, many of you have walked the site. There is a significant amount of concrete waste which is generally clean, environmentally clean, but it provides an impediment to development because you have to deal with all of this concrete slag type of materials, and there are some site constraints that exist as a result of the operations that have taken place on this site. So the remediation costs or the clean-up costs they’ve identified on the order of $270,000. The applicant argues that the $270,000 makes it not feasible to develop the allowed the 33 single family homes. Meaning that it’s going to price these homes outside of what is probably a marketable range. They’re asking for an Area Variance to site 98 townhouse units, to make a project economically viable in the applicant’s mind. The applicant notes that the benefits will include removal of visual blight and assorted junk materials, remediation of the site for improved physical environment and community character, and they note that the densities in the area are 10,000 square feet. The benefit to the applicant is compensation for site remediation. I’m going to skip through the Project Location and Surrounding Properties, but you do know where the property is located. It is adjacent to West Mountain Road, south of Potter Road. Marilyn does characterize that the densities, or the minimum parcel acreages, so you do know this, there are parcels that range from five to fifty-three acres in size, north, further north, they’re on the order of one to two acres. There are a dozen parcels south of McEchron’s private cemetery, along Applehouse and Lester Drive, and those are 150 by 150 in area. The Comprehensive Plan notes this parcel is in Neighborhood Three. The only recommendation for this area concerns creation of a watershed protection zone, which does not involve this particular property. We do note the goal, S5.2, that notes that areas where residential development has already occurred, and environmental and infrastructure conditions are satisfactory, 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) remaining parcels should be allowed to be developed with lot sizes similar to the surrounding developed land. Benefits are consolidation of services, conservation of land and creation of housing within the financial means of area residents. Goal S5.4 states, “Recognize the need for housing types other than single-family houses, and provide zoning to support this land use”. Our memorandum continues to say, “Allowing a three fold density increase would be close to sizes allowed to the south of the proposed development, but not to the north”, or would allow lots to be developed in a similar size to those land areas south of this area. “The purpose of the SR districts is to enhance the suburban neighborhoods and to provide for residential opportunities. Some of the CLUP residential housing goals would be met by this development. The next question is whether or not the environmental and infrastructure conditions are satisfactory”, for this, or would allow this type of development. “The Land O’ Pines water district line goes through the property. On-site septic would be required. The applicant has not offered any information to indicate acceptable soils areas. This information is important since no information has been provided to demonstrate site areas that may not be usable, even after remediation. While this is not a density calculation question for zoning, it is one for the practicality of placement for housing units and cluster design. Cluster design reduces infrastructure costs. The applicant has deducted the pond and steep slopes from density calculations. Other considerations should be figured into these calculations for cluster design; street R-O-W, and public easements (e.g. water line). Development of more than 50 multi-family units requires that a recreation plan be presented. Adequate, usable land for the recreation area must also be considered.” Environmental Conditions. Marilyn continues on about “Karner blue butterfly habitat is located east of the subject parcel, on both sides of Potter Rd.” Those items should be addressed. “A concern here with increased residential development would be disposal of grass clippings and other yard wastes onto habitat areas, destroying them. Deed and/or lease covenants, site plan/plat notes, and landscaping requirements are ways to address these concerns. This would satisfy potential for adverse impacts on environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The main concern is whether or not the site can be fully remediated. Other impacts considerations are stormwater and drainage, vegetative cover, and traffic.” Additional Information “The following suggestions are offered, based on Town goal S5.2 to determine whether or not environmental and infrastructure conditions are satisfactory. 1. A better calculation of developable land is needed.” And this was noted in correspondence from Craig Brown to the applicant, or the applicant’s agent. “Any lands that cannot be remediated should be noted on the plan. The existing water line and isolation distances should be shown and noted on the plan. 2. Areas should be shown on the plan that would indicate soils suitable for septic systems for the # of housing units feasible, and the land area for recreation purposes”, should be identified. “3. Will remediation allow for proper stormwater drainage upon completion? 4. What will the impact of additional traffic generated be on the neighborhood, especially at the Potter Rd. intersection? The number of units required for to benefit the applicant is considered 98. If 98 units cannot be accommodated, then is the project still feasible? A statement from the applicant regarding whether or not all of the land outlined in density information is developable, should be obtained. Conclusion. The practical effect of the variance request is a rezoning, since tripling the allowed density is a substantial difference from the existing zoning of SR-1A. An evaluation of the impacts of traffic, stormwater, waste water disposal, and any other environmental impacts should be prepared/included prior to any action on the variance. This is what would be considered of a Petition for Zone change, including a long EAF.” So there’s, you know, at least an initial layout of some of the issues that are effecting this particular project. I think the applicant’s here, and would like to make a presentation, what is the purpose, and then answer some questions and have an open discussion on the project. MR. LAPPER-Yes. For the record, Jon Lapper, Mickey Hayes and Tom Nace. As I’m sure most of you are aware, the Hayes have been successful with taking problematic or underutilized properties and turning them into something special. Both of the Cool Bean restaurant coffeehouses are examples, and also their Berry Mill Plaza on Western. This is a site, as Marilyn pointed out, that’s been a problem site for over 20 years. It’s been undeveloped because of what’s there. Mickey will go through, and I know that most of you walked it. Mickey has taken pictures and will go through what’s there, in terms of what has to be remediated. In addition to that, it’s somewhat of an attractive nuisance. When they did a site investigation, they found lots of beer bottles that indicated that kids had been partying there, signs that there were ATV’s, and dirt bikes that, just because it’s a big, open parcel, in an area where there are a lot of residences. At the same time, because of where it’s located, and going up the slope of the mountains there, and the existence of the pond, they feel that it can be turned into something really special, in terms of trails for hiking and cross country skiing, and just the lay out that would have the buildings far from the road, so it’s going to continue the character along West Mountain Road of what’s there, with really only two buildings visible from the road, or right at the edge of the road. First Mickey will go through the existing conditions, and then Tom will explain the site plan and talk about the stormwater and septic issues that were raised, but in terms of that plan, what that shows is a development that could accommodate 110 units, and that’s what’s on their plan. What we put in the application for the Zoning Board is 98 units. So that is showing that this site could easily accommodate 110 units, just to show, in terms of the site, but again, in terms of the density calculation, even though, right now, this is Single Family One Acre, the subdivisions to the south are all the 10,000, 15,000 square feet. So it’s in character, density wise, with what’s there, but it just can’t feasibly be developed for one acre, and that’s why many developers 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) have looked at it over the last 20 years and no one has been able to put a deal together because it just can’t be developed and to just clean up what’s there and just do a traditional development, and again, multi-family is a permitted use. So we’re not talking about a use issue. That’s a permitted use in this zone. It’s just a question of how many units you can get. Mickey, why don’t you just go through what’s there. MICKEY HAYES MR. HAYES-As I’ve been told pretty much everybody went and took a look at the site. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We spent a good hour, hour and fifteen minutes over there Saturday. MR. HAYES-Okay. Good. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t see beer bottles. We saw Yukon Jack bottles. MR. HAYES-Basically, we see this as a potential piece of property that’s a beauty, but it’s got quite a few warts on it as you can see. Underneath it, with its natural topography and the slope of the mountain, we feel it really adds a lot of aesthetic qualities, and a good location but it has its problems. We found that, I don’t know if you’ve walked up in the woods and saw the tire disposal. So the wood have grown through some of the stuff over the years. I think it was 40 or 50 years of operation up there, and there’s a lot of, basically looks like they never got rid of anything, they just buried it on site, whether it be the inner tubes, the steel. Basically, in my map here, I show in areas where there’s free pour, where they emptied the trucks as they finished for the day. There’s a telephone pole deposit, or whatever you want to call it, tires. Pretty much the whole gambit, then there’s like an acre and a quarter of just like a concrete slab, I guess they throw their trucks on, then there’s a couple of out building’s that have slabs. In my discussions with Tom Nace, about crushing up some of the cement and how we could handle that, we figure we can use some of the cement as a base of a berm to create some noise barriers from West Mountain Road, since it’s a very busy road, because the noise has a tendency to bounce off the road onto the Mountain, and to create some berming in the front to give it a more, even a rural feel than is there now, which that could be our base, then cover it with soils and plantings. Unfortunately, with this site, which is unfortunate, but we see it as an opportunity that other people have not necessarily seen the cost to do that, it gets up there because of the amount of work that it’ll take handle this amount of material. There’s such a mass of material, and there may be some blasting required, and such because some spots it’s up to 20 feet thick of concrete or waste, and there’s also asphalt dumpings. I really don’t know what happened with the property over the last 15 years since they’ve been closed down, what’s been, people with garbage and tires and appliances, because it’s kind of been just like an open spot. We feel that, once we take care of that, that we feel that it could warrant and justify, we feel it would be potentially one of the nicest places to live in this style living, if this happens to be the style that somebody would be interested in. A lot of people today feel that they don’t necessarily want to, these are all rental properties. They would not be for sale. A lot of people don’t want the burden of homeownership today, and we feel that we can provide a style living with the walking trails and the aesthetic beauty of that area, we feel that it would be very successful. The utilization of the pond that was a pit that they dug the gravel out to make concrete with a dock, doing some different things. Having a communal garden where we will take care of the garden and people can do plantings in the garden without the burden of actually rottatilliing and putting manure in and stuff. Like to create more of a community type atmosphere. As you can see there’s a walking trail around the whole perimeter, and in the interior, to promote on site recreation, and we feel that’s a big asset, and that’ll be a big plus for the project as a whole, and I guess Tom will answer some questions about the drainage. MR. NACE-This is drawn at a fairly small scale. So basically, what we’re looking at it is developing the pond that’s in there, as a groundwater pond, okay. It’s actually, you know, they mined the sand out of there for use in the cement, and what is there is the actual groundwater level, okay. It fluctuates a little bit. What we’d like to do is to pull the edges of that in, make it a rip rap or a nice landscaped walls and what have you around the edge of the pond, so as the groundwater fluctuates, it doesn’t create shallow, muddy areas, and, you know, really make it nice looking. It’ll also serve, as it does now, as the source for stormwater to go to. We’ll end up having drywells throughout the paved areas and overflows from the drywells eventually down to the pond, and that’s the way the site functions now. All of the rain fall on the site soaks into the ground and eventually outlets down in the pond, and it’s, the groundwater is right there. So, at any rate, the septic for the site will be in small units, probably a couple of septic systems, or one septic system for a couple of apartments, much as we did across the road here at Crossroads Park, where each building of six or eight units had maybe two or three septic systems, smaller systems. The soils in the site that I’ve looked at so far, we haven’t done test pits over the whole site, but we’ve done quite a few, have all been good, sandy soils, fairly deep to groundwater. So they are amenable to on site septic, and also amenable to 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) drywells for stormwater. Of course we’ll be served by municipal water down West Mountain Road. As Mickey was stating, a lot of the concrete we’re going to use for berming. If you’ve been out there, there’s an existing hedge, if you were, of pine trees, of White Pines along the West Mountain Road. We have about 120 feet from the pavement to the closest part of these two buildings, so that would give us plenty of room to come back behind the existing pine trees, leave them undisturbed, and build a mound in behind those that will also serve as a location for additional landscaping and buffering. To keep not only West Mountain Road isolated from here, but also vice versa, to keep the views out here, so that you’re not looking at the development that much, you’re seeing it through the trees and through the landscaping. So as far as visibility from West Mountain Road, it’ll be not a whole lot different than what’s there now. Much prettier. I used to live right out beyond the site, and it’s an eyesore. There’s no question. MR. LAPPER-I just want to talk, for a minute, about the buildings. MR. VOLLARO-Is this going to be like in a homeowners association? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I ask something here, because I can’t listen to you. I keep looking at this “N” that points north, and I’m going nuts. MR. NACE-That shouldn’t point that way. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. NACE-Sorry. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m thinking, am I losing it or, and I wasn’t listening very much to what you were saying. MR. LAPPER-Well, this is a townhouse development that would be owned by Hayes & Hayes. So it’s very similar to what the Board approved at Hiland Springs, except fewer units on more land, and Mickey is very aware of what this Board has asked for, in terms of staggering the roofs, in terms of the architectural features, and he wants to do the same kind of, the same price level, $650 to $950 townhouse units. So this is a high end townhouse development with the same high end architectural treatment that this Board has endorsed in the past, and with a mix of double units with garages. Nothing larger than six units in a building because you’ve indicated that you’re not crazy about eight unit buildings. So two units, four units, and six units. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you just said, I thought they were apartments? Now you’re saying that they’re townhouses? MR. LAPPER-Well, they’re townhouses because, Tom used the “A” word apartments, but they’re townhouses because they’re mostly multi story. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they’re not townhouses that people would buy. MR. LAPPER-They would rent, just like what’s on Meadowbrook, right. MR. VOLLARO-These are all rental units, essentially. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we feel that there’s a market for nice quality rental units in Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-Your opening statement, if I heard you correctly, or if I misunderstood, please correct me. You were talking about the density and you were saying that this is compatible? MR. LAPPER-This is compatible, not with what is currently zoned, but what was zoned at the time that that part of Town developed. A lot of the streets to the south, and I believe across on the other side of West Mountain Road are zoned with 10,000 and 15,000 square foot lots. MR. MAC EWAN-Then you’re not, then, comparing the compatibility of multi family housing in a single family zone? MR. LAPPER-Well, multi-family is already a permitted use in this zone, so we don’t have to, we’re not asking for multi-family as a different type of use, because that is a permitted use, but we’re saying that the density, whether you did multi-family or single family, the density of number of residence per acre is not dissimilar to what’s already developed in that area. So we’re not introducing a concept that’s different than what’s there. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. VOLLARO-Well, you used a number of 10,000 square feet, which is a quarter acre, and in driving around there, I drove around just yesterday, Peggy Ann, Sherman, all of those, and I don’t see an awful lot of quarter acre properties in there at all. MR. NACE-I lived on Bronk Drive, which is just on the other side of West Mountain, just south of this, and also there’s Lester and Applehouse on the same side of West Mountain as this to the south. Almost all of those lots in there are 15,000 square feet. They’re 100 by 150. MR. VOLLARO-I think in Marilyn’s letter, unless Marilyn’s wrong, she talked about 150 by 150, which is 22,500, isn’t it? MR. NACE-It’s, that is, but here are the maps, and it’s 100 by 150. MR. HAYES-This is the property pretty much directly across from Bronk and Brayton, and it shows generally 100 to 150. MR. NACE-And this is Applehouse and Lester. Okay. You can see almost all the lots on Applehouse and Lester are 150 by 100, or in the case up here 160. MR. RINGER-Was that a cluster development there? MR. NACE-No. These were all cookie cutter. This was back in the 60’s, the mid 60’s that area developed, and it was all just cookie cutter, square lots. MR. VOLLARO-But compared to the neighborhood, if you want to call it the neighborhood, looking at the bigger picture, looking at Upper Sherman, looking at Potter, looking at Peggy Ann, going all through there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Tyneswood’s right down the road, not even a half a mile. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I don’t see that’s a representation of a very small portion of what I call the neighborhood, and the neighborhood essentially has a lot bigger lots than that, from what I’ve been able to see. MR. MAC EWAN-So where you guys are going with this is you want to try to get relief from the notation that says duplex and multi-family dwellings shall require one acre of land per dwelling. MR. LAPPER-Correct, and what we’re saying is that this ugly lot has sat there for all these years, because what’s there is so expensive to deal with and no one has dealt with it. So in order to remove an eyesore, and we have copies of prior correspondence from Dave Hatin to the property owner, saying you’ve got to do something about this property. We’re saying that they are asking for relief, but the benefit is that they’re going to clean this up. MR. MAC EWAN-True, but you know the expense that any developer has to put into developing the parcel of land is, as you know, not something that this Board would take into consideration, as part of an approval process. MR. LAPPER-That’s not, and that’s what’s pending before the Zoning Board. We’re here because the Planning Staff asked us to come as a conceptual planning to talk about the planning issues, which also include density, but in terms of utilities, infrastructure, site design, they wanted you to look at it, then we go to the Zoning variance. Whatever the Zoning Board comes out with, in terms of a number, if that’s something that the applicant can live with, we would then come back for site plan review to the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Has any kind of environmental assessment been done of this parcel? MR. LAPPER-We’ve FOILed the DEC file and there has been a clean-up, in terms of, there’s nothing on site now that is a hazardous material, according to DEC, but it’s. MR. MAC EWAN-When was that last done? MR. LAPPER-Early 90’s. MR. HAYES-We just did a FOIL request this summer from the DEC. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but when was this remediation done? MR. HAYES-In the mid 90’s. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. MAC EWAN-In the mid 90’s. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d like to see a copy of that report. Like there’s no heavy metals or anything on that property? That’s wonderful. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but when we walked that site Saturday, I mean, we’re no experts in the field, but there were several spots where there was obviously contaminants in the soil. What they were, we don’t know, and it wasn’t just one or two spots, it was several spots. MR. LAPPER-Certainly that’s something we were concerned with, and that’s why we contacted DEC, but that’s what we were told, that that has been addressed. MR. VOLLARO-Is that what that letter is? MR. LAPPER-That just says that there is nothing else in their files that, there was more. I’m sure that we can get copies of what happened. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, would this development have wells? MR. LAPPER-No, Town water. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Town water. MR. LAPPER-And private septic, individual septic systems. MR. MAC EWAN-All this letter is saying is that there’s no information available to the site. It doesn’t say whether there was any kind of remediation done. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just wanted to see the charts. MR. HAYES-We have a report that we made copies of, of Bill Threw did a removal process, and I have a letter from Bill Threw stating that they burnt the contaminated soils and such. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got to be honest with you. I’m just one person up here. I’d be a lot more comfortable knowing that we had some sort of environmental assessment done of that site. MR. HAYES-Which we fully intend to do. We could not get financing unless we had a clean bill of health from a, at this current time, that would be an automatic thing to do anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-I, for one, wouldn’t even want to venture any farther into this until I knew, in my mind, that there were no big problems on that site. I mean, that’s my position on it. MR. LAPPER-We think there are big problems, they’re just not environmental problems. MR. MAC EWAN-That remains to be seen. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What do you need to make concrete? MR. LAPPER-Sand. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s not only that. There was a time when they did all their own maintenance on their trucks there, and in the vicinity of where those truck bays were is where you can see some of the dark color in the soil as well. MR. HAYES-That was supposedly taken care of (lost words) engineer. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you don’t know, back in the early days of the cement company, or the cement works, what they used to control dust, you know, because that area is prevalent to having contamination problems on the Peggy Ann Road, Upper Sherman Avenue area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They just blacktopped over that on Peggy Ann. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I guess we’ll open up the floor here. MR. NACE-I guess, Craig, can I just make one last comment on that? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. NACE-To do a full Stage One environmental audit of that requires some financial outlay, probably fairly decent financial outlay, and I think, you know, it might behoove the applicant to be able to at least get some indication of whether or not the project was otherwise feasible from a zoning standpoint, before having to lay out that amount of money. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what if this continued on and all of a sudden we have all these dwellings over a Love Canal type of thing? MR. NACE-No, obviously, we would have to do that in order to get financing and go ahead with the project or probably even get site plan approval. So why not at least continue through the zoning process? MR. LAPPER-If anything, if that remediation has to happen, that means it’s more than the $270,000 that we have written quotes for. So, in one sense, it might mean that there’s more of a problem and it would justify the density, because they’d have to spend more money to clean it up, but they can’t build apartments unless it gets cleaned up. MR. ROUND-Always seeing that silver lining to that cloud. I think the Board has communicated that there’s environmental issues, and I think the applicant knows that there’s environmental issues that they’ve got to resolve. The applicant is, typically they have to do due diligence, and it might require something beyond an environmental site assessment. It might go to, like you say, a Phase I environmental site investigation where they actually do test borings and soil samples, etc., but that’s going to probably be largely dictated by the funding organization, the financing organization, and the applicant, it’s in his own best interest, but I’d suggest, that’s one bill of goods that they’ve got to deal with, but you may want to talk about, how do you feel about 98 or 110 residential dwelling units in this. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got to be honest with you. I don’t have the warm and fuzzies over this. I really don’t. I just don’t know, in my mind, whether this kind of development’s appropriate for that part of town. I don’t know. MR. RINGER-When I first looked at it, I looked at it in two stages, one as if there were a request for a rezoning recommendation, and I really, in looking it over, just thought it wasn’t compatible with the neighborhood and the density was too great, and then I jotted that off and decided to look at it from a site plan standpoint, and still felt the density was too much, and then I got into the traffic concept and the property values of the surrounding neighborhoods and stuff, and I didn’t, you used the description fuzzy feeling, I didn’t get a really good feeling. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s not just the density, either, but it’s the use, because virtually every other piece of property in that section of Town is a single family home. MR. LAPPER-You could build these, though. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that, yes, no, I understand that. MR. LAPPER-We’re not asking for a change in use. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s still a change in the make up of the neighborhood. MR. LAPPER-It’s possible that the proper number is 96. I don’t know, but we’re really talking about the concept of just trying to do something with a problem site. MR. VOLLARO-I think Chris has kind of put his hand on it, in my view, that this is sort of going to affect the general neighborhood, in my opinion. There’s going to be an impact on how the general neighborhood is setting up today, and this is obviously a big difference from what the current set up looks like. MR. RINGER-One thing I’d agree with you. It’s a mess. It’s a real mess up there. MR. HAYES-It’s never going to get resolved otherwise. MR. NACE-It’ll never, from a financial standpoint, it’ll never develop as a single family. MR. RINGER-And I think I’d probably agree with that, too. MR. NACE-The site is too tough, or spread out, for a single family house. MR. LAPPER-And we’re looking at, we’ve come up with just to show you 110 on the map. We’ve got big buffers. We’ve got the building set back from the road, and that can probably be improved 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) upon with the help of the Board. That’s just a place to start, but we understand that we want to buffer the neighbors. On one side there’s a 100 and something acre parcel. On the other side there’s a driveway. So it’s a fairly isolated parcel. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask you a question, and this is a question concerning finances, and maybe I shouldn’t ask this, Mr. Counselor, but they have $270,000 in here, as a written quotation for clean up. How does that written quotation look to you? Is it pretty inclusive, or have you looked at it and said, well, I’m not sure that this is a good estimate, based on what you see on that site. MR. HAYES-We didn’t talk about hazardous waste. Obviously, that’s another whole can of peas, because according to the government agency there is none there, but there could be, and then we’d have to handle that differently. We have two quotes that were itemized right down to the tire removal, removal of garbage, right down to the tees. MR. VOLLARO-Breaking up all the concrete. MR. HAYES-Breaking up the concrete, you know, the asphalt, disposal of tires, everything down to the garbage on the site. MR. RINGER-I don’t think that should be one of the criteria that we should be looking at. MR. ROUND-If an applicant’s making an argument to the Zoning Board that this project’s not feasible, that they can’t realize a return on the property, whether it’s part of a Statute required test, though, you can ask for pro formas to demonstrate the need for this density increase. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I was just trying to equate, in my own mind if the density that they’re asking for is directly related to the cost of clean up, in my mind. MR. ROUND-Right, and that’s what I’m saying, the pro forma, so if, for instance, if they’re looking to sell a house for $100,000, and they add up land costs, site development costs, so on and so forth, and they need to make $10,000 on a house site, and their pro formas show, well, with clean up costs, if we had to sell a house for $110,000, it costs us, that we’re not going to realize a return. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t feel comfortable talking about this sort of thing, because it’s something, historically, this Board has not taken under consideration with other applications, and we shouldn’t be doing that now. MR. ROUND-I realize that, but just let me put it in context, though, but if you’re providing a recommendation to a Zoning Board, and you don’t want to deal with that issue, you can say that, but that is an issue. If somebody comes in and says we’re going to, we want a recommendation for rezoning, Craig, to double the density for this area, and we’re going to do it because there’s a, we’re going to be able to provide affordable housing, or we’re going to do this because it’s not economically feasible otherwise, you need to consider that information. MR. MAC EWAN-But they’re not asking for a recommendation for rezoning. MR. ROUND-But we’re are asking you to provide a recommendation on what the, so I agree with you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not asking us for any recommendations. MR. ROUND-Well, you’re going to be providing, the whole idea behind this is this, they’re going to come through a planning process, and it does require a variance, and rather than the applicant invest time and money and effort obtaining a variance, which they may or may not obtain. If they obtain a variance, they come back here to you, and they know what the issues are effecting the approvability of this project. So if you don’t want to deal with economic issues, so be it, but identify the other issues, just like you have, and I think you’ve done a pretty good job of it, traffic, impact on community character, those are the kind of things that the applicant needs to know that you have concern for, and I think you’ve done, you’ve started to do that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I say something? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that the effect on community character is a significant concern, because all those rental properties really aren’t conforming with that whole end of Town, okay. I would think more in terms of a clustering effect, a Surrey Fields, Stage One of Hudson Pointe, where lots of homes went in on small parcels of land, a townhouse type of situation, but I think what’s going to happen is it’s going to be a hard sell, because, as much as you can say to the public that the 68 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) clean up has been done, the place has become pristine, the stigma is still there that that was once a dump site, a concrete manufacturing site, and I think that it would be quite risky to take on that type of a thing where you want to sell homes, even though that’s the thing that would work, to me, would be the most conforming thing that would look nicest in that end of Town, but you rent something, then people are going to fork out their money because they know it’s not going to be permanent, and it’s going to be a better business deal for you guys. So, that’s the way, I mean, I really believe that you could do a better job and keep it more conforming, but I don’t know if the public, it’s a risk because of the land that’s under it. MR. HAYES-We actually have 175 people that have asked for information when we develop plans for strong in interest in renting these properties already. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Renting. That’s what I’m saying, but that’s not a commitment. See, I would rather see town homes, regular clustering effect homes like the first segment of Hudson Pointe. Do you see what I’m saying, Mickey, but I don’t think that you’d be the 175 commitments if they had to pay for a house that was on a piece of land that has a question about it. MR. HAYES-That’s probably why it’s a good idea to have rental, if it’s not possible to do a sale of this property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s what I’m saying. MR. HAYES-Then you’re just going to abandon this property for non-use forever. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I’m saying. I think we might be caught between a rock and a hard place here, as far as that goes, because of the conformity. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Mickey, have you talked to any of the neighbors? MR. HAYES-Actually, I’ve talked to both adjacent neighbors. In the back there’s just kind of a rural, it’s all forest. A gentleman just bought the house to the right of this property, and then Mr. Carte, who owns the Wood Carte, he expressed an interest to purchase a piece of the land from us, for a buffer, which we’re talking with him, we think that’s a good idea, and the gentleman to the right is tickled pink about the clean up of the property, because he sees it as a detriment to his property next door, having an industrial waste site next door, in the middle of Queensbury. MR. STROUGH-How about the people on the other side? MR. HAYES-The other side of the road is actually the Glens Falls watershed. There are no neighbors. MR. RINGER-Is any part of it, in the western part, in the Adirondack Park? You’re pretty close to it. MR. HAYES-Actually, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-My primary concern would be the clean up, but I just, it’s great intentions. I think a wonderful job is being done, but, you know, I guess my feeling is if the Zoning Board gives them a variance to go ahead with this, you know, where do we stand? MR. RINGER-You have to look at traffic and neighborhood properties and depreciation of values and stuff like that. MR. METIVIER-I guess we just have to be careful, you know, looking at it in such a way that we say go ahead with it and then you get your variances and everything and then, you know, you come back and to us expecting automatic approval on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to chime in? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess, just to throw in my usual cautionary note, which is that, obviously, without an application before you, and I think I’m following a little bit on Tony’s comment, you can’t go very far by way of assurances. I mean, you can say positive things. You can say negative things that are based on preliminary feelings, but, as Tony says, I mean, my word, my version of what he said, there’s no formal application before you now. You can’t really do much more than give some reaction, some preliminary reactions, and the applicant can’t really rely on those 69 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) reactions, I mean, legally speaking. The applicant can glean whatever information they want, that’s fine. MR. HAYES-Sure. That’s why we agreed to come here. We want to have the input so we can possibly create the best possible scenario for everybody, ourselves included. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t really it would lower property values at all, not at all. MR. HAYES-Cleaning an industrial site is going to increase the property values, in our opinion. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I don’t know if the land can hold that kind of, that much building. MR. HAYES-We feel that we could create something that would be, aesthetically, the nicest development of this style in the Town, partially because the interest rates have gotten so low that we can spend quite a bit of extra money per unit, and still make it work, just because the interest rates are low, and that we can actually, with architectural shingles, with upgraded sidings, with extra landscaping, with berming, just because we can spend extra money and still get the return at this particular time. It’s actually a timing factor as well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you know, Mickey, I’m not a builder or a developer, but to me, I thought, for what you had proposed, you were going to get away cheap with $275,000 cleaning it up. MR. HAYES-That’s just to start. That’s just to clean it up. Then you have to buy the property to put the roads in on top of that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but for the magnitude of what you have there, I thought, you know, that that wasn’t that. MR. HAYES-If we didn’t think that we were going to be successful or it was a good deal, we wouldn’t be here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Exactly. MR. LAPPER-We do have pro formas, which Chris mentioned that when we first submitted, the Planning Staff was asking for more information. We didn’t submit that to you because that’s for the Zoning Board application, but Mickey’s done pro formas of single family, X number of units, townhouse X number of units, and in different variations, so, which we’ll discuss with them and we’ll see how that comes out, and hopefully we’ll come back and change the plans as necessary to make this Board happy, if we get there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I was hoping you’d say. I mean, I think that maybe there could be a. MR. MAC EWAN-I think you got a consensus of the concerns that we have here, and the four that seem to jump out are the environmental concerns, the density, the character of the neighborhood, and the traffic impacts. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And something ought to be able to be compromised, depending on what the ZBA does. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m having a real tough time, personally, with concerns over the environmental aspects of the property and the density. I have a real concern with those. MR. LAPPER-We’ll learn more about the environmental, and we’ll come back and talk about the density. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they would have to take borings, right, down? MR. LAPPER-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And do the sediment. MR. MAC EWAN-Find out what’s living in that pond, too, would you please? MR. HAYES-There’s actually quite a bit of fish in that pond. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, we were thinking something more like Loch Ness or something along those lines. MR. HAYES-There’s actually fish in that pond. Believe it or not, they are hardy. MR. RINGER-We tried to get John to take his shoes off and go in, but he wouldn’t do it. MR. METIVIER-Mickey, at what point would you do the study, you know, of the soils and everything? MR. HAYES-Before we come to the site plan. First of all we’d have to go to the zoning to get, if we don’t get the approvals from the zoning, if we don’t get a certain density variance that makes sense, then that’s the end of the project, because you just can’t afford to clean it up. MR. METIVIER-Would you have purchased the land at that time? I guess my concern is, you know, you purchase it and then you find that it’s. MR. HAYES-Our contract is on the contingencies that we get satisfactory approvals MR. RINGER-What are the Codes in the Town for clean up of property, of abandoned, I don’t know if you can call it abandoned, but what are, the current owners, what are their obligations to clean up property? MR. ROUND-Generally, cleaning up the properties, we don’t have a nuisance law. We have junk vehicles, Junkyard Law. We deal with like construction, people carrying on an activity that would relate to like a construction project site. This kind of pre-dates most of those things. This has been around for forever. So I don’t know that we. MR. RINGER-Well, I thought when Jon started talking he had mentioned that the Building Department has written several letters to the owner. I was just curious as to what were those letters? MR. ROUND-If there was a health hazard, like there was a dangerous structure on the site, we would go after them. MR. RINGER-Okay. It wasn’t necessarily a clean up, but health related. MR. ROUND-I don’t know what letter he’s referring to. I know there’s a long history on the property. So it could be any number of things. MR. HAYES-We have a couple of letters here, 1987 and 1989. MR. RINGER-And they were all, as Chris said, health related, not necessarily picking up the garbage? MR. HAYES-The main thing about, would you please advise us about the clean up of the whole property (lost words) they’re more informal requests, and I actual sent a letter to Chris and to a representative, Mr. Sweeney and Betty Little about availability from State or Federal funds to help in clean ups and stuff, and Chris sent us, Betty Little sent us some stuff, too. We’re actually looking into trying to get some funds to help remediate some of the costs because there are programs out there, potentially, but it’s a question if we qualify because it’s not a commercial venture. So, we’re looking into that because obviously the costs are so great. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, what mechanism do you want to use to inform the ZBA of what took place here tonight? Is there any cross talk between these two Boards? MR. ROUND-There’s SEQRA review process that’s going to require both organizations, both agencies or both Boards to be involved. I think what we’ll do is I can develop a memo on behalf of the Planning Board that says here’s the following items of concern out of our meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you just send a copy of the minutes? MR. ROUND-A copy of the minutes. MR. MAC EWAN-A copy of the minutes to them. MR. ROUND-Okay. How does that sound? Anything else? Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We know it’s not a simple one, but something’s got to be done. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck to you. Any other business? MR. ROUND-Ulasewitcz, the Mitchell subdivision. Did you talk to the Board about that? Since Jon’s here. MR. MAC EWAN-I had a conversation with Craig Brown today. The Mitchell subdivision is coming back in for a modification next month, I’m guessing. Because APA, stop me when I goof up. MR. LAPPER-No. There was one aspect of it that could have made one lot APA jurisdictional. When you do a subdivision within 150 feet of 9L, a State road, so that’s where her existing big farmhouse is. So we’re just going to take two five acre lots on the approved subdivision and propose to make, to keep it the way it is now, as one big lot, but to be 10 acres, and that’s the only change. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’d be one lot less? MR. LAPPER-One lot less. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So now we’d have 11 instead of 12? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-Additionally, we’re going to re-open the public hearing on it as well, because there’s been some concerns regarding stormwater management plan. MR. ROUND-I think there’s been correspondence, and you’re all copied on it, issues about how the aesthetic impacts, and how stormwater was handled. We issued a letter to Jon today. I don’t know if you got it, Jon, yet. MR. LAPPER-Tom Nace will be making some modification of the stormwater. MR. ROUND-Yes. We’re not able to issue a stormwater management permit under our current regulations because of the level of detail wasn’t met, some of the submission requirements. So we’re going to ask for that, and you’ll be seeing that as a part of site plan. MR. LAPPER-That’ll get addressed in the next week, and in general, with 141 acres and now 11 lots with a 1.25 acre clearing, I mean, this is not a big stormwater issue. Chris is right. He needs more detail from Tom, but it’s not a visual issue, in terms of the mountain, because there’s so little. This is just people who would like to see it stay the way it is. MR. METIVIER-And I did hear something on the fact that the Conservancy, Lake George Conservancy, is not going to support the Assembly Point Association on that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The what? The Nature Conservancy? MR. METIVIER-No, the Lake George Conservancy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The Lake George? MR. LAPPER-Land Conservancy. MR. METIVIER-Land Conservancy will not support the Assembly Point Association in their fight, but they will not support them, you know, in the fight for it, which says a lot, I think. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they aren’t going to support the LGA? MR. METIVIER-Not the LGA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You said that the Lake George Land Conservancy is not supporting the LGA in its fight. MR. METIVIER-The Assembly Point Association. MR. MAC EWAN-The Assembly Point Association. MR. METIVIER-In their fight against this, which basically is saying they feel as though it’s just a moot cause to do so. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/21/01) MR. LAPPER-We’re confident the Town Planning Board did a great job of reviewing it and this is not going to be any kind of impact, and if we’ve got to go to court, we’ve got to go to court. MR. MAC EWAN-From what I gather today, I don’t see that happening. From the conversation I had this morning, I think that was going to be pretty much rest assured. The fact that we’re going to re-open the public hearing and take a harder look at the stormwater management plan I think pretty much satisfied those concerns. MR. LAPPER-That would be great. We’ll be back next month. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? No? Okay. We’re adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 73