Loading...
2002-01-15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI 6:47 p.m. – MEETING CALLED TO ORDER MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 7:02 p.m. – MEETING OF EXECUTIVE SESSION ENDED CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 6, 2001: NONE November 20, 2001: NONE November 27, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 20, & 27, 2001, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Strough RESOLUTIONS: PLANNING BOARD SEEKS LEAD AGENCY STATUS REGARDING THE PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR HOME DEPOT, USA JON LAPPER & DAVE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please. MR. BROWN-It’s my understanding this is just going to be a preliminary presentation by the applicant, prior to the Board making a determination about Lead Agency Status. That’s it. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dave Carr from the LA Group. With us, also, is Roger Hershorn, from Home Depot, and our architect representative Rich LaMont from Greenberg Farroh who does site planning and architecture for Home Depot on a national basis. We just wanted to quickly make a presentation to talk you through the site plan. I know that many of you were at the Town Board meeting last night, which I appreciate your interest, and that’s really great that you were there, and I’d like to have Dave just walk you through the site plan. We need a rezoning, which is really a very small aspect of this project, because the vast majority of the site to be rezoned would be left primarily the way it is with trees. We need it for a small area of paving and for stormwater management facility, which is just going to be a retention basin. Right now, the site drainage is one of the real issues, because it certainly doesn’t comply, and that’s going to be one of the improvements. We view this as taking an existing center that was developed before current regulations and doing a good job of, in a lot of respects, bringing it up to Code, making pretty significant improvements in landscaping is a pretty dangerous situation now. I won’t say dangerous, but not optimum, with the entrance drive at the traffic light coming in, with a fairly steep angle, and we’d be able to change the grade and also change the direction to just bring it in to the center of the Plaza, which is just going to help the situation at Travelers, as well as being effective for the office building that’s there, and for Home Depot. Procedurally, we’re asking you to pass the resolution to be SEQRA Lead Agency so we can get the 30 day clock started, and we will submit the application by the 30 of this month for site plan, so that when th we’re back to talk to you about the SEQRA review and the recommendation on zoning, you will have the full detailed site plan in front of you, which is just the next level of details from the concept plan that Dave has done so far. I’ll ask Dave to walk you through the site plan, and if the Board has any comments or if there’s anything that you’d like to let us know at this preliminary stage, that we should be thinking about in terms of our site plan submittal, we’re here to listen and take notes. MR. CARR-As you all know, obviously, this is the Northway Plaza site, and this is the existing office building which runs along Route 9, which is here. This is Montray Road. This is the five acre parcel that John mentioned that we are seeking the rezoning for. As you can see, we’re really only penetrating a small corner of the parcel, and we’ll be using another portion of it for drainage, but beyond that, we are not proposing to do anything in this five acre parcel that we are requesting to have to be rezoned to PC-1A, which is the zone for the rest of the site. The site totals, approximately, with the five acre parcel, approximately 35 acres. As it is today, there’s a black dashed line on here, if you can see it, and that is the existing building. Obviously, this portion is the portion of the building that will be demolished. The existing site contains approximately 290,000 square feet of commercial space, and we will be demolishing approximately 85,000 square feet to make room for the new Home Depot. The new building, with the garden center, totals approximately 116,000 square feet. So that’s a net increase of approximately 30,000 square feet, with the garden center, after you remove that existing portion, which is about a 10% increase in retail square footage across the site. As Jon mentioned, the proposal includes cleaning up the entry. It’s fairly steep, as it exists today, and what we’re proposing to do is to channelize it and lengthen it, and ease the grade to make it a little safer for queuing out and coming in. The parking areas are now, will be now more broken up with landscaping. Home Depot will pretty much have it’s own parking. The office building will have an area, and the retail post office, which will be moved to this location, and the Travelers will have their own space. So it’s much more broken up with landscaping than it exists today. Also, as Jon mentioned, drainage, basically the entire site, it’s actually a bowl, and it drains to a couple of catch basins in the center, and it’s actually piped through this building and outlets to a wetland, just east of this site, through the cemetery. What we’ll be proposing to do is to take the majority of that away from that area and bring it in this direction, to a retention basin/settling pond, before it’s released into the wetlands to obviously settle out any pollutants or any sediments that are, would be brought to the site from the parking area, which does not exist today. There is approximately an acre and a half of wetlands on the site that are Army Corps wetlands that we are not proposing to impact. As far as sewer and water, they are on the existing site. We will be utilizing them and hooking into the existing systems which are on the site. We are presently, as Jon mentioned, progressing the plans to a site plan level, doing the grading, the drainage, the landscaping, the lighting plans, and our plan is to submit those to you by the end of this month. Also, Creighton Manning is presently developing a traffic study, and we have also hired Hardkin Archaeologists to do a Stage One Archaeological out here. As part of the SEQRA process, we sent a letter to the State, and their basic response was, because of some of the archaeological findings in the area, I believe it’s called Blind Rock, just north of this site, they are requesting a Stage One, which we had actually already started before we got that letter. So that is also in the works, and with that, if you have any questions, we’ll be happy to answer them. MR. MAC EWAN-Your intention is to make application by the end of the month to get on next month’s agenda? MR. LAPPER-Well, we would, because your role is varied here, and you’re both making a recommendation to the Town Board on the rezoning, you’re the SEQRA Lead Agency, and you’re going to be, ultimately, deciding on the site plan, when and if we get the rezoning approval, theoretically you could already start the SEQRA process without the detailed site plan, but I know the way you like to work. You like to have all the information in front of you. So we will commit to have the full site plan submittal for the end of this month. So when we’re back to you next time, and you’re really making your SEQRA determination, or starting to do 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) the SEQRA analysis, because that’s the first thing you have to do, you’ll have the full site plan in front of you to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So your intention is to be on next month? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-At this point I really have nothing. I’m trying to visualize the Plaza now, compared to what it’s going to be. I do have concerns about traffic. I used to work at Travelers, and it was a disaster, absolute disaster getting out of there, especially around four o’clock when everybody wants to leave. MR. LAPPER-Part of what’s interesting about this site, because we’ve got now these mixed uses, and we’re, the office, which is already there, the two office buildings, the office building in the back is successful and it’s well tenanted, as well as the Travelers. The Home Depot would have a different peak hour, you know, certainly weekends would be big for a Home Depot, and the Travelers, and the office would not be. So it should work well with the site, but, you know, we’ve got Creighton Manning in first thing. We know, at this intersection, that’s going to be an issue. In general, it’s not a significant increase over what’s there now. So it’s a redevelopment. It works pretty well from traffic, and the stuff Dave talked about, he also didn’t mention, when you come down that steep hill now, there’s an intersection right there which is maybe four or five cars stacking down the hill, and what he’s done here is to move the intersection all the way down to the middle of the site. So, that’s fairly dangerous now, and that’s a big improvement. So we’re looking at all that, and next time we’re here, we’ll have Shelly Johnston from Creighton Manning to answer traffic questions. MR. METIVIER-I was going to bring that up, that as it presently stands, that intersection doesn’t work, especially with the island in the middle of it. It just does not work, because people will back you up, and if you’re trying to get out, everybody wants to, it just doesn’t work. MR. LAPPER-No, you’re right. MR. METIVIER-I’ll be interested to see how that changes. MR. LAPPER-If you look in front of the long office building, now, there’s an area that will sort of, the triangle, a parking area dedicated to them separate from Home Depot, not that somebody can’t park there and walk, but it’s just unlikely that will be needed. So it sort of compartmentalizes the parking lot, which will work better. MR. METIVIER-I apologize, I didn’t attend last night. Any opposition from neighbors or anything? MR. LAPPER-So far, and it’s early in the process, but we’ve only heard positive comments. I think mostly there’s a recognition that we’ve got a site that doesn’t look so good and Dave certainly complied with the newer requirements to have the landscaping in the parking lot separated from the 150 feet space pods of parking, and that, in and of itself, is a big change from what’s there. MR. METIVIER-And presently, when you are going up Miller Hill, you can’t see Steinbach from the road. Do you have any intentions of raising this building, the height of the building, to accommodate? MR. CARR-Raising the Home Depot? MR. METIVIER-The height of the Home Depot, as opposed to Steinbach right now. MR. CARR-I’m not sure I know the answer to that. I believe it’s probably not going to be much higher. We have, obviously, a grade situation in the back on the side that we’re balancing, and our proximity to Montray Road is another concern. So I believe we’re probably very close to that same elevation, because we have to be, because we also have the relationship with the existing building that’s going to stay, with the post office. So, obviously, the Steinbach finished floor currently is at that same elevation. So we have to respect that. I believe we’re going to be a bit lower. Exactly how much I’m not sure. MR. METIVIER-So then you’re saying there might probably be very little visual impact? MR. CARR-Right, because Montray Road is, on that turn, is probably about 30 feet below the level of Route 9. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. CARR-It falls pretty quickly. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. LAPPER-Visually, also, now there’s a separation, it won’t look like one big horseshoe building. You’ll be able to see through to the trees in the back, which, you know, from some perspective you will, and from some perspective you won’t, but that’s certainly a help, rather than having that wall of building. MR. METIVIER-A few years ago we had the Howard Group up in front of us, and I can’t recall what from. There was some issues with the back of the complex. MR. LAPPER-The owner of the Plaza got a conveyance of a little strip along the cemetery, that wasn’t needed for the cemetery, and I think that you had to review that. MR. RINGER-He wanted to put additional parking back there because they were going to expand the Travelers at the time and bring in 100 or 200 people. They needed additional parking. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. RINGER-I don’t think that ever came about. They got the land, but I don’t think the additional parking, because I think they cut back on the number of employees at Travelers. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I just have a couple questions. On the five acre piece, are there any structures on there now? MR. LAPPER-None. MR. VOLLARO-At all? That’s just all wooded? MR. CARR-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, not in the Home Depot building, but the other buildings where the post office is going to be, Quaker Road has an entrance that you can get into those. It’s right off Quaker. Is that entrance going to continue to operate? It is? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RINGER-But it’s a no left turn out. MR. VOLLARO-That’s right. You can come up Quaker and turn in, and you can get into that lot. That’s another way in, because I just don’t know whether that ingress/egress that’s being planned is, I haven’t seen the traffic counts here. MR. CARR-This one here? MR. VOLLARO-No, that one. That’s the main one. MR. CARR-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I haven’t seen the traffic counts. So I can’t make a comment on it, but I’m just wondering if that’s going to be able to handle that traffic in and out there. MR. LAPPER-We’ll have that in the study, and we’ll all find out, but we’re assuming that, because of the longer throat that they’ve included, that it’s going to work better than it works now. We also, you might have heard last night, we’re also talking about reducing the number of curb cuts on the Route 9 side. There are a whole bunch of them right now, I think three, and we’re going to go down to one, right near the intersection, which’ll aid safety. It’s a little bit of a free for all right now. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’s a couple coming right off, you can swing right into it. Yes. Okay. One of the things, are we going to go to resolution tonight on the recommended zone change? MR. MAC EWAN-No, just Lead Agency Status. MR. VOLLARO-Just Lead Agency Status. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all we’re doing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then I won’t make my next comment, but I will when we go to zone change. MR. LAPPER-We’d rather hear it, just so we can prepare. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is not an original thought. It’s a thought that came up last night when you were presenting it to the Town Board, and I have to give the credit for that thought to Pliney Tucker. I don’t know whether Pliney’s in the audience or not. I don’t see him, but he was concerned, and I think rightfully so. If we rezone that piece, down there, to a commercial, as opposed to a residential classification, and this doesn’t happen to go through, I would like to see, in the motion that’s made for rezoning, that it be reverted back to a residential status. MR. LAPPER-My answer to that, I didn’t speak after Pliney spoke last night, but the simple answer in this case, often when I’m here it’s because it’s a developer deal and somebody has a lease or is negotiating a lease and is getting the approval and will then go finalize the lease once they have the approval, and I’m not suggesting that’s unusual. That happens most of the time. That’s the way the world works, but in this case, the situation is that Home Depot is the developer. They do their own construction and their own permitting. So Dave and I are here on behalf of Home Depot. Roger is a senior employee of Home Depot, who’s behind us, and you will be able to ask questions directly to the tenant, because they’ll be with us through the process, and, at the end of the day, I can predict that they’ll have their building permit application in to Dave Hatin before the final approval, and they’ll hope to be in the ground, you know, two weeks later, in terms of site work. They want to be open by the end of the year. So this is a site that will be immediately developed. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a couple of questions. I don’t know if you’ve answered them already. Is there a drive through? Is there going to be a drive through where you pick up your building materials? MR. CARR-Maybe, Rich, you can answer this better, but there’s a canopy here where customers can drive underneath and pick up their lumber, but it’s not really a drive through. I mean, I think when you have large pieces of material, you drive your car or truck in there and you load it on. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Another thing is, what side is the garden center going to be on? MR. CARR-Right there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There it is. Okay. You did say that, and tractor trailer docking? MR. CARR-Right here in the back. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right there. Okay. For some reason, it’s hard for me to visualize that there is enough parking between the office building on the west side and the proposed building. It just seems always so small and congested in there. MR. CARR-But remember that, and it is hard to visualize. I kind of wish I had an overlay, but this is where the existing building is. So Home Depot is quite a bit back. So all the area where the existing building now is proposed parking. So, I think you may be visualizing the Home Depot façade where the existing one is, and it’s not. It’s probably a good couple hundred feet back. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That makes a big difference. MR. LAPPER-I think it’s worth talking about the parking ratio, too, at this point. Dave has designed actually much of the site to the new Code, to the proposed Code. I know, in the past, that’s what the Board’s looked at, in terms of design aspects anyway, even though it hasn’t been implemented by the Town Board, and so to make this the best plan possible, we’ve been looking at that Code. The new Code calls for four and a half spaces per thousand rather than five, because after the whole, and we’ve spoken about this many times, after the K-Mart, which everyone’s acknowledge has too much parking, and it’s always vacant, the Town has gone, to proposed four and a half spaces per thousand instead of five, and that’s what we’re planning for the site. We anticipate that the new zoning code will be approved before this process is over. If, for some reason, that slows down and doesn’t happen, we would then have to go to the Zoning Board and ask for a parking variance to go from four and a half to five, but we, again, expect that wouldn’t be a hard variance to get, because nobody wants too much parking, but we’re looking to go to four and a half as the standard on this site. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of how you’ve segmented the parking area through the median. MR. LAPPER-We never use that word when we’re talking about SEQRA because it’s too scary, but, yes, how we separated the parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Separated the parking. The parking area to the south of the main drive through, is that sufficient for the Travelers and any other uses that are there? I mean, is that the concept here? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is to keep the office parking separate from the? MR. CARR-Not that people would not choose to park where they want, but that is the concept. MR. LAPPER-There’s also new parking added along the post office on the side there, which will sort of be accessible, designated for the post office. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, personally, I think the post office is the worst post office location I’ve ever seen in my life, but you can only make that better. You can’t possibly make that worse. MR. LAPPER-This is much more central to the site. You won’t have to go look for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Are there any other retail uses that are going to be relocated from the existing? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Priceless Kids, which is now in the far side, will come down next to Peter Harris, and, is there another one on there? MR. MAC EWAN-Continuous Care is up there, plus a Singer store. Isn’t there a Singer store up there, a fabric store? JIM HAGAN MR. HAGAN-I’m Jim Hagan. MR. LAPPER-Jim is the architect for the Plaza owner. MR. HAGAN-Yes. I’ve been before you before on behalf of the Northway Plaza. All I would like to say at this point is we are trying to relocate as many of the tenants as possible within the Center. Those negotiations are ongoing. So part of the reason why John, it’s hard to say where they’re going to go is because we’re still trying to work that through. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Part of my question, though, is exactly where the demolition will begin. MR. LAPPER-Some of the, the post office is a new building, just to accommodate it in the right configuration, the demolition will begin, you know, 100 feet or so in from the end of that building. So there’ll be a new end cap on that building, because now it’s a. MR. HUNSINGER-So what store’s there now? So I can put that into context. MR. LAPPER-Jim, do you know, is it Peter Harris? MR. HAGAN-Right now, the Honingsbaum store front would be the cutoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Then the only other question I had right now is on your site plan there, the tan/beige areas to the north and east of the proposed buildings. What are those? MR. CARR-I think you’re talking here? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CARR-Those are just concrete pads. This is a concrete lumber pad in the back and this is sidewalk in the front. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. CARR-And this is the customer pick up and fire lane across the front. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t know if it was some type of seasonal display or storage areas or something like that. MR. CARR-No. MR. HUNSINGER-That would all be within the proposed garden center. MR. CARR-Well, we do have a proposed seasonal sales area in this parking area here proposed, but that would be the only area. I believe it’s maybe Christmas trees, but that would be it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I grew up in this area. I grew up on the corner of Sweet Road and Route 9. So I know the area like the back of my hand. MR. LAPPER-You grew up at the Bakery, in other words. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, then it was (lost words) and Sons. It was a bus garage. Now it’s the Bakery. Now there’s a ravine in back of there, but I can’t place it here, and you may not be involving yourself with the ravine, but it is, and you’re here to get concerns, and there’s an artesian stream that feeds the wetland, and the wetland, in turn, feeds the Pineview Cemetery pond, and so I guess I’m assuming that’s not going to be interrupted. MR. CARR-Right. Those springs, there’s three springs that were located. The ravine you’re talking about is right here, and there were three springs that were located by VanDusen and Steves, and they’re like one, two, three, right here, and this line here is the edge of the wetlands right there, and then it tucks back in up here. So, correct, we would not be touching that. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and last night I was at the Town Board meeting and, you know, I’ve always been over there and my suspicion, because the Pineview Cemetery pond is green. I don’t think it’s supposed to be a fluorescent green, and I heard you say that you’re going to be putting detention basins in and better business, better environmental methods of taking care of the water that will eventually get to the stream which will eventually get to the pond. So, in essence, you’ll be using designs that are more environmentally friendly than what has been used in the past. MR. CARR-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-That was good news to me. MR. CARR-I mean, the idea is to keep the water and the watershed going where it’s presently going, but slowing it down, allowing it to settle out any impurities and things like that, and I think what’s happening today is it’s probably just out letting straight into the wetlands, which is what we’re trying not to do. MR. STROUGH-I think what aggravates that, too, I think they dump their snow there, and it doesn’t have, just goes into the wetland, goes directly, and it’s not a big enough wetland to take care of the pollutants and it goes right into the pond, that’s my suspicion anyway. So I was very glad to hear that you’ve already been on top of that. So that was good news. MR. CARR-We’re getting there. MR. STROUGH-The other thing that came to my mind was the architectural uniformity and the color scheme uniformity for the whole Plaza. Is this going to be integrated? MR. LAPPER-Probably. We’ll be talking to you about architecture as the process moves forward, and we’ll have some drawings, and we have given the Home Depot architects the proposed zoning code that talks about design issues, and we’ll come back with something to show you, an elevation drawing to talk about, I don’t think that they’re going to opt for a green roof, just cause there’s too much of that there, but we’ll talk to you. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, I didn’t want to see something stand out like a sore thumb. I wanted to see it, you know, it’s always had that village like appearance, and I wouldn’t want to lose that. MR. LAPPER-I remember when we had the discussion about Queensbury Plaza being re-done, a number of years ago. We talked about the debate with retail that sometimes you want everything to look exactly the same and sometimes it’s more interesting if it’s diverse, and when we did the Olive Garden, which is sort of 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) the tan exterior, you know, there’s different theories on it. I think that we haven’t specifically discussed colors, but I don’t think that Home Depot would like it to blend in exactly, just because, even though it’s monotone and it’s not a visual problem for the eye, it’s kind of dull, and they would probably like to avoid that, but we’ll try and come back with something specific to show you, and we’ll hear what you have to say. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of questions I have. While this rejuvenation of this Plaza is going on, along those lines, are the Travelers buildings and existing buildings going to be revamped and upgraded as well during this process, or are they pretty much going to be as they are now? MR. LAPPER-The Plaza owner has a future plan to do some architectural changes to the office building itself, to make that more attractive, but that’s something that wouldn’t specifically require Town approval, although perhaps under the new design code it might, but that’s something that might be a year off. So it’s not connected to this. It’s an improvement, but it’s not related to this process. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, with the new building down by the Peter Harris area, where you’re going to add on to that existing building, are you going to update the façade on that building as part of this project? MR. LAPPER-We’ll get their architect to show you what they have in mind. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s try to make the two projects, even though this is one whole scheme, let’s try to make the two work together with each other. I think what I’m hearing from Board members is some uniformity there. MR. LAPPER-What’s interesting is that the Travelers building is already tan. So there’s not, it’s not all white as it is, and most of what’s white is going to be coming out, except for that Peter Harris building, but we’ll certainly come back with some drawings of what they’re proposing for that building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. One other thing I would be looking for, when you do the demo of the existing building, I’m going to be looking for, just to help me understand what kind of traffic we’re going to generate out of this for construction vehicles, is give me an idea of how much demo’s going out of there, how many truckloads you anticipate, and how long it’s going to take, and as a closing comment from me, I don’t have the warm and fuzzys about the seasonal outdoor display area. MR. LAPPER-I saw that. I saw your eyes when you said that. So we’ll talk about it. MR. MAC EWAN-We seem to have a track record here in Town now with these seasonal displays that have a tendency to get out of hand. I would be more inclined to see any seasonal display kept within the garden center. Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I have one, just as kind of a sidebar, I’d like to ask a question. Is Home Depot and the Aviation Mall/Pyramid Company, is that, there is no chance of a handshake at all on this going into that area? ROGER HERSHORN MR. HERSHORN-Roger Hershorn from Home Depot. We’re not negotiating with Pyramid at all, regarding their Mall. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess my question is, were you ever? MR. HERSHORN-At one point, Pyramid was wooing us to their site, if you will, but we never really had a whole lot of interest in being there. We think this is a far superior site. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Anything you wanted to add, Jon? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Introduce the motion, please, someone. MR. RINGER-You just want a motion, a resolution for us to be Lead Agency on SEQRA? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MOTION FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SEQRA FOR THE HOME DEPOT PROJECT, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, Home Depot has submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office for rezoning of a parcel of property and the application has been reviewed by the Town Planning Staff and deemed complete for purposes of review, and WHEREAS, applications for rezoning and zoning amendments are forwarded to the Town Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendations in accordance with Section 179-94 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, following such recommendations, the Queensbury Town Board will review the rezoning applications and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board indicates its wishes to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this project and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other involved agencies for the following: APPLICATION OF: Home Depot, U.S.A, Inc. TAX MAP NO.: 72-7-3 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Southeast side of Montray Road APPLICATION FOR: Rezoning of one (1) 5.21acre parcel currently zoned Single Family Residential One Acre (SFR-1A) to Plaza Commercial One Acre (PC-1A) Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. .Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. We’ll see you next month. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 36-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH & CHERIE LUKE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES, NACE ENG. ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 425 BAY ROAD APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY OPERATING A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, THE DIET CENTER, AND IS PROPOSING SUBLEASE OF 300 SQ. FT. FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE (NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME). NEW USES IN MR-5 ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-18 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 5-01, AV 65-01, SV 66-01 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 9/12/01 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-43 LOT SIZE: 8,398 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-18 MR. MAC EWAN-Luke is off tonight. If anyone is here for Site Plan No. 36-2001, Kenneth & Cherie Luke, that item is off the agenda this evening. The public hearing has been left open, and we’ll continue to leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. STROUGH-Do we have to table that, Mr. Chairman? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do we have to table it? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Do we need a motion to table it, Cathi? MS. RADNER-Yes, why don’t you. It’ll make it clean. MR. STROUGH-Do we need what date, though, until next week? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what’s the deal with them? Why are they off? MR. BROWN-They were going to get a comment letter back from the County, with regards to the activity in the right of way. Apparently they don’t have that yet. So they’ve requested to be tabled. I think this, I think a public hearing was advertised for this. So you may want to at least open it and then table it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the public hearing is still open, according to the agenda here. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s been opened from our last, so let’s table it to our second meeting of next month, John, if you want to do the motion. MR. STROUGH-All right. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2001 KENNETH & CHERIE LUKE, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As requested by the applicant, until February 26, 2002. Duly adopted this 15th day of January 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-72, 4-84 MODIFICATION BRENT & LEIGH GILLAM HERBERT & BRIGITTE STEFFENS PROPERTY OWNERS: SAME AGENT: BRUCE LIPINSKI, BARLETT, PONTIFF ET. AL. ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: LOT 7, SECT. 1 AND LOT 101, SECT. 4 BEDFORD CLOSE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION IN THE FORM OF A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. ANY MODIFICATION TO A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-52, 308.18-1-57 LOT SIZE: 0.87 ACRES, 0.79 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-72, 4-84, Modification, Brent & Leigh Gillam, Herbert & Brigitte Steffens, Meeting Date: January 15, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between lot 7 of Section 1 and lot 101 of Section 4 of the Bedford Close subdivision. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The proposed subdivision modification does not call for any new lots. Topography: No contours are shown on the proposed plan. Water supply Sewage Disposal: No new facilities are anticipated with this action. Drainage: .No change in the site drainage is expected. Lot sizes: Both lots are to remain the same size with an equal exchange of 3050 sf of land. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) Future development: No future development is planned at this time. Roadway and Rights of way: No new roads are planned. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision: Section One, filed October 3, 1974 Section Four, filed June 18, 1984 Staff comments: The proposed conveyances are apparently in response to an existing site condition which involves a shed owned by the Steffens that is apparently encroaching onto the Gillam parcel. (? Not shown on map ?) The proposed conveyances appear to be a reasonable attempt to “square up” the properties and conditions thereon.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. Very simply, this is a boundary adjustment, which would ordinarily go directly to the Zoning Administrator, with the exception of when it involves an approved subdivision, it has to come before the Planning Board to change any lines on a subdivision. These two adjacent homeowners, the backs of their houses face each other, have told us that they’ve always been treating it as if the line was where we’re proposing it, because it’s parallel to the back of their homes, and so what they’re switching, what they’re proposing to switch, is exactly the same number of square feet, just to make the line straight, and there’s really nothing more I have to add at this point. MR. VOLLARO-That’s an equal swap of property as well. MR. RINGER-Exactly the same. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-It’s very simple. Why did it happen to come up, Jon? They just all of a sudden decided that the? MR. LAPPER-They decided among themselves that they’d like to own what they’re using and mowing. That kind of thing. MR. RINGER-Seems like a gimme. I wish all our stuff could be this easy. MR. LAPPER-Me, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing. MR. METIVIER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. BROWN-Just one question. Since the shed’s not shown on the drawing, I’m just curious if this boundary line change is going to entirely clean up the setback issues? Is it going to meet the 20 foot rear setback that’s going to be required? MR. LAPPER-I can answer that. You’d think that that would have been shown, but the surveyor said that because it wasn’t affixed to the property, it was just movable, he didn’t show the location of the shed. So the answer is that the shed can just be picked up and moved, it is located around where the 53 is on that course, I’m told, and as a condition it can be moved anywhere. MR. BROWN-Yes. I would just suggest if you’d like to entertain the condition that with this boundary line change, that the shed will be placed in a compliant location, and then you won’t have to worry about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted. Anything else? MR. BROWN-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. We have a Short Form, I’m guessing? Is this a modification? It’s not a modification. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The wrong one, sorry. I’ll entertain a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 5-72, 4-84 BRENT & LEIGH GILLAM HERBERT & BRIGITTE STEFFENS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to SUB 5-72, 4-84, Brent & Leigh Gillam and Herbert & Brigitte Steffens for a boundary line adjustment on Lot 7, Sect. 1 and Lot 101, Section 4 of Bedford Close subdivision, Tax Map No. 308.18-1-52, 308.08-1-57, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 12/27/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 1/11/02; 1/15/02 Staff Notes 1/3/02 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application for modification is approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The condition is that the shed that exists on the Herbert Steffens’ property should be compliant with the zoning setbacks in that area, and 2. All conditions are to be noted on the final mylar submitted for the Chairman’s signature in a form to read as follows: “Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 1/15/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:” 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) 1. 3. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2002, by the following vote: MS. RADNER-You need to remove your paragraph regarding the negative SEQRA declaration from the prepared resolution as well. MR. STROUGH-And can I ask one thing, Mr. Chairman? I notice on the third Whereas, where they list Staff Notes and meeting notice, that the map submitted by the applicant dated September 27, 2001 is not listed on the items submitted. MR. MAC EWAN-The last line in the prepared resolution says any other additional information or material submitted. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I didn’t know if it had to be included in that. MR. MAC EWAN-No. As long as that’s on there, that covers anything that’s associated with the application. Is that not correct? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. I’ll be back to speak with you about the last item on the agenda because my partner, Martin Auffredou, is home ill tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So I’ll see you later. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED RUSS PITTENGER/WALLACE HIRSH PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: BIRDSALL ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES CLEARING AND GRADING TO FACILITATE DRIVEWAY, PARKING, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND FUTURE SEPTIC AREA. THE PROPOSED CUT IS 10,000 +/- CUBIC YARDS WITH FILL OF 5,000 +/- CUBIC YARDS WITH A FINISHED ELEVATION OF 135 +/- FEET. TAX MAP NO. 40-1-29, 30 LOT SIZE: 0.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-65 RUSS PITTENGER & WALLACE HIRSH, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearings in the past, on October 16, 23, and November 20 have thrdth been tabled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-2001, Russ Pittenger/Wallace Hirsh, Meeting Date: January 15, 2002 “Project Description Project consists of the removal of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of material, half of which is to be used on site, with the remainder removed from the site. No processing, i.e. sifting, crushing or any type of sorting, is proposed. This project was tabled on November 20, 2001 to allow the applicant to provide the following additional information: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) 1. Stormwater Management Plan: The applicant has provided information regarding the installation of stormwater management devices on site for post development conditions. The method proposed for stabilization of the fill area is unclear. No formal stormwater management plan was submitted. 2. Alternative locations for fill disposition: The applicant purports to have contacted two local contractors, both of whom have, apparently, expressed an interest in the material. 3. The Hours of Operation: The applicant has offered to restrict the removal of material to 8-5 weekdays and 8-3 Saturday. 4. Dust Control: The applicant proposes a suitable remedy for dust protection as well as a method to decrease any transfer of material on to the road surface of Birdsall Road. 5. Heavy Equipment – Loading: The applicant purports to have contacted the Highway Department regarding this matter. The applicant offers to load and unload all equipment on the subject properties, not on the roadway. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Although no formal Stormwater Management Plan has been provided, the proposed grading, as shown on the “Sections” sheet of the new information, appears to show a suitable berm to be constructed on both the “North and South” limits of the plateau area. Will these berms be in place during the excavation and filling of the site? Staff recommends consideration be given to the following items; Construction of the cobble retaining walls first, as an additional barrier. Since it will be impossible to stabilize the slope until the filling is complete, the construction of the walls, particularly the wall proposed at the base of the fill area would denote the limit of fill and serve to gather any stormwater from the fill slope. Construction of the “storm basins” and berms prior to any excavation. Installation of suitable landscaping on the slope, currently the applicant proposes grass only. It is acknowledge that the proposed slope will not provide a visual impact on many residents, if any, however, substantial plantings, (trees and bushes) will only help stabilization. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. PITTENGER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. PITTENGER-I’m Russ Pittenger, and Wallace Hirsh is here with me. We’re the applicants. MR. MAC EWAN-Bring us up to speed. MR. PITTENGER-After our last meeting, I did develop some more materials and submit them to the Board for their review. Included in those materials were a revised grading plan, which illustrated, or tried to address some of the Board’s concerns that the runoff from the area that’s to be affected would be contained and then perked through. There would be no direct runoff either toward the lake side or toward the wetland side to the east. In addition, in order to address some of the issues that the Board had concerns with regarding protection of the wetland and of the stabilization of the slope, I’ve prepared a section indicating that we would provide some cobbles at the bottom to actually do a stone wall at the base that would allow us, during the construction process, to create a barrier that would hold stormwater before it was outleted to the wetland to the wetland to the east, and also that we would provide a physical barrier at the lakeside that would contain a low part before it went over the edge that would contain the water so the water would perk in. In addition to those drawings that I provided to the Board, I took a number of photographs, some panoramas of conditions on the site, and adjacent to the site, to demonstrate the ability of the soils to hold and in cut and fill conditions, and I’m prepared to look at those in detail when we get to that point, if that’s the Board’s desire, but I feel comfortable, and I wanted to demonstrate my confidence that we could provide a fill slope on the wetland side that would be stable, and if, indeed, it proves to be unstable at that slope, then we would 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) cut back that slope until it was stable. That’s certainly our intention to protect the wetland, and we feel that we have the ability to do that, and some of the issues that I can go through, that we have done, for the Board’s information, one of the issues was that the Board asked that we contact the Highway Department as to their concerns for the use of Birdsall Road for hauling material off site, I did contact the Deputy Mike Travis. He sent a person out to look at it, and he suggested two issues, one that we do the hauling during, when there’s frost in the ground, and that would help protect the road, and also he asked that I contact the owners of Marley Way, which is a private right of way that kind of cuts the corner off Birdsall Road Extension and Birdsall Road. It leaves Birdsall before the bike path and ties back into it, actually I have a map. I’ve had some limited success with that, although, I went to the Town and had some limited success in identifying who the owners were. This is a tax map on the bottom. There are four parcels, one which is the Niagara Mohawk right of way. I have sent a letter to the three owners, the other three owners, and then was, this is the lake here. I then subsequently contacted, by phone, two of the owners. I have a letter from one of those two, the third owner, David Stevens, on the corner of Birdsall and Marley Way, I was unable to contact. So I’ve had some, of the contacts I’ve had, they are amenable to it, although I cannot tell the Board that that will go all the way. I have to talk to this landowner. I have not been able to contact him yet. I did talk to his mother and she says she can’t get a hold of him sometimes either. So, an issue on using Marley Way as a haul road for this project may cause some additional concerns. I know that the Highway Superintendent was pointing us in that direction and I’m pursuing that and willing to continue to pursue that. However, it may raise some other issues. I do have two of the owners out of the three, but that’s all I can commit to the Board at this point. Another issue I have, in terms of practicality, is that if larger trucks are used, that if the tandem truck is available to be used, it would reduce the number of loads out, but they would probably not be suitable for Marley Way. That’s the status of that. I did, in addition, contacted, we have three contractors who are interested in hauling material out of there, Rich Schermerhorn, Glenn Batease was one we contacted initially, and I also spoke with Dan Galusha, and they all have some kind of projects in the area and we have not entered into a contract with any of them. I think it’s going to be on a, if they need it when they need it kind of a basis, but we are committed to all the issues we talked about before, which is doing this work in the winter when there’s no one around. We’re committed to doing it with the frost in the ground. We’re willing to address any of the concerns the Board has, and we’ll answer questions that you have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mr. Pittenger, the drawing called Sections, that one to one cobbled slope, that’s the edge of the so called Army Corps wetland? Is that the one that’s across the road? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I noticed that in, I guess it’s in Mr. Liberum’s letter of October 10, he talks about th one to one slopes being essentially very unstable, was the word he used, I think, in his description of it, even when cobbles are used. Now you mentioned a little bit ago that you were going to take a look at the stability of that slope, and then slowly cut it back in the event you have to. Is that what’s on your mind? MR. PITTENGER-I think my intention is to create a stable slope. MR. VOLLARO-No matter what? MR. PITTENGER-No matter what, and if I begin at a shallow and then take it to its level, but the photos that I’ve provided to you, and I guess I can quickly go through those. Because the slope stabilization is a very real issue. In the color photos that I sent to you, the A and B represents some of the cobble walls that are on the lakeside. This is my parcel, and those, a lot of care went into those. Certainly that’s a high maintenance area, but these are almost vertical slopes, and there’s some minor maintenance involved, but this can be done with cobbles. Photo C is a panorama of the back of, actually, from Mr. Hirsh’s camp looking toward mine, looking south, and there is a slope here that’s very close to one on one. It’s a cut slope. There is little maintenance done to it. The leaves fall there. There’s no lawn. There is no runoff that’s generated from that. MR. HIRSH-That bulldozing was done about 50 years ago, so that’s been pretty stable without any work all that period of time. MR. PITTENGER-These photos on the bottom, D & E, are both different angles of a cut slope immediately adjacent to my parking area, which is approximately shots from where my proposed garage would be, and this cut slope, there are some cobbles laid up against it, but there is no vegetation on it. It’s really a sand, and it’s very stable. It’s a one on one slope. Directing your attention to the second page of photos, Photo F is a cut slope behind Mr. Hirsh’s house where his northern neighbor, where now the Deans live, but the work was done by a previous owner, where they cut this hill down to the level where we wanted to have it, and this thing is an extreme angle. It’s a cut slope. There’s little vegetation to it, and it’s fairly stable. I mean, it has been stabilized. Photos G & H are from that same property to the north, that the Deans own now, although the work was done by the previous owner, and this was a fill slope. There is grass on it. It’s a one on one slope and it’s extremely stable. Looking beyond, the piece beyond the grass in the view of Photo H is the area we’re talking about, where the northern owner has pushed it out, and ours is like an in-cut, but the 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) wetland line is fairly consistent. Photo I is the existing slope where, from the south looking at actually my piece that we would want to extend out. So I feel comfortable that this can be done. I understand the Board’s concerns about it and we’re obviously concerned about it, too. I’ve been there just 10 years. Wally’s been there for, well, most of his life, and certainly our intention is to create a stable slope there and to get it re-vegetated and stable. That’s our goal. MR. VOLLARO-Based on the November 20 meeting, in the minutes of that meeting, there was some th exchanges between some Board members and yourself, the one I recollect is a comment that you made that you would agree to remove all the 10,000 cubic yards off the site if that was possible, I mean, if Mr. Schermerhorn said, I’ll take it all, and then you didn’t have to deal with this other slope. MR. PITTENGER-If that was the Board’s desire, I would go that direction, except, and I have just one caveat to that, and that is that the biggest expense here is in disposing of the stumps. So there is some filling on the eastern side of that road that I’d like to do, just to dispose of the stumps, although that would not create a hazardous condition from a stability, actually would be very stable, but there is a stump disposal issue that this would, by doing some filling on that side of the road, would alleviate. MR. VOLLARO-Because if you were to agree to that, then we wouldn’t really have to worry about you creating that one to one, or 45 degree angle. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. I could actually do it probably on a 30% slope and still get the stumps in there. That could be a lot, that could alleviate the Board’s concerns, and if they’re willing to take it, I’m happy to let it go. MR. VOLLARO-Then you would be within Code. The current Code, I think, cuts off at a 30 degree slope. When I read Mr. Liberum’s letter, this was the first letter, before Stan Koenig got into talking to it. Mr. Liberum talked about that a mining permit is required over 1,000 tons, and I did a calculation quickly, using 27,000 pounds per cubic yard. I think that’s reasonably close, 2700 pounds per cubic yard, which comes out to 13 and a half tons. Now, he said that over 1,000 tons you needed a mining permit. Now you talked to Stan and Stan said, well, I don’t really think so. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-There’s two sort of conflicting outputs from that organization. I’m just trying to make sure that we don’t just take it on face value, that Stan Koenig put the statement out to the effect that a mining permit is definitely not required. MR. PITTENGER-The only thing I can compare it to is that, I don’t know what the Conservation Department is, but DEC, Stan issues the mining permits, and if you need a diagnosis, he’s the doctor, not the other guy. So he made that determination. I feel fairly comfortable with that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Would he have an objection to giving us a statement to that effect? MR. PITTENGER-I haven’t the faintest idea, but, I mean, the person who makes the determination as to whether it’s a mine or not, and would issue the permit, if indeed it was, and says it isn’t if he doesn’t has addressed it, and I have that in writing. So I’ve provided that to the Board. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The stormwater statement, there was a request in our motion, I think, for a stormwater plan. I think that motion was set up by Mr. Strough. Does the stormwater statement, does that statement you make adequately replace the stormwater plan? I don’t see a stormwater management plan here. I see a lot of words that talk to stabilization and the treatment of stormwater, but there’s not a typical stormwater plan where it talks about the first flush and the 50 year storm and all of the stuff that usually goes with that. I haven’t seen that, and I’m just wondering, I guess I’m asking the question, does that stormwater statement adequately replace the requested stormwater plan? Is it intended to? MR. PITTENGER-Well, let me submit to the Board this. I mean, I’ve been involved with some projects that require stormwater management plans, and the purpose of those plans, normally, is to treat the quantity and the quality of the change that would occur by implementation of the plan. I think that, in this case, we’re not really adding parking as a use that would generate additional dripping off cars. I mean, there’s that issue. We’re not paving or providing a lot of impervious surface that would generate quantity of runoff that would be an issue. What we’re proposing now, currently reflecting the comments of the Board, now, is that all of the water that falls on that upper area is perked in on that upper area, and it would be as it is now, that no water flows over the banks either way. So I think, in the sense that they are not stormwater models here, to compare the pre and post conditions, what we’re doing is we’re taking out a sandy, wooded area. We’re putting in a sandy grassed area. In effect, I would submit that the percolation rates would improve by the conditions, but we are really not affecting the quality, and I don’t think we’re effecting the quantity. We’re really perking in all that surface water. So I think that, although it’s not a formal plan, I didn’t really feel the need to do that, and I don’t know how you would, except to deal with it during construction, and to perk it 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) on site, and I think that’s everyone’s goal, and the soils are such there that I didn’t really feel that there was a big concern about that. I mean, I want to try and give the Board the information they need. MR. VOLLARO-All I’m trying to do is determine in my own mind, since we made a stormwater plan part of our motion in the November 20 meeting, that we, the Board, everybody understands that statements that you’re making, adequately reflects the need for a stormwater plan. I mean, he’s saying, and I understand what he’s saying. He’s taking that hill out. He’s going to grass it. The permeability’s going to go up, and he’s going to just plain use that as almost a retention spot for. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Stuff to go down. Now, I just want the Board to understand that we made a motion for a plan. We are now taking some input from you to negate that plan, based on what you’re telling us, and I just want the Board to understand that that’s what we’re doing. Now, on the oversight, on the dust control, during the excavation, you mentioned some controls on that. Are you going to have somebody there to watch that or is that going to be something that the contractor is going to try to agree to? MR. PITTENGER-I’m going to have someone there to watch that. I think that if they’re not there full time, they’ll be there more than half time. MR. VOLLARO-Kind of like a clerk of the works type thing? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think there’s another requirement there, I guess it was Stan Koenig, well, no, it isn’t. It’s the Highway Department that you talked to, that talks about doing this work when the frost is in the ground. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. That seems like a perfectly reasonable request. I never would have thought of it, but it makes great sense. MR. VOLLARO-So we’ve got this end to end one year plan to get this done in a year. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So we’ve got to do, basically the work has got to be done in a half year, in order to ensure that the frost is in the ground. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So you would almost have to be starting that kind of now. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-To do that. Okay. I think for now I’m finished. I’m really anxious to see what Mr. Koenig has to say about that, about the mining permit, not that I don’t believe he didn’t say it. That’s not my point. I just want to make sure that the record shows, you know, that the files will show that no permit needs to be issued, and it was stated so by Mr. Koenig, because, and I wouldn’t be pressing this except that Mr. Liberum made a very, and he may be the wrong guy. He may not know what he was saying when he wrote that. MR. PITTENGER-Mr. Koenig wouldn’t know? MR. VOLLARO-No, Mr. Liberum. You’re saying that Mr. Liberum, that’s not really his area. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that you’ve got this pretty much worked out. My only concern is that once you get started you finish it. So if you have to do it during the times when the frost is in the ground, which is basically now, then you’ve got three months, and then you leave it alone through the summer, and then start up again next December. MR. PITTENGER-Well, there’s two issues here. One is that it’s the hauling away that has to be done when the frost is in the ground. So that gives us a little bit of flexibility. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. PITTENGER-And the other is that the way that we want to approach this is really from, with Birdsall Road, we want to come in to our common driveway and start working it from the inside out, so that really the affect on the road is small. So we could work that in there. So anything that, if it did have to sit until the next season, it would be internal view, and it wouldn’t really have any effect from the side. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that makes sense, Russ. MR. PITTENGER-That’s our goal. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. That makes sense, and, to me, the more contractors that could get in on this, the better off it would be, in the long run. Wouldn’t it? Or would that be too confusing? MR. PITTENGER-Well, I’ve dealt with contractors, and I think I know how to work with them, but it’s very important to me that there’s one person that’s responsible for, ultimately us, but I don’t want this to turn into, come by and fill your truck up with sand kind of thing. I want this to be one guy on the site. I want them to be properly ensured, and I want the trucks to be covered. I don’t want trucks there leaking oil all over the place. I mean, we live there and we’re going to be living there, and we want to have it done properly, and I think that, of the three people I mentioned, we can find one of them that is not only interested but is qualified, and there’s good contractors in the area. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Cathy’s comments are along the same lines as what I was thinking. How long will the actual removal be? MR. PITTENGER-It would depend. We’re kind of at the mercy, we’re not selling it. We’re kind of at the mercy of we’re offering it, offering ourselves up. So I think, I mean, I talked to a guy in my office today who does a lot of our construction management. He says he could knock thing out in a week. I said, I found that to be unbelievable, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I do, too. MR. PITTENGER-But it’s a function of trips per day, and how bad they want it, and especially if they’re slow, and once you’ve got a truck idling, you might as well run it, and maybe they’ll try to haul it somewhere and stockpile it for a future project or, it depends on how it would go. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. PITTENGER-But it’s really, it’s a math function of how much can you haul away and how much time and how many trucks you have. Obviously, if you’re going to start loading, you’ve got a loader sitting there, you want him to be loading up, and I’d like this to be over as soon as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-And we had talked about that a little bit at the last meeting, about, you know, the maximum number of trucks per day and, you know, how many trucks per day were likely to be on site, and that kind of thing. I’m wondering how you feel about some of the Staff comments, specifically two of them, regarding the construction of the cobble retaining walls first. MR. PITTENGER-I think that’s a fine idea, and actually what I’d like to do is get the cobbles down there and perhaps line that with a filter fabric so that really functions as a silt fence also, because that’s my goal, to get the cobbles down there and perhaps to do some timber walls in there to really hold it and get a good base and get it toed in, and the fill and work as it comes back and stabilize it as we go. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the other recommendation about constructing the storm basins before any construction? MR. PITTENGER-I think that on the east side the cobble would have to function as that, although I don’t anticipate a lot of runoff there. Certainly, where we start doing that work, we can cut a trench so that all the water will not flow off. If we can’t do the final ones at the time we start construction, we’ll do temporary ones, and direct the water to a temporary common area, because the water just doesn’t sit up there. It just goes in the ground. MR. HIRSH-It’s very sandy. MR. PITTENGER-Yes. It’s very sandy and cobbly, and it’s very porous. I mean, the water runs down the sidewalk and that’s it. It just disappears. I mean, if you study the photos, and I notice someone had black and white photos. I gave you color ones. Somebody’s sneaking them away on you, but you can really see the detail, and it’s a very porous site from a drainage standpoint. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just looking back at some of the comments that were made during the public hearing, at the last meeting, regarding the magnitude, and I think you’ve addressed a lot of the concerns about erosion that were raised, specifically with the cobblestones being laid first and some of the other things that we’ve talked about, but did you really have any specific comments on the magnitude of the project being too big? That seemed to be a big concern at the last meeting. MR. PITTENGER-It’s a concern, and it’s a valid concern. I think that all I can offer is that, on this property map, the red dots are the people who have indicated that they support the project, and there’s some people they don’t support the project, and they’ve voiced their concerns to you. I’ve tried to describe the project, you know, as it is, and most of my neighbors don’t have a problem with it, and they have children and they live there, and some people don’t like it, well, one person doesn’t like it, but many people do. So that’s all I can say. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. One of my thoughts is, and I’m not sure if it’s something that we could impose, would be to limit the length of time that there would be removal of the soil. MR. PITTENGER-During the day, you mean? MR. HUNSINGER-No. You already have that indicated on your application, you know, the hours of operation, but I’m thinking of the timeframe for when you start until you complete the project. MR. PITTENGER-Well, the DEC requires it, really wants it to be done within a year’s time. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. PITTENGER-The Highway Department wants it done when the frost is in the ground. We don’t have a contractor. So I guess we could commit it to one season. It seems as though the best time to do it would be, perhaps not this year, but to do it during the time of hard frost, from January to the spring. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. PITTENGER-And I guess if the Board would like that to be a window of one season, perhaps not this year, but perhaps next, then, you know, we would commit to that. I mean, if that’s the desire. I think that we could weather a season, but I’m not sure that that wouldn’t put us into some kind of an upset with DEC, if it went longer than a year. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. PITTENGER-Unless we break the project and do two sites, but, you know, I think that if we had a willing person that really wanted it, it could get done, and if we have a guy that’s dawdling, and we can’t find any interest, it could just be hanging there, and then we’d all be disappointed. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Well, I think that’s everyone’s concern, is that you won’t find anyone that wants to take the soil, and, you know, if you have a construction site and the neighbors have the inconvenience of not knowing when and if trucks are going to come up and down the road or, you know, whatever the case may be. MR. PITTENGER-Well, I try to talk to all my neighbors and know what’s going on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PITTENGER-The immediately adjacent ones, and many of the ones on the road out are, you know, understand that they built houses and they understand how it goes. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. PITTENGER-But there’s a concern for that. I guess I can offer a, I mean, can we do it in a season? If it’s not this season, next? MR. HIRSH-We have the guys that are interested. Once we have something more firm of a commitment, then they can make a decision. When you’re just dealing speculation, it’s hard to get anybody to commit. MR. PITTENGER-That’s true. In fact Dan Galusha, he said, when you get your approval, come and talk to me. Because this is not only a particular area that may be close to a project they have, but it’s also a particular type of material that has to be suited to something they have. You can’t put big rocks in something, if you’re only filling six inches, you can’t put in six inch rocks. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. PITTENGER-So there is that flexibility, but, I mean, I’m willing to commit it to a season, whether it’s this before the frost leaves the ground this year or next year, but if we can’t get it done this year, then don’t start it, or if, indeed, we get partially through it and we’re done, we’ll just, we won’t haul anymore. We’ll just blade it off and restore the site and plant grass on it, and put it back together again, and then if we have to come back to the Board, we will. MR. VOLLARO-He may have a problem with DEC on this, though, because in this letter I have before me from Stan Koenig, it says, please be advised that failure to follow the plans you submitted to me and failure to complete this project by the date set forth in your 11/19/01 letter will cause this Department to consider feasibility and so on and so on. So he’s already committed to some spread, some date, some start and finish dates. MR. PITTENGER-It was less than a year. It was really a timeframe, yes. MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t want to get cross wise with him. You want to be able to make sure that you’re fulfilling his requirements. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. So if we start it this year, we’ve got to finish it by that time the same season, if it’s the middle of the frost. I mean, I really don’t want to leave this over the summer, but if circumstances do that, we’re committed to stabilize it. In the spring we’ll blade it off. We’ll plant it. We’ll get grass on it and get it stable. I mean, that’s the way it would be, and then if we can’t complete it in a year’s time, then I guess we’re done. We either quit or come back. MR. MAC EWAN-What else do you have, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-That was it. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, my thinking through the discussions, as they’ve been proceeding, and knowing at least one of the excavators that you’ve been working with, and I think, and I’ve also worked construction for 20 years, that it would be difficult, but it’s conceivable they could take that hill out in one week, two weeks easy, three weeks, no problem. I mean, if they really wanted fill, and I know at least one of those contractors needs the fill now. So I think that’s very possible that you could have the whole thing done in a matter of three weeks, a month, I mean, relatively short time, without setting a time, and that would alleviate some of the concerns of your neighbors. They would know that you wouldn’t be doing it during the summer on their vacation time, and that what they had to put up with, with the noise and the traffic and the trucks would be a minimal amount of time. I just think we could get the whole thing done, but I was disappointed with, and I concur with Bob, with the stormwater plan that I was expecting. I mean, the way I worded it, and I thought you and I just had this basic agreement, and I was expecting to see exactly what we said, and I have my notes here. I mean, we’re talking about the slope and the pitch of the driveway, a minimum of one percent, okay, and the new flat area would be, and the parking and the driveway would be sloped, and then you’d have a drainage basin, as you worded it, with crushed stone, and a perforated pipe. So I was expecting to see a detail of just exactly what we had worked out, so it’s documented, it’s in the paper, and I might even ask you to do something basic as using a rational method to determine if this would work. I mean, I would think that the drainage basin would be, considering the area that we’re dealing with, rather minimal, would suffice, but I didn’t see any details, and I saw the bare, bare, barest of stormwater plans, and I was truly disappointed by that. Okay. I’m not in favor of filling on the east side. I mean, we’ve got a slope problem, and it says in our Code that slopes can’t exceed 30%, 179-64A(1). So I don’t know if we have to give you a variance for that, or would it be a waiver, Craig? MR. BROWN-No. I think if you read the beginning part of that section it says you have to do any excavation or stormwater erosion control methods this way or get approval by the Planning Board. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I’m not crazy about taking it over to the other side of the road. It just means more wear and tear on Birdsall Road. I’m in favor of working on the inside, getting the stuff out of there, getting it flat. You guys can put up your garages, put up your parking area, put in your driveways, put in your lawn, have an area for your septic system, and everyone’s happy, and we don’t have to worry about, you know, impacting the wetland, impacting Mud Pond, nothing, just get it out of there. Let’s get the job done, and so, you know, that’s basically what I was ready to do, and then I didn’t see the stormwater plan that I expected. So I was disappointed. MR. PITTENGER-I asked Mr. Hirsh to prepare that and he let me down. No, I apologize. What I did provide I thought was a better system that was a surface containment by regarding it that would contain the water, so that no water escapes. As I thought about it more, and I apologize, it would have been a small matter to do that, but I thought I came up with a better plan that would actually provide more surface area for percolation, and to me it didn’t make a lot of sense to put pipe in the ground and stone that may be a maintenance issue when really the ground is so sandy that it’s just natural. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. STROUGH-Well, once you establish the drainage basin, you can grow lawn right over that. MR. PITTENGER-I understand. MR. STROUGH-I mean, so it’s not going to be an eyesore, and I thought we agreed. We’d pitch the driveway. We’d pitch the new area towards that. That way, guaranteed nothing’s getting into the lake, and even though a piece of land might be permeable, it’s not 100%. Even the minimum stormwater runoffs that I’ve seen are five percent, and that’s in soils with great drainage. So there’s always some runoff. MR. HIRSH-Actually, I think by removing the hill, if you refer to the pictures you’ll see those extreme steep slopes leading down toward the lake and toward the other properties. By actually removing that, we’ll be actually lessening the speed of the runoff. MR. STROUGH-And I agree with that, Wally, and I agree with that. It would be better, but it would be even better if we had the drainage basin which we did agree to, but I didn’t see it, but I may be standing alone on that, with the exception of Bob, and I don’t know how the other Planning Board’s, I do remember reading the minutes and I think it was Tony and you that requested if they would consider not depositing on the east side of Birdsall Road, and I think you got a positive affirmation, response on that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s in the minutes. It’s a discussion between Chris and the applicant, and Chris, I think, asked the question whether or not he’d be willing to take the whole 10,000 yards off the site, and the answer was yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, it might make things go easier. Again, I’d like to see the project timetable, you know, worked out. I think we could get the excavation done. I think we can get the commitments from the excavators. Because Stan Koenig says that when your grading is done, he expects the septic system to follow within six months. I mean, I don’t know if that’s a timetable that would work for your realistically. If you got an excavator to come in there next week, clear that hill down in two weeks, then that starts the timetable for when you’ve got to put in the septic system. MR. PITTENGER-That’s fine. That’s really not a problem. MR. HIRSH-While they’ve got their machines there, they might as well do it. MR. PITTENGER-I mean, they could do it. I feel comfortable with that, and I also feel comfortable limiting the construction time to one frost season. If we can’t get it, we’ll just have to get it done. If we start it, we’ve got to finish it. We’ll just take it the whole way. MR. STROUGH-Now the other note I have here, too, is, you know, if you’re going to get on this right of way, NiMo’s got to be notified and give you what kind of a plan, you’ve got to work out a plan with them to relocate those wires, at least while the excavation’s being done. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. There’s one pole that’s at issue, and really we could work ‘till we get to that pole. So there’s quite a bit (lost words). MR. STROUGH-And if we’ve got somebody willing to do it in two weeks, I mean, have you been in touch with NiMo and see what kind of, what your responsibilities will be? MR. PITTENGER-No. Well, I know what our responsibilities are. We’ve got to put a new pole in. That’s what they are. MR. STROUGH-And can Niagara Mohawk meet your timetable? MR. PITTENGER-I haven’t contacted them until we really have an approved plan. MR. STROUGH-All right. Trying to get the timetable worked out. I put down landscaping plan, but I suppose planting grass is going to be the primary thing that you’re going to do on this area that you’re going to clear, and you’re not going to be planting grass. You’re going to be putting driveway, parking area and garages. I don’t have a problem with that. Like I said, I was disappointed over the stormwater plan. MR. PITTENGER-It’s Wallace’s fault. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-You mentioned that you were going to put the stumps across the road. What about trees? What are your plans for the trees? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. PITTENGER-We have people in the area that are willing to take the soft woods and many of the hardwoods for firewood. We’ve already been approached for that, and I think there’s enough, I think there’s a couple, I think there’s at least a load of oak there that they would just take it. MR. METIVIER-I guess I can understand why you want to put fill across to bury the stumps, correct? MR. PITTENGER-And that’s really the only caveat I have to hauling it all away, because that’s a costly issue, and it’s something that an excavator brought up to me that I never even thought of. MR. METIVIER-It’s just the stumps? MR. PITTENGER-Yes, and there are places in the area, but not on the property that we control. I could go and negotiate with some of my neighbors to try and find a place that’s not a wetland that we could put stumps in, but it’s, you know, puts a burden on the neighbors. I would have to ask somebody. So it’s not a haul, but to haul it away or dispose of them is costly. MR. METIVIER-I guess my only concern that was brought up already is, you know, somebody gets into this, there’s no money, really exchanging hands. There’s no contract. MR. PITTENGER-Well, there would be a contract. I mean, it’s my intention to have a contract and insurances. I mean, he’ll pay a dollar for it, because I want him under contract because you get what you pay for, and I don’t want this to be an easy going, we’re coming, we’re going, we’re bringing, you know. MR. METIVIER-Well, that’s just it, and if they feel, at one point, this is too much, we can get fill cheaper down the road if we have to pay for it type thing, and they just, you know, leave. Then you have a half a project done. MR. PITTENGER-Well, that’s a very good point, and I think it’s certainly my intention to have him under contract to take it all way. If he starts it, he’s going to finish it. I mean, that’s putting us in that position, and we’re going to have to have a timeframe, too. He’s got to have it out before the frost goes. Because then we’re left hanging with our commitments that we’ve made to the Board, and that’s the only control we have, is that whoever starts it is going to have to finish it. I mean, I’m not adverse to putting somebody under contract for this because, quite frankly, if he runs into something, you know, it’s going to come back to us, and we’re going to have to have (lost word) on him. MR. METIVIER-And it honestly would be a shame not to be able to do this this year, because there is no hard frost this year. There’s frost, but, you know, four inches down it’s loose, in that respect. So you have the best of both worlds. So, in my eyes anyway, as far as moving it out. It’s going to be a lot easier than having to dig through 12 inches of frost, or whatever it is there, you know, that a normal winter would bring. There’s no snow, but, you know, can you realistically, and I know you can move, you know, you can do this in a relatively short time if you get started. There’s no doubt in my mind it can be done. I’ve seen it done, but, you know, can you realistically get somebody there within the end of, you know, the month, have everything set, and, you know, follow through before the ground technically thaws? MR. PITTENGER-I think that if we can’t come together that quickly, then, certainly, we’ll have until next year to prepare for it, and then be prepared to go. I mean, I think that the Town and the general climate is very active for construction. I think Mr. Carr needs 10,000 yards over at Home Depot. Don’t quote me on t that, but I think that that’s true, but we’re going to, you know, once we get the approval, then the contractors will be more willing to look at us, and I told my kids, you know, we might be cutting trees this weekend. It’s nice weather for it. MR. METIVIER-I’m concerned, too, with NiMo. I know in other areas it’s taken them upwards of three months to get in there to do stuff, depending on situations, and I know where that pole sits, so, at that point, if they can’t get there for three months, and then you’re into the spring season, what do you do then? Are you going to have three quarters of the project finished? MR. PITTENGER-Well, I think that that’s something we’d have to get lined up before we start. I mean, that’s one of the key issues. I mean we do have some neighbors that work for Niagara Mohawk. So we do have, we have some ends there. They’re more interested in dredging, though, than hauling material away, but I think that it’s something I hadn’t thought of that really has to be done, and we’ll have to investigate that. That’s one of the key issues, because we’re going to end up with a lot more wire than we need, because now it goes up and over. It’s just going to have to go straight when we get done. MR. METIVIER-So I guess my only real concern is the stumps. If you are under contract where they take it all, all the fill, and you’re not going to have any to cover the stumps, will you then not leave the stumps, or place the stumps where you originally proposed, and have them either hauled away or removed? Or do you feel it would be safe to still put them there exposed? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. PITTENGER-Well, now it’s a pretty rough slope. It would be my intention to place them at the base of the hill, well away from the wetland, perhaps cover them with a filter fabric and then just cover them so that it stabilizes so (lost words) goes down there, they don’t, you know, that there’s a foot of earth on it, so that nobody gets, it’s not a hazard or something, because the kids go running around sometimes back there. MR. METIVIER-If this stump rots in a year or two. Then what are you left with? Are you left with holes? MR. PITTENGER-This is an area of property that I’ve owned for 10 years, and I’ve only been down there twice. I mean, it’s a wetland down there. There’s a bunch of mosquitoes and, it’s pretty rugged down there. MR. METIVIER-I know it is. MR. PITTENGER-I think that there’s ample room to place them there, in a stable situation that isn’t going to really erode. I think we can do it there. I’d like to reserve the ability to do that, because the feedback I’ve gotten from the contractor is, but you take the trees and you’ve got to have some place for the stumps because that’s where the cost is. I’d be happy to eat the meat out of the sandwich, but I don’t want that bread, and it is a cost. You like to have a site that’s big enough. The practicality of it is that you’d like to have a site that’s big enough that allows you a low spot where you can bury the stumps where it doesn’t bother anybody. You’re not going to build on it. You can park on it, and then as it settles, you just keep settling up, but this is a nice spot where we have no intention of doing anything except look across at the wetland which is very attractive. MR. METIVIER-Technically it’s a perfect place to put the stuff, I mean in my eyes, but you hate to make it an unsafe environment. I do think that putting the stumps over there and then filling it would be perfect. MR. PITTENGER-I think we could do it safely, and I think that if we did that we wouldn’t really have to cut any trees down there. We could maintain the trees as they are and just work the stumps in there. I mean, right now people just dump their leaves there. That’s what we do. MR. METIVIER-Right. I’m fine. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t think there’s anything more I can add to what’s already been said, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve just got one more thing. In the previous minutes, I’m trying to nail down whether or not we’re going to put 5,000 yards against that slope or not. I guess that’s my question, and it says, this is Mr. Hunsinger talking, he says, would you prefer to take it all off the site, Mr. Pittenger, I would be open to that. I mean, we do create some additional land by doing that. For my part I’m really not committed to that. Mr. Hunsinger says, okay, because the question, I think, you know, we all raised when we went up to the site on Saturday was how the fill would be stabilized and how you would avoid runoff of anything into the wetland, and then it went on to talk about, Mr. Pittenger says, if we have the opportunity to remove all the fill, that would be our preference. MR. PITTENGER-That’s still my preference. It’s the stump disposition that I have issue at, but I think we can do that fairly reasonably there, and it’s still our preference, we have to pay someone to put earth down there. We don’t have to pay if they take it away. So it’s our preference to have it all gone. MR. VOLLARO-And I think somebody like Rich Schermerhorn, who is looking for 200,000 yards of fill, based on what I see and hear, and it’s come before us for that much, would certainly take your 10,000 just like that. MR. PITTENGER-And that’s fine, and I think if we can place the stumps at the base of the hill, it would stabilize the hill for future. MR. VOLLARO-That would take a lot of my concern away from this application, to be honest with you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MR. STROUGH-I do see why you did the landscaping plan, because on your proposed site plan, I see trees where the driveway currently goes in, and then I know that the hill’s going to be excavated north of where the current driveway is. MR. PITTENGER-Correct. MR. STROUGH-So I see trees drawn in. That’s why I had a note for a landscaping plan. Do you plan on re- planting trees in that area? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. PITTENGER-Actually, it’s our desire to, A, leave trees if we can. If we don’t have to fill it we won’t. B, I’d like to keep it open for views, so that I wouldn’t want to plant shrubs there. Because it’s our intention to grass that slope just to stabilize it, but if we can avoid putting soil there, I’d rather not do it and not cut any trees and just leave that alone. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying, you’ve got trees drawn in on what’s currently where the driveway is, and it goes over your neighbor’s property there. MR. PITTENGER-Those trees I believe are indicated to stay. They are on the neighbor’s property. Which drawing are you looking at? MR. STROUGH-I’m looking at the new one, revised 11/26, proposed site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Figure Five. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well there’s more than one Figure Five. It’s the new Figure Five. MR. HIRSH-A lot of those trees also are on the lakeside of the driveways, too. MR. STROUGH-Well, these would be, I guess, on your neighbor’s property, then? MR. PITTENGER-That is correct. MR. STROUGH-What I’m saying is, where your current driveway, it’s going through here right now. MR. PITTENGER-Correct. Those trees are not on our property, and we have no intention of cutting them, and that’s correct, and these pines here exist, and they’re on the line, and they would remain because they’re at approximately the right elevation. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So your excavation will actually start from your property line? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And move over. MR. PITTENGER-And there’s a couple of big oaks along this row that, before the bank comes up, we want to hang on to, they’re 30 inch, that we would retain, but this clearing here would be cleared, if, in fact, we were doing the fill slope, which we have every intention not to do, unless we have to. We have to pay to do it. I would like to have the option to do it in case we have a contractor that comes in and takes two thirds of it, we still have to do some grading there. If the Board is against that, then we won’t do it. We won’t do it. We’ll haul off whatever we can haul off. MR. STROUGH-I think I feel fairly confident that you’re going to find a contractor who’s willing to take it all. MR. HIRSH-Again, staying on the side of the timeframe, too. MR. STROUGH-And staying in the side of the timeframe, well, that’s, you know, we’re real close here. I don’t know how close. I’ll let the Chairman work that one out. Thank you. MR. PITTENGER-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We have a public hearing. We left it open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to come up. MR. STROUGH-I think you have to re-open it. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s been open. We left it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN STEVE MILLER MR. MILLER-Good evening. I’m Steve Miller. I’m a resident in the neighborhood, and I just wanted to stop by and kind of repeat my concern with the project. I spoke on the meeting before, and I just think it’s too big, and it just forever changes the character of the neighborhood, and it’s absolutely huge, and tonight I heard possibly using Marley Way as a route for the trucks, which is my primary egress and ingress to my property, and I know that just with the three people that use it now, it gets very torn up, and to put heavy 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) trucks on that could make it impassible, and I guess if it has to be used, I would want some assurances that it’s put back to usable condition, and also, during the winter months, with this repositioning of the pole, in the summer if they reposition the pole, they have to shut the power down, that’s an inconvenience, but to shut the power down in the winter, that’s unacceptable, you know, heat the house, keep the lights on, and I also had a question for the Board. I was reading through some of the documents of the SEQRA forms, and there’s Appendix B, the State Environmental Quality Review for a Visual Addendum, and I just wondered if that’s a concern in this project. Because it is visible from the bike path which is subsidized with government funds, and as you go to the old D & H Railroad bridge, which the bike path is now, and you look over Glen Lake, you’re going to see just a big notch in a flat spot, and some of the questions on this Appendix B address that. MR. MAC EWAN-When we do the SEQRA, we’ll get to that question, whatever the Board determines as the majority answer to that question is how we’re going to fill it in. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t really give you an answer until we get to it. MR. MILLER-All right. I just, I happened to see that and I wanted to ask the question. I’m sure the Board is aware of it. I just had not read through all the forms before. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. MILLER-All right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Now we can do our SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will action result in any adverse effects associated with the follow: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. STROUGH-Yes. Surface water quality, noise levels, gee, potential for erosion, drainage. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s take them one by one. MR. STROUGH-All right. Surface water. Now, it depends on whether they’re going to develop the east side of Birdsall Road or not. Because a lot of the surface water problems would just go away if they kept it to the west of Birdsall Road. In other words, the wetlands are there. Mud Pond is there, and we don’t have a firm, firm erosion control plan for that side of the road, other than maybe we ought to put the boulders down first, and then we’ll fill it in later, I mean, and that’s all we’ve got for erosion control on the east side of Birdsall Road. MR. VOLLARO-John, if we make the motion to have the whole 10,000 yards taken away, that removes that whole problem on that back hill, though. MR. STROUGH-Yes, it does. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So there’s a way that that can be mitigated. MR. STROUGH-Yes, there is. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you call the impact small to moderate? MR. STROUGH-Moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-And that there’s a way to mitigate that through the plan, the action that we’d be taking to remove all the fill from the site. MR. STROUGH-That would mitigate the problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do the next one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we’re going to have to put some conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re concluding that we’re going to pass the resolution with that condition, I think? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-I’m saying that’s one way to mitigate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I was going to say, the other mitigation would be, and this is what we got hung up on the last meeting, and what we had talked about at the last meeting was that the surface or groundwater runoff would be controlled by silt fences and a berm, that the wetland and drainage swales could catch the runoff. So, again, I mean, there are other mitigation measures besides what was suggested. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we have a couple of options available to us. What’s the next one? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. We did surface or groundwater quality or quantity. Noise levels. We had hours of operation. MR. MAC EWAN-Which is one of the things we requested when we tabled this back in November, to give us hours of operation, limit the hours of operation, and also a time duration as to when this was going to be done. MR. STROUGH-But that could be a moot point if the applicant agrees to do it just when the frost is in, because more people have their windows closed. They’re going to be less impacted by the noise, and the current plan calls for hours of operation, even on Saturdays during the summer, which I think the neighbors would not be happy with that. MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t either. MR. STROUGH-But the current plan is to do is while the frost is in the ground, during the winter season, I think would mitigate that, if that becomes a condition. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think what’s helping us, from this standpoint, too, is that fact that he’s talked with the Highway Department and they’ve said that they’ve wanted this window of operation to happen while there’s frost is in the ground, which obviously is going to be during the winter months when less activity outdoors is going on by the residents up there. MR. STROUGH-Killing two birds with one stone. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s a plus there. What else do we have? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the erosion, drainage and flooding problems are related to the comments we made about surface and groundwater. MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone in agreement with that? MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. I’m trying to write here, to make sure I’ve got it. Okay. No, I’ve got it right here. Okay. Traffic patterns, existing traffic patterns. Concern on Marley Drive. MR. MAC EWAN-From what I’ve heard, I don’t see Marley Drive as an option. MR. STROUGH-I agree, and I think that would make one resident a little bit happier, and keep it on Birdsall Road, and they’re keeping it when the frost is in the ground. I think we’re affording some protection to the road. MR. RINGER-I think when we’re looking at SEQRA we’re looking at long term, and this is a short term thing. So I really think that we’re getting kind of lost. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but we’re also looking at the impacts that this is going to have on SEQRA, with the actions taken by this particular project, whether this project goes on for six weeks or six months. MR. RINGER-Yes, but SEQRA itself is a long term thing, not necessarily the short duration that this thing is going to be taking place. MS. RADNER-You should be looking at both. You should be looking at both the short term and the long term impacts. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. BROWN-You could say that, yes, this project is going to have traffic impact, but it’s going to be short term. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. RINGER-Right. So for the short term for the two weeks or three weeks or four weeks, whatever. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What’s that again? MR. STROUGH-The noise impacts are a concern, but it would be short term, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-The same thing with traffic. MR. STROUGH-The same thing with traffic. MR. VOLLARO-Noise and traffic. I would lump those together. MR. RINGER-Anytime you get a project, you’re going to get noise, you’re going to get traffic, until the project is completed. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. RINGER-So we can’t nitpick it all to death. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Let’s continue on, then. How about solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion? MR. HUNSINGER-We kind of covered erosion and drainage. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that’s been mitigated in the new plan. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Drainage and flooding problems, we’re all set, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think we’re okay for that one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. RINGER-I don’t see it as an aesthetic impact. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see it impacting it. MR. STROUGH-Minimum. I mean, the view shed from the bicycle trail I think is rather minimum considering the whole, the 20 mile length of the bicycle trail, this is rather small. MR. RINGER-I agree with that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. RINGER-I don’t believe so. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen it, in any great controversial way. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. Okay. Then we’ve taken care of the concerns in C1. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 45-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RUSS PITTENGER/WALLACE HIRSH, and 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. STROUGH-Let me understand this. This is based on the fact that we can condition it to meet those mitigations? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-All right. A little discussion here? I think we’re close to putting something together here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But we’re going to need a few minutes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I understand that, but it seems like the issues that we’re working on is a window to do this in, time wise, right? And then the overriding issue is removal of all the fill from the site. Right? MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the overriding issue. MR. STROUGH-And I think we’re talking, we’re not giving approval for the winter of 2002/2003. I think we’re talking about the winter of 2002. I mean, if the applicant can’t get it done in the winter of 2002, have them come back, and we’ll. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because part of what that’s going to do for him, he’s going to be hinged into obviously lining up a contractor, whatever happens with him lining up NiMo, and whatever other issues are revolving around DEC. So if we do put something together that says, okay, you’ve got the winter of 2002, and he, for whatever reason in that 60 days can’t put something together, with the contractor and DEC and NiMo to pull this altogether, let him come back and get a modification. We can always move for an extension to next year. So, on this note, why don’t we designate, you and you to pen a resolution. We’ll take a ten minute recess while they do it. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make one comment. Based on the additional information provided tonight, I don’t feel strongly about requiring the removal of all of the soil. I mean, I’m just one person, but I would not be adverse to him putting some of the soil on the other side of the road. I mean, maybe not 5,000 yards, but. MR. RINGER-You mean cover up some of those stumps and stuff that he’s going to put over there? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RINGER-It makes sense, Chris, but I don’t know how you. MR. STROUGH-We don’t have a plan for a motion proposed, so you’ve now put the applicant into, we could give our approval, or, you’ve said. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he said he would use silt fences and, you know, use either stumps or rocks as a base. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m flexible, I think in my opinion, I could go either way with that, as long as we have certain measures set aside to. MR. STROUGH-Well, unless I saw a firm plan in front of me, and I was disappointed over the stormwater plan, and so was Staff, if I can read between the lines. Unless I saw a firm plan, I wouldn’t be in favor of it. I would consider it if I saw a firm, substantial plan for erosion control on the east side of Birdsall Road, but not until then. MR. MAC EWAN-Just as kind of like an impromptu barometer here, I mean, would we feel more comfortable having all the fill removed from the site? MR. RINGER-It would make it easier to make a resolution, trying to determine how much not to let them move away. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s take a ten minute recess and let them put together. Go ahead. Okay. I’ll call the meeting back to order. Read us the draft of what you have. MR. STROUGH-All right, the draft. The conditions that would, we’re proposing for approval. All proposed fill, estimated at 10,000 cubic yards, will be removed from site. No fill is to be deposited on the east side of Birdsall Road. Number Two, the resolution shall contain a letter from Stanley Koenig dated November 20, 2001, and, three, the excavation part of this proposal shall be completed by March 31, 2002. Okay, and I think the applicant has a comment. MR. PITTENGER-I would just request that the Board consider the fact that if we can’t get this together for this frost season, that we don’t have to come back to this Board, if we have to do it next season. So it seems if we start it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think for housekeeping I would prefer that if you weren’t able to bring this altogether for this season, for whatever reason, that you’d come back to us and ask us for an extension, which you would get. It wouldn’t be a problem, but I would want to be sure that you have brought together DEC, NiMo and your contractor and firmed it all up. It’s a way for us to be able to keep track of it. MR. PITTENGER-That’s fine, but still what we’re basically agreeing to is to do it in a one frost season. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but if for whatever reason you can’t do that, and you can’t accomplish it by March 31, that’s the day you’ve come up with. st MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that was sort of Russ’s date. MR. MAC EWAN-Then come back to us and say, okay, we’re unable to pull this together. Can you grant us an extension, and we’ll grant the extension. I don’t see that as an issue. MR. PITTENGER-What would the Board consider if we got partially done and then we ran out of frost and we had to seal the site up? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s an issue we’d have to deal with when you come down, but I don’t see that being a deal breaker, so to speak. MR. PITTENGER-That’s fair enough. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, do you want to introduce your resolution, then. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 RUSS PITTENGER/WALLACE HIRSH, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 45-2001for Russ Pittenger/Wallace Hirsh. Applicant proposes clearing and grading to facilitate driveway, parking, accessory structures and future 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) septic area. The proposed cut is 10,000 +/- cubic yards with fill of 5,000 +/- cubic yards with a finished elevation of 135 +/- feet. Tax Map No. 40-1-29, 30. Lot size: 0.9 acres; Section: 179-16, 179-65, and WHEREAS, the application was received 9/01: WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/11/02: 1/15/02 Staff Notes 1/3 Meeting Notice 12/26 New Info submitted 11/20 Staff Notes 11/7 Meeting Notice 10/31 Revised Info received 10/23 Planning Board resolution 10/16 Staff notes 10/10 LM from Warren Co. Soil & Water 10/9 Notice of Public Hearing 10/3 Meeting Notice 9/25 New Info – Revised Site Dev. Data Sheet, drawings 5-10 9/6 R. Pittenger from LM 9/6 New Info – cover sheet w/ drawings WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/16/01, 11/6/01, 1/15/02 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All proposed fill, estimated at 10,000 cubic yards will be removed from site. No fill is to be deposited on the east side of Birdsall Road, and 2. The resolution shall contain a letter from Stanley Koenig, dated November 20, 2001, and 3. The excavation part of this proposal shall be completed by March 31, 2002, and 4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 1/15/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. PITTENGER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-It was a long process, but we got there. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. PITTENGER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Good luck to you. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED W & T ENTERPRISES/P. TUCKER PROPERTY OWNER: CURTIS INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC AGENT: PHILLIP TUCKER ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: HOLDEN AVENUE APPLICANT IS OCCUPYING THE FORMER CURTIS LUMBER SITE FOR STORAGE AND SHOP USE. THE BUSINESSES ARE VOLT LANDSCAPE, ADIRONDACK P & M AND W & T ENTERPRISES, ETC. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: ENFORCEMENT, LM LETTER OF 9/14/01 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 117-9-22, 26 LOT SIZE: 1.82 ACRES SECTION 179-26 ROBERT WING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 48-2001, W & T Enterprises/P. Tucker, Meeting Date: January 15, 2002 “Project Description Project consists of warehousing and storage in the previously occupied Curtis Lumber pole barn structure on the West side of Holden Ave. Currently, the site is still being utilized for shop use and both interior and exterior storage. The applicant proposes a mixture of unattended storage and shop/manufacturing type uses in the building, pending an approval from New York State, with regards to the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code requirements. Further, an additional access drive onto Holden Ave. is to be constructed. The application was tabled on November 27, 2001 to allow the applicant to inquire with the State with regards to the UFPBC. The applicant has not provided any additional information as to the status of any request to the State other than a December 26, 2001 letter from W & T Enterprises, which states that it is their intent to notify the State and seek a determination. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. No new buildings are proposed with this project. No exterior lighting is proposed. No signs are proposed. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. On site traffic circulation appears to be adequate. However, the new access drive onto Holden Ave. appears to be 50 feet wide and immediately adjacent to an existing oversized curb cut. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The Off Street Parking and Loading requirements call for less than 20 parking spaces for this site. 44 spaces are proposed. Removal of several of the parking spaces immediately adjacent to the adjoining residential uses, may prove beneficial to the neighborhood as well as increase the permeability of the site. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The does not appear to be any provisions made for pedestrian access. None appears necessary. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The Stormwater retention basin proposed for this site appears to be adequate. Consideration may be given to providing protection of the basin from damage by vehicles. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. No sanitary facilities are proposed with this project. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The area along the northerly property line is a required buffer zone, the removal of parking spaces and gravel in this area, along with a substantial re-vegetation would be recommended to make the site compliant. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. It appears as though the availability for access to emergency vehicles is adequate with the existing drive. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): No certificate of occupancy, no sign permit Staff comments: It appears as though the applicant proposes to remove the manufacturing portion of the operation until such time as a State variance is granted or a determination rendered. It appears as though the applicant continues to utilize a portion of the building for manufacturing operations despite notifications from both the Town Planning and Building departments. Currently, a portion of the site is being used for outdoor storage. Is this to be considered with this approval? Is the Wing property, immediately South of this parcel, to be operated in conjunction with this project? If so, serious consideration should be given to limiting and controlling access. Otherwise, a variance may be necessary for the construction of a new access drive in violation of the 150 foot minimum separation distance requirement. Is the proposed layout the most practical….parking spaces in front of storage bays? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. WING-Good evening. For the record, Robert Wing from W & T Enterprises and Volt Landscaping. Phil Tucker, who is my partner in W & T, is not present. His name is also on the sheet. He was here with me the previous time. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you bring us up to date with your application, please. MR. WING-As far as the application goes, like Craig had said, what we had done is talk to Mr. Hatin and getting rid of the mixed use, basically what it is is a supply and holding area for my business and four other businesses as well, and Phil was proposing for his plumbing business a machine shop, which he’s going to take it out and use just the area for holding and supplies, and if he wants to, in the future, propose to do the machine area. He was going to then talk to Mr. Hatin, and then attempt to go through New York State and get any of the variances that we needed at that time. We talked to Mr. Hatin, and basically came to an agreement that, to get this thing rolling, that was the best way to go about it. MR. BROWN-Just to clarify, if I could. I think the discussion that Mr. Hatin had with the applicant was to actually remove the manufacturing use, as part of this application. MR. WING-Correct. MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if that’s been done yet. MR. MAC EWAN-If we entertain approving this application, how does that work for you to enforce it, and what kind of an administrative nightmare does that make for you? MR. BROWN-That they remove the manufacturing portion of it? That’s relatively easy to confirm. MR. MAC EWAN-Do they need to get a CO? MR. BROWN-Ultimately, all the businesses that are in the building would have to get some sort of a CO to occupy some space, even for warehouse, and the CO for, I’m assuming it’s, what’s Mr. Tucker’s business? MR. WING-It’s a plumbing and mechanical. MR. BROWN-Plumbing and mechanical. The details with that Certificate of Occupancy would outline what they want to use the space for, and at that point we could identify if there’s any manufacturing in there. So the short answer to your question, it wouldn’t be hard to monitor and enforce the no manufacturing part of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy, I’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m slightly confused, and I just want to make sure I understand. What we’re looking at is just the W & T Enterprises? MR. WING-Correct. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. HUNSINGER-Business that’s in that. MR. WING-Correct. That’s just the business my partner and I formed, as far as legality issues, and there is no business being run out of here called W & T. In essence that’s the name of Phil and I’s corporation, owns this building and this parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There were a couple of comments related to the actual site plan itself. The access drive onto Holden Ave. being 50 feet wide, and then also the comments on re-vegetation required along the buffer zone, the northern property line. Did you have any comments on that? MR. WING-Well, as far as vegetation, basically right now the whole entire fenced in area, the fence, in a lot of the areas, is 15 feet within the boundary of the property, and there is vegetation that’s naturally grown there, as far as like vines. A few evergreens, sporadic along the fence area. There is some green space on the edges, but being it was a lumber yard for so many years, it had a tendency, as they were plowing and whatever, the gravel encroached the fence area, which I’m assuming, it just took over the green area, which in the beginning, I’m sure was needed there, to approve the original plan, and the other, you had mentioned the proposed area here that’s 50 feet, and that entrance there, we had just thrown that in there, because down the line, I mean, that’s nothing that’s there right now. This is the main access up here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. WING-This area here was something, there is a piece of land to the north of that that is for sale, and that is, at that time, if we had purchased that piece, we would do the entrance way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WING-Because we don’t even think that there is enough room to put a gate in that area, and make it usable, make it function like we need it to function. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. RINGER-Did I understand you to say that you don’t want that other entrance now? MR. WING-Well, we had just put proposed on there. It’s something that, I mean, if you guys are against, we’re not going to press having it. The biggest reason, I guess, why I had it put on there, because I do own the lands and the building adjacent to that, and it makes it easy for my utility vehicles to go out into this yard and go to my other building in the back, go to the shop area in the back, instead of going down the road and then in through the gate. MR. RINGER-I just wanted to clarify. I didn’t understand exactly what you were saying. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I can’t look at this just as your use. MR. WING-Right. MR. STROUGH-I have to look at all the potential future uses, and I’m not crazy about the idea of having a second entrance. I like keeping it restricted to one entrance, and it’s not like you’re going to have a lot of vehicles moving in and out of here. MR. WING-Correct. MR. STROUGH-So it seems to me. Okay, and on that line of thought, and it also is a Staff concern, is the number of parking spaces, so my question is, why so many parking spaces? MR. WING-Basically what we had done was, if anything, we overdid the amount of parking spaces, because at most times there isn’t even a vehicle parked there during the day. It is necessary, it’s a staging area, to say. People come in, they get their supplies with their pickup. They take out what they need out of the building. They load it. They leave. As far as the parking spaces, how many that are there for each site, that’s something probably I guess, I don’t know, Phil had come up with when he talked to VanDusen and Steves, or I don’t really have an appropriate answer, to be honest with you, on the number of them, or if that was a Code issue or something that had to be recognized, as far as each unit needed so many parking spaces. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. STROUGH-Well, Staff says that they figure that you need, in a letter dated 11/27/01, that you needed 14. MR. WING-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Now you’ve got 17 running across the front. MR. WING-Right. MR. STROUGH-So, according to Staff, you’ve got more than what you need now, and according to what you’re saying to me, it’s probably ample anyway. MR. WING-Very much so. MR. STROUGH-So you wouldn’t have a problem with just, say, eliminating the rest of the parking spaces, with the exception of those across the front, as denoted in this plan, and possibly leave that area for landscaping? MR. WING-As far as the area that’s saying 14 spaces and 9 spaces? That’s what you’re in reference to? MR. STROUGH-Well, yes. MR. WING-Okay. No, I don’t have a problem with that whatsoever. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the only other suggestion that I have is some kind of a fence, or, possibly, you’re into landscaping, right? MR. WING-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Around your retention center, how about boulders or a split rail fence or something? MR. WING-Well, the only problem with that is that is the middle of our traffic flow. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I see that, but then again, we don’t want them driving in to the retention center. MR. WING-Well, I think the retention is what it would be, the way it is now, it is sunken in, because on the original print that we had gotten, that we had to revise and update, there was supposedly something there, and we had dug around and tried to find some sort of, whether it was a basin and a cover, the crushed stone had gone over the cover in years of plowing and the traffic in there, what the scenario was, but there is a depression there now where this area is, the proposed retention basin is, and as far as the flow of the water, the shape of the parking lot and the way it contours, I don’t see a problem with it doing its job, as far as retaining water and being able to drive through it. It’s not necessarily a dug out, like. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s not what I’m picturing. I’m picturing dug out like a normal, you know, with slopes like this. So you’re saying this is very gradual. MR. WING-No, it’s very gradual, yes. MR. BROWN-What’s proposed on the plan is something that you’re thinking about, a formally constructed retention basin. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s what’s on the plan. MR. BROWN-That’s what’s shown on the plan. If the applicant’s going to offer something else. MR. STROUGH-Because what’s shown on the plan is you go from. MR. WING-No, I see what you’re saying. The elevations drop dramatically, yes. MR. STROUGH-They do, and that would be a problem with a car backing into that, unless you have boulders. MR. WING-Right. I guess I should have put it the other way. I would rather see it, the way it is now, water collects in this area, right here, specifically. So I don’t know if, at the time they designed this and built it, why there wasn’t already something in there, as far as like some sort of a holding pond or something that was piped and outletted somewhere, but I guess that was never done at that time. The only, my only concern is taking up the area, the traffic flow through there, with this potential pond. I guess that’s my only concern. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. STROUGH-All right. So maybe we should word it this way, that the proposed retention center is not what we’re going to go with, but the current depression, which is acting as a retention center, will be maintained. MR. WING-Correct. Because the soil there is very porous sand, and water, after a heavy rainstorm, water stands there for maybe a half a day, and I don’t know, as far as, back when that was originally designed, if that was noted, and that’s why the, because the original print that is somewhat like this had a retention area also on it. So we put the revised one in the same area. MR. STROUGH-All right, but the revised one wouldn’t work well with traffic flow. MR. WING-No. Well, with the grades and with the way they’ve got this shown on here. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, you and I are just talking about the current depression. MR. WING-Right. MR. STROUGH-Would remain as a collection device for stormwater. MR. WING-Correct. MR. STROUGH-But I noted a concern on Staff. MR. BROWN-I’m just concerned with the adequacy of it. This is obviously designed by an engineer and placed in this location for a reason. Is the existing condition on the site adequate to handle what’s necessary? I don’t know that. I don’t think we have that before us right now. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s a legitimate concern. Thank you. All right. So that’s something I guess we’re still going to have to kind of work out. Now you say you own this property or Curtis owns this property? Did you buy it from Curtis? MR. WING-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So Curtis no longer has? MR. WING-Well, what he is, is he holds the mortgage for the land, for the property, but it’s full contract. I mean, it’s our property. MR. STROUGH-It’s your property. MR. WING-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Are there any operations in there that create noise? Because it is a residential. MR. WING-Basically, the only noises are small machinery, loading, items such as mulch, stuff for my business, traffic flow in there. Other than that, there really is no other noises, as per se to do with each building, like inside the building coming from machinery in the building or saws or whatever it may be. No. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is there any nighttime of that sort of nature? MR. WING-No. The only thing you would have of nighttime is possibly somebody pulling in to drop a trailer off, somebody pulling in to drop a truck off. MR. STROUGH-But not as a rule, running a machine? MR. WING-No, not as a general rule. It would be like 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. would be a good rule of thumb I would go by. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MS. RADNER-Before you move on, I think you need to clarify for the record, you’re talking about noise from machinery running. It was my understanding that the application was going to be just for warehousing and storage now. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MR. WING-Right, but in order to have like storage, in order to move things into the storage facility, from my shop that’s here, say I run my machine with my pallet forks on it, bring them over to the area to store, pick them up, vice versa. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. STROUGH-And occasionally running a Skill Saw to cut something up. MR. WING-Well, yes. MR. STROUGH-Not a per, but there will be some noise. MS. RADNER-Just so long as the record’s clear that we’re no longer talking about any machine use or allowing any machine use in this building. MR. STROUGH-As the nature of the business kind of thing. MR. WING-In the building, no. MR. STROUGH-All right. I think I understand. MR. BROWN-And I guess another question that I have, I don’t want to get too far off track here, but any outdoor storage, any material storage outside that’s not shown on the plans, and I know Mr. Wing’s in the landscaping business, we’ve talked about this before, as far as stockpiling material. That’s not shown on here, and I don’t know if that’s part of this approval, and I’m not sure if that’s going to be done. Because I think some of that exists on the site now. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t know what it meant here, okay. All right. Now you own the property just to the south of this proposal? MR. WING-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And this two story building? MR. WING-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s a residential building? MR. WING-Well, residential, it’s commercial. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but you’re living upstairs or something? MR. WING-There’s an apartment upstairs. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and you’re willing to eliminate the parking spaces, and, okay. All right. MR. WING-And as far as, to answer Craig’s question, there is temporary storage outside, as far as mulch piles or stone piles, maybe, but they are temporary. They’re not a year round thing. They’re not, sometimes they’re there. Sometimes they’re not. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So we’ve still got to work out the retention basin thing, and that’s the only issue I see up in the air, right now, other than possibly discussing, you know, hours of operation as an issue. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing further on this. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I’d like to take that second entrance out, and also, if you don’t need those parking spaces, let’s take them out, get them out of there. Other than that, I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at Staff notes here and it says “The applicant has not provided any additional information as to the status of any request to the State other than a December 26, 2001 letter from W & T Enterprises, which states that it is their intent to notify the State and seek a determination.” If we take the manufacturing out of here, that goes away as well, and if you take the manufacturing out of here, Dave Hatin’s letter of November 8, 2001 is also, except for the CO comments that he’s got in here, because I don’t see anything else from Dave that says we’ve had a discussion and here’s what I think now, after November 8. Is there anything else from Dave Hatin on this? th MR. BROWN-I don’t believe there is. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. VOLLARO-Because I think in our motion there, when we talked to the motion in the last meeting, which was 11/27, said that the applicant to work to satisfy Mr. Hatin’s memorandum of November 8, and th that the applicant get with the State to determine what the problem is, or what remedies can be applied to the mixed occupancy that’s imposed by the State Building Code. That was our motion. MS. RADNER-Yes, but you’ve eliminated those concerns by eliminating the manufacturing. It’s no longer a mixed use, so you don’t have the firewall issues. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that, essentially, eliminates Mr. Hatin’s memo to a great extent. MS. RADNER-Provided that the operation actually has ceased, instead of just on paper, correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. I don’t have any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Anything to add? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 48-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: W & T ENTERPRISES/P. TUCKER, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Where are we on this, it seems like a sticking point is your retention basin. Have you got something like kind of drafted up there? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Before you do that, I mean, do you have something in there that’s going to mitigate that retention? MR. STROUGH-Here’s what I have proposed for that, and I have others, but that’s the one you want to address now. The proposed retention basin will be re-drawn and re-designed to accommodate site stormwater and not hinder traffic flow. The stormwater device must be approved by a licensed engineer. MR. MAC EWAN-And how do you make that a condition of approval, though? MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s the condition. MS. RADNER-Within a certain timeframe, as stated in this application. MR. STROUGH-All right. What do you want to add, as a basis for acceptance, as a basis for? MR. MAC EWAN-Any suggestions? MR. BROWN-A timeframe to design a storm basin? MR. MAC EWAN-And submit it to the Town. MR. STROUGH-How about this? Prior to the Chairman’s signature. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t sign a site plan. MR. BROWN-Well, this is not going to require a signature. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. BROWN-Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, you can tie it to that, or. MR. MAC EWAN-You need to have a CO for this? MR. BROWN-For these spaces in the building, absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do it to that, contingent upon a CO. That’s good enough. MR. STROUGH-Certificate of Occupancy. All right. What else do I have here is no manufacturing, no outdoor storage, eliminate proposed entrance, eliminate proposed southern entrance, south entrance, eliminate four parking spaces south of the north entrance, eliminate the noted 14 spaces along the north property line, eliminate the noted nine parking spaces along the east property line, and the only thing I have, and then I’ve got the other condition, and I don’t know if you want to put hours of operation limitations in there or not. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess, along that sense, I’m kind of reluctant to do that, because of the nature of the site and its history over there, and being a Light Industrial site, but jump back to those parking spaces for a minute. You’re not going to delineate parking spaces. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t want to give approval for them. MR. RINGER-They’re already shown on the plan. MR. STROUGH-They’re shown, so I’m saying I don’t want to give approval for those. If he expands his operation, we’re going to have to look at the whole project and he can come back with a new parking arrangement, but right now even he’s admitted the parking along the front is fine. Staff has shown a concern about the number of parking spaces. If you give it to them, they’ve got it. If he needs it, he’s got to come back to us. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. That’s fine. MR. RINGER-But why did you put the outdoor storage? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, can’t you accomplish the same thing by having them removed from the plan? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. STROUGH-I specifically said which ones to be removed, these, these, these, and they’re next to residential areas anyway. So that’s, for me, it’s a secondary reason for removal. MR. RINGER-Why did you put no outdoor storage? I mean, he stores his peat moss and apparently some other stuff out there? MR. WING-That’s the primary use of the property, and it has been since. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I just heard a concern and I listed it. If that’s a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I don’t have an issue with it because I can tell you I used to have office space over there, and when he says it’s seasonal, by the end of the season it’s gone. MR. WING-It’s all cleaned up, and plus it was a lumberyard. MR. STROUGH-I know. So eliminate that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I don’t have an issue with that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, it was mentioned so I put it down. MR. BROWN-Just for a compliance issue, because after this, as you guys know, Staff has to go out and inspect the sites for compliance with the approvals that you guys issue. I know on this site, or there has been on this site, the outdoor storage of it looked like concrete forms, those types of materials. MR. WING-Yes. MR. BROWN-Is that something that’s going to continue? MR. WING-Yes. MR. BROWN-So that’s outdoor storage, and if you guys are comfortable with that, that’s fine. Just so when I go out there, I don’t say, there’s no outdoor storage, you have to move that. MR. MAC EWAN-As long as I don’t see abandoned cars. MR. WING-Right. MR. BROWN-And as far as removal of parking spaces, I just want to be clear. Obviously the plan’s going to be revised to show no parking spaces in those areas. When you say removal, do you mean removal of the parking spaces, take the gravel out, put the grass back? You just want to take it off the drawing. MR. STROUGH-Just take it off the drawing. MR. BROWN-Okay, because that’s not the direction I was headed. MR. STROUGH-All right. To be removed from the drawing, then. MR. BROWN-That doesn’t effectively remove the parking spaces from the site. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. BROWN-They can still use them as parking spaces, because there’s gravel there. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. BROWN-If you don’t want parking there, I’d take the gravel out. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. WING-Right. If possible, I’d rather leave the gravel and just eliminate this parking area that’s on here, shown on the plan. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ve got it worded to be removed from the site plan the parking spaces that are shown, okay. Are you ready to go? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2001 W & T ENTERPRISES/P. TUCKER, 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. 48-2001, W & T Enterprises. Applicant is occupying the former Curtis Lumber site for storage and shop use. The businesses are Volt Landscape, Adirondack P & M and W & T Enterprises. New uses in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 10/31; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/11/02, and 1/15/02 Staff Notes 1/3 Meeting Notice 12/26/01 Letter received from P. Tucker 11/27 Staff Notes 11/20 Notice of Public Hearing 11/14 Warren Co. Planning – No County Impact 11/8 P. Tucker from D. Hatin – Stop Work Order 11/7 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 11/27/01, 1/15/02 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. There will be no on-site manufacturing and the following will be removed from the site plan: the proposed south entrance, four (4) parking spaces located south of the north entrance, the noted 14 spaces along the north property line, the noted nine (9) parking spaces along the eastern property line, and 2. The proposed retention basin will be redrawn and redesigned to accommodate site stormwater and not hinder traffic flow, and 3. The stormwater device must be approved by a licensed engineer and this approval must be prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 1/15/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. WING-Thank you, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Get that drawing revised and get it in to Staff. MR. WING-Can I just ask you one quick question on this? Say if, down the road, in the future, we wanted to swap entrances, say if we purchased the land. MR. MAC EWAN-Come back and see us. MR. WING-Come back and see you. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 3-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED SIDNEY R. HOCHMAN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 119 EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8’ HIGH, 120’ LONG CHAIN LINK FENCE AT 119 EVERTS AVENUE, BACK AND NECK PAIN RELIEF CENTER. INSTALLATION OF COMMERCIAL FENCES REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 107-1-2.5 (302.08-1-35) LOT SIZE: 0.41 ACRES SECTION: 179-74 C (3) SIDNEY HOCHMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 3-2002, Sidney R. Hochman, Meeting Date: January 15, 2002 “Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed fence appears to be compliant with the requirements of §179-74 – Fences. Fencing for projects in commercial districts shall require review and approval by the Planning Board. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? The proposed fence appears to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance and should not present a significant burden on the ability to provide public services. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? The proposed fencing will, according to the applicant, decrease public hazards with regards to traffic. Apparently, delivery vehicles, delivering to Cool Beans, are utilizing the applicants’ parking area for deliveries. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? No significant adverse impacts relating to these issues are anticipated. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. No new buildings are proposed with this project. No additional site lighting is proposed. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The applicant claims that this project will not hinder any on site or off site traffic circulation. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. No parking space alterations are proposed. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. No modifications to the pedestrian walkways or intersections is planned with this project. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. No changes in the stormwater management conditions on the site are anticipated. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. No modifications to these facilities are anticipated. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The proposed 8 foot tall chain link fence with green slats should serve as an adequate visual buffer between the subject property and the adjacent use. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. No impacts on fire lanes or emergency zones are anticipated. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. No impacts are anticipated with regards to ponding, flooding or erosion. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Apparently, the visual impacts on the applicant as well as the unwanted vehicular traffic are the basis for this request for a fence. Staff anticipates Cool Beans will present a similar proposal in the future, offering a fence, which is more consistent with the theme and architecture of their site. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Sorry for the long wait. DR. HOCHMAN-Good evening. That’s okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself, for the record? DR. HOCHMAN-My name is Sid Hochman, 119 Everts Avenue, Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Before you tell us your need for wanting to have the fence, which I think we pretty much know why you want the fence, when we made site visits the other day, we kind of talked about, to try and get an understanding of the history to Cool Beans, how did that building end up so close to the property line? MR. BROWN-The previous building that was there was a car dealership. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct, it was a little, small building. MR. BROWN-A little, small building, and that building was placed closed to the property line. The Cool Beans applied to the Zoning Board for a variance to replace, or place their building kind of over that same footprint, in a large footprint, the Cool Beans is larger than the building that was there, but they were granted relief to maintain that setback that was there prior to their use. MR. MAC EWAN-And as I recall the Cool Beans site plan when was in front of us, I don’t ever recall any condition of approval or discussion regarding deliveries using this gentleman’s property to. MR. BROWN-You couldn’t do that. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-No, I know we couldn’t do that. That’s why I wanted to get that out, because I don’t recall that, and it’s bothersome to me. So I think we know why you’re here and why you want your fence, but why don’t you tell us. DR. HOCHMAN-Well, I think the two issues are delineation of the property and the aesthetics. I think what the fence would do would be to delineate the separation between the two properties, and I think, as unfortunate, I personally have found this situation, but that’s going over old things at this point, I think the way to just kind of resolve this situation and create, not to create any continued tension between the two properties, and I think that the fence would be an appropriate way to resolve that at this point, given the situation of where everything is and where the building was built and other issues, over and above that, there obviously are some safety concerns, and that’s another reason for the need for the fence. The safety concerns are delivery of very large trucks, which also go onto my property, which then there are liability issues, and the parking issues are that there isn’t a definitive delineation between the two properties, and that creates some issues with other businesses, you know, coming into our property and my concern is liability issue and also the aesthetics issue. In terms of, I did contact the other businesses in the area, specifically Cool Beans, and the liquor store that’s right near by, and also Silverstein and Loftus, and in all honesty, I’ve had other concerns of which now is not the reason for this request, but there’s issues of right of way and other issues which I hope to take up in the future. After speaking with Silverstein and Loftus, they really, Mr. Loftus expressed no concern for his, for anything to do with, Number One, the fence, and also with the right of way issues and concerns for people getting into accidents, because it’s a very congested area over there, and the liquor store, the same thing. There’s a lot of parking that’s going on now in that area, which I think for visualization of the traffic going back and forth, it creates some stumbling blocks to safe egress and ingress into my property and the other properties, and again, they kind of just said, you know, didn’t answer and didn’t say they had a concern at all, and in terms of Cool Beans and I guess there was some statement made that possibly he was going to come back, or the owner of Cool Beans was going to come back with his desire for a fence. It’s been almost two years since this building has been up, and obviously, if he would have wanted a fence up until now, or if the Board would have thought that a fence was appropriate before, it would have been approved back then. It hasn’t. So I’ve had to take a proactive stance in terms of trying to get this done myself, even though it wasn’t needed prior to this. So that’s kind of my position at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, I mean, I certainly understand the need for the fence, and I’ve been to that site a number of times, and certainly understand the problem. I guess maybe one of my comments is that if, you know, what the discussions have been with Cool Beans, because Staff is saying that they anticipate that they would come in with a similar proposal to construct a fence, and I’m just wondering if maybe there could have been sort of a meeting of the minds, to develop one fence instead of two fences. DR. HOCHMAN-Obviously not. It wasn’t because of any stumbling block of which I. I had made a proactive offer, originally, when the find out that the building, the setback was, a variance was given for the setback, and offered to pay for half of the fence and to do it properly and to do it aesthetically, and there was really no definitive part of Cool Beans to get anything done, and at this point, I’m concerned about having this continue to go on, because what’s going to take place is nothing, and if nothing takes place, I think that puts me at risk, from a liability perspective, and I think that’s really my Number One concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess a had a couple of questions and/or comments on the fence itself. DR. HOCHMAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-One of them is the need for it to be so long, and then the other one is related to the design of the fence itself, whether or not there would be another material that would be more appropriate. Could you just comment on that? DR. HOCHMAN-Yes. Well, my concern was low maintenance was one concern. The other concern is, there are cars that park along there, and my concern was if it was anything more structured, any stronger with less give to it, that potentially that could be a hazard, in terms of someone hitting it. I think the worst case scenario with a vinyl coated chain link fence is that you damage it but you could fix it but no one would be hurt in terms of that pushing in and knocking down. Over and above that, my desire was to put up one with vinyl slats in it, but there is a newer version that is a three dimensional. So it’s not simply woven through. There’s a company that makes it so that they’re already pre-installed. So they’re pretty strong in that respect. In terms of the length, I guess my discussion with the rules and regulations are with Mr. Brown that the fence needed to begin at the front part of the Cool Beans building and my building, that the part that faces on Everts Avenue. So it couldn’t go past where the buildings, you know, ended, so to speak. So that would also give way for visualization and to be able to see to get out onto Everts Avenue, and then going backwards, to go past the building, and if you look on site there, there’s a dumpster that’s surrounded by a green picket fence, so to speak, and it would go towards the, which is already sort of a visual, not a hazard, but is sort of visually there, and it would go to the end of that, which would stop, and I believe that’s approximately 120 feet. The full length of that side of the partition of the land is 150 feet. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I certainly understand what you’re saying about some of the, I don’t know, call them right of ways if you will, you know, because I’ve done it myself, you know, drive through there and come out on Everts Avenue, instead of turning around and going out onto Quaker Road, and I think a lot of people do it. You see it all the time. So, I certainly understand the need. I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Is it 120 feet or 130 feet? MR. VOLLARO-120. MR. STROUGH-Well, on the data sheet it says 130 in several spots. DR. HOCHMAN-Understand. Well, to be precise, in meeting with Mr. Brown and trying to find out what the legalities of it were and what the issues and ordinances were, I believe that I definitively must not be able to start the fence in front of the part of the building that is closest on Everts Avenue. So the front part, and then going backwards along the property line, my understanding from the rules are that I can go all the way back to the end of my property line. So, it would be, at most, the 130 feet. So the 150 feet of the property line minus the 20 feet from the Everts Avenue to the beginning of the fence is that 20 feet. So it would be up to 130 feet. MR. STROUGH-All right. So the 120 foot representation’s not accurate. DR. HOCHMAN-Well, let’s see. MR. RINGER-On your drawing is where you have 120. Everything else is 130. DR. HOCHMAN-Okay. Pardon me. It should read 130. That was a mistake. In other words, I did get some estimates from some fencing companies, and they did measure it, it was 130 feet. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I measured it to scale, and it measures 120. So, visually, I’ve got to now extend this another 10 feet to the east, I’m assuming. I’m looking at this proposal. DR. HOCHMAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And it says one inch equals 40 feet. So I measured that. DR. HOCHMAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And it’s 120 feet. So, visually, I have to extend that darkened line, which I’m assuming is demarking the fence, another 10 feet, to obtain a visual analysis. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing with that, John, if those two properties, 107.11 and 107.125, are drawn to the 1 to 40 scale, that fence can’t cross the property line. MR. STROUGH-Well, the other thing is that that representation that was given us doesn’t line up very well with the copy of the property lines as denoted by the map produced by the Town of Queensbury. So I’m having a problem getting a visualization there because the property line between Hayes and Hayes is a diagonal line. However, on this representation it’s perpendicular to the. MR. MAC EWAN-But he clarified as to where this fence is going to run, it’s starting point and it’s ending point. When we were on site visits, you can’t visualize it from when we were there on site visits? MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t know what the concern was on behalf of Staff to retreat that fence somewhat from one side. MR. MAC EWAN-Getting it out of Everts Avenue right of way, and plus giving it to, so you can have the ingress and egress, right? MR. STROUGH-So it can be 130 feet? MR. BROWN-The requirement in the Ordinance says if you’re going to have a fence of this size and style, it can’t be in a front yard, and a front yard is defined by that yard between the front of the building and the right of way. So that’s why this type and size of fence can’t be there. It’s over four feet tall, which is all that’s allowable in a front yard, and it’s a solid fence. It’s something that I may classify as stockade fence. It’s chain link but it’s solid. You can’t see through it like you could a picket fence. So this type of fence wouldn’t be allowed there. That’s why it has to start in line with the building. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. STROUGH-If I measure this property, if I measure this, which the scale says one inch equals 50 feet, I’m getting 100 feet would bring it to the front of the houses, and that would be the limitation. MR. BROWN-Yes, I think you’ve got a couple, you may have a couple of conflicting drawings here. This one was prepared from the information that we have a record of. The buildings on here are taken from old data. They’re old aerial photo building locations. The building you see on the Hayes and Hayes parcel is actually the old car dealership building. It’s not the current Cool Beans location, and I think the applicant, and correct me if I’m wrong, he’s clearly stated that the fence is going to go from the front of the buildings to the property corner, 120 feet, 150 feet, those are the two points that they’re going to delineate the fence. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. So that’s defined. Okay. That’s fine. The other thing that I had an issue with is I read your concerns and I sympathize with your concerns, but why wouldn’t a four foot fence accomplish all your needs, because an eight foot fence, to me, is going to be the visual blight, not the back of Cool Beans. DR. HOCHMAN-I don’t know if it’s appropriate to submit any pictures now to show you, but I do have some pictures, if you haven’t seen it, in terms of four feet, in all honesty, is, I don’t believe would block out enough of the negative visual impact of the back part of that building that eight feet would do. That’s my opinion. MR. STROUGH-But it would address the parking and other problems that you have and other vehicles accessing your site from their site. It would address those problems, correct? DR. HOCHMAN-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-So most of your problems would be solved with a four foot fence, other than the visual, okay, but I think that you’re creating the visual blight when you’re creating an eight foot fence, an eight foot fence. That’s as high as the ceiling in my room, in my house, where a four foot fence would accommodate, just make you happy, for the most part. MR. MAC EWAN-Would a six foot be a happy medium? MR. STROUGH-Six foot would be better than eight. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. DR. HOCHMAN-I, personally, don’t have a problem with that. I just want, I would just like to follow through with my concerns, and if that issue is met, I’m not stuck on any kind of an eight foot fence, as opposed to a six foot fence. I would like it, if it was possible to block out the entrance and exit door that’s at the back part there, that would, six foot would do it, in my own, honesty, wouldn’t. Eight foot is probably overkill. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I can be happy with that compromise. MR. HUNSINGER-Me, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No, I’m done. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Have you spoken to the neighbors at all about cleaning up the back? I mean, we were there the other day, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it’s a significant eyesore. I think with a little bit of clean up, you wouldn’t have any problems at all. I don’t understand why you feel it’s such a significant eyesore. DR. HOCHMAN-Well, I mentioned a number of things. One is the eyesore. MR. METIVIER-No, what is the eyesore? What are you calling the eyesore? DR. HOCHMAN-I have a picture. MR. METIVIER-Well, explain to me what you think the eyesore is. DR. HOCHMAN-Okay. The eyesore is 20 or 30 milk crates standing behind there, garbage cans, pieces of fencing, numerous pieces of fencing there. MR. METIVIER-Have you spoken to the Hayes’ at all about removing this stuff? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) DR. HOCHMAN-I have spoken to the Hayes on many occasions about the issues and my concerns, and they have not been addressed. It’s been almost two years since this took place. I mean, how much more can I do? I was there previously, and conducted myself in an appropriate fashion and always keep my property clean. So, it is an eyesore in my opinion, and over and above that, there are issues of liability and parking of which are major concerns, and those cannot be addressed without a fence in my opinion. MR. METIVIER-I think they could be. I think if you put some vehicle barriers up, six by sixes to keep vehicles out, you certainly won’t have the safety hazards that you’re posing with an eight foot fence. This fence is practically at their back door. If there was ever a fire, how is anybody going to get access to that building? There’s absolutely no way to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, maybe I could interject a thought here. Along those lines, the fact that their back door is that close to their property line is a self-induced thing, because they asked for the variance. They got the variance and they built the place right on the property line. More importantly I think the concerns I’m having with this whole thing, that bother me, and I mentioned it on site visits, is that there’s delivery trucks utilizing this gentleman’s property to deliver to Cool Beans, and that’s very bothersome to me, and if it’s been going on for two years and he’s been trying to get some resolve as a good neighbor, trying to get things taken care of, it doesn’t seem like it’s happened. MR. VOLLARO-The liability thing is really, if somebody was to come out of a truck and fall and slip and hurt themselves on your property, they’d probably sue you. So what you’re trying to do is to keep that from happening, and I think that that’s, to me, the long pole in this thing is liability. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t mean to interrupt you there, Tony. Have you got more? MR. METIVIER-No. I just think that there’s other ways to go about that then putting up an eight foot by 120 foot fence. I think, if you’re looking at visual effects, I, and this might be the only time I ever do, but absolutely agree with John that I think that you are absolutely causing more significant visual impact by putting up a fence that large. If you want to do liability, put up some barriers. Put up a nice, wood thing or something, but I just can’t believe that the Hayes would not, wouldn’t comply if you asked them to remove their garbage, or at least have them erect a fence/storage area for that stuff on the side of their building. I’m sure that they would comply if spoken to, but I don’t think this is the answer. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry? MR. RINGER-I find it almost hard to believe that I agree with John a little bit, too. A six foot would be what I would like to see, if we were going to put a fence up there. MR. MAC EWAN-This is like totally unheard of. MR. RINGER-I know. I never agree with John, but six is something I wish you would consider. How much space is going to be left between the Hayes building and your fence? MR. VOLLARO-I get five feet, from this drawing. MR. RINGER-Do you know? DR. HOCHMAN-Mrs. LaBombard there stated is appropriately. I’m going to put it up on wherever the property line is, and I will say this, and this is certainly not my responsibility to say so. There is a pad, if anyone has been out there. There’s a pad of concrete, and if the place was cleaned up, they would certainly, in my estimation, have room for getting in and out of their property, at any level, at any point that they would want to. So there is still a number of feet of room between the situation. MR. RINGER-For them to get a truck in. They currently run a truck behind the building? That’s where the load and unload, where that dump area is? DR. HOCHMAN-Well, actually there’s numerous places in which trucks load and unload. Directly on my property is one. Secondly is in the right of way, which is next to, I would call it the east side of the liquor store there, and they also sometimes do on their property itself. So it’s actually in numerous places that they load and unload. MR. RINGER-I do, certainly, sympathize with you, and I wouldn’t want their customers parking on my property either. I just have some difficulty with an eight foot fence versus a six foot fence. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think we’ve got some room to work with there. MR. RINGER-Yes, right. Other than that, I don’t have any other comments. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s perfectly reasonable to put the fence where he wants to put it. Six foot is fine. I have no further comments than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-With all due respect to everybody’s opinions here, I really thought this would be a no- brainer. Dr. Hochman’s property is being infringed upon, and maybe an eight foot fence is a little bit overbearing. He agreed to that. He admitted that. I think there’s one up on, that we used for the border of, if you want to see how high it is, up at Wal-Mart, where we delineated their property line with the residential area over in that area of Town, on the south side, but you really need a buffer, and this is your only recourse, I feel, but if you consent to a six foot fence, I think you might find it’ll be a lot more aesthetic, and it’ll be cheaper, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Just, the Hayes were given notice of this, I assume. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m guessing we’re going to hear comment from them shortly. MR. STROUGH-And then, I don’t know if they’re here or not. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’ll have representation here. MR. STROUGH-I’d like to hear from them. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’m going to do a public hearing. Any other comments? MR. RINGER-Before we open the public hearing, on the Staff’s comments, where did you get the idea that Cool Beans was going to? MR. BROWN-I’ve had some conversations with Mr. Hayes about this issue. He lead me to believe that this style of fence wouldn’t be something that he felt would compliment his architecture, and they may be in with a similar proposal for a wooden stockade, something more similar to the architecture of the building. That’s just a conversation we had. MR. RINGER-Okay. I just didn’t know, you know, you made the comment, and I didn’t know where exactly it came from. MR. BROWN-It was a conversation we had. MR. RINGER-Thanks, Craig. That’s it, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LORRAINE HOCHMAN MRS. HOCHMAN-I’m Mrs. Hochman, and I also have an office within the building, and I have spoken with, I believe it’s the manager, several times about little issues, very directly, and with Mickey, about a simple thing like just asking them to put a sign up that says, you know, this is not the Cool Beans parking lot, and what we have gotten in response to that is a paper sign. MR. RINGER-We saw that. MRS. HOCHMAN-So, you know, when you ask if we’ve discussed things, we have tried. We felt we were being neighborly. I think that we were a little naïve, when the building was going up, by not being more proactive in seeing what exactly was going on there and what we ended up with is having these 18 foot trucks pulling in to our parking lot that completely prohibits anybody from using the lot at that point. It totally spans the entire back end of the building, and, you know, not to mention the wear and tear on the lot and, you know, they shouldn’t be having their trucks. I’ve gone out and spoken with the trucks directly. I have gone out and spoken with people who’ve parked their cars there. There’s been lots of dialogue about this, before coming to this. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. I represent the Hayes, and I haven’t spoken with them recently about this, but a couple of things I just want to mention, that my suggestion would be that possibly this should be tabled for some more investigation. I heard discussion about delivery, and obviously parking in the parking lot is totally inappropriate, but there is a deeded right of way along the liquor store building that is to benefit all of the owners from the accounting firm, the back pain center and Cool Beans, as well as the liquor store. So I heard some conflicting statements, but if part of the issue is that trucks are parking along there, that would be totally appropriate, under a deeded right of way. Also, when we closed on the purchase, and the bank loan, I’ve seen a survey that showed that some of the parking area, the pavement for the applicant’s parking lot is actually on the Cool Beans property. So I just want to caution that I heard there was an issue about exactly where the line is, that that’s something that ought to be surveyed, and I don’t know if what you have is an actual survey, but before somebody puts in a fence, that would be a legal issue, because I understood the Hayes, my understanding is that they would have had the right to have some of the pavement removed, but they didn’t elect to, pushed them in that direction at that point. MR. MAC EWAN-Did they ask you to be here tonight? MR. LAPPER-They didn’t. I just happened to be here because I live here. Beyond that, just in terms of the visual issue, the Hayes went out of their way to make this a good looking building. Remember what was there was the used car lot, and they are close to the boundary because it was a small lot to work with, but they certainly spent a lot more money and designed this better than it could have been done. So the visual issue is really important, and an eight foot stockade fence, to me, is a spite fence. That’s just not something attractive that you want to have behind that attractive building. Obviously the neighbors have an issue with, if there’s refuse or stuff in the back, that’s something that has to be cleaned up, but before you go and let them. MR. MAC EWAN-I find myself biting my tongue hard right now. I really am, and I am for several reasons. Number One, that these people have worked for a long time to try to get to some resolution with these people regarding the property. I think it’s kind of self-serving for anyone who is an adjoining property owner to suggest that the fence that someone wants to put up on their own property doesn’t match the décor or the design of their building. They had an opportunity. They’ve had probably several opportunities to amend the problems themselves, and have chosen not to. I’m siding with Mr. Vollaro here, where the issue I have with this thing, and I mentioned it when we were on site visits, the concern I have was deliveries, and people utilizing these people’s property to deliver to the Cool Beans. I think that’s just totally outrageous. MR. LAPPER-I don’t disagree, but if the issue is, access is what you’re saying, people parking or people delivering, wouldn’t a four foot fence accomplish that and not be a visual blight? MR. MAC EWAN-By the same token, I’ll agree with the doctor. When we were there Saturday, it was a pig sty behind that building. So a six foot fence would probably do the job pretty good. MR. LAPPER-And I haven’t been, I only enter through the front door to buy coffee. So I can’t comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Try to go around the back side and see what it looks like, and I’m frustrated that the Hayes weren’t here tonight to argue on their own behalf as well. They had an opportunity to be here, and they chose not to be here. MR. RINGER-Are you suggesting that the fence is in the right of way? MR. LAPPER-I’m suggesting that the trucks may be in the right of way for part of it. If they’re in their parking lot, obviously they’re not, but along the liquor store there is a right of way that benefits all of those lots. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the fence that he wants to put up is not going to infringe in any liquor store right of way. I think what it’s going to do is solve an obvious problem. MR. LAPPER-The other issue is just to caution, then, that it has to be put on their property, and I believe that there’s a survey issue that their pavement may be on the Cool Beans property. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s simple enough, we can do with the resolution, should we consider approving it, that’s easy enough to do. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SIDNEY R. HOCHMAN, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro, do you have a resolution? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a resolution prepared. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2002 SIDNEY R. HOCHMAN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 3-2002, Sydney Hochman for construction of an 8’ high, 120’ long chain link fence at 119 Everts Avenue, Back and Neck Pail Relief Center. Installation of commercial fences requires Site Plan Review. Tax Map No. 107-1-2.5, Lot size: 0.41 acres. Section: 179-74 C (3). Zone: HC-1A, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 12/26/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/11/02: 1/15 Staff Notes 1/9 Warren Co. Planning Bd. 1/8 Notice of Public Hearing 1/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 1/15/02 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 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) 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 approval are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT The application is approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The survey of the Hochman / Hayes property to determine the property line prior to the installation of the fence, and 2. The fence will be no greater than six (6) feet high, and 3. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 1/15/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. STROUGH-Here’s a condition, Bob, that the fence may begin at the western property line, and may extend along the northerly property line, up to but not beyond the farthest extent of the Hochman building structure when approaching Everts road. MR. RINGER-Well, that’s Code. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t need to put that in there. It’s in the Code. MR. STROUGH-All right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What I wanted to say, Bob, is that they’re planning to put in the chain link fence with the green inserts, or the three dimensional type of fence. Should we put any kind of fence in there to specify? MR. VOLLARO-I wouldn’t know how to classify, because there’s so many different fences out there. I mean, if we wanted to design the fence here, I’d have to see some fencing material to determine what it was. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Craig? MR. BROWN-It’s in the application. It says chain link with green slats. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. BROWN-If you approve the application, you approve everything that’s in there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck, doctor. I hope this solves your problems. DR. HOCHMAN-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) SITE PLAN NO. 47-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS PROPERTY OWNER: V.S.H. REALTY, INC. AGENT: MARTIN AUFFREDOU ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 127 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF 1,392 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING 2.952 +/- SQ. FT. SERVICE STATION AND REPLACE EXISTING 1,104 SQ. FT. CANOPY WITH NEW 2,090 SQ. FT. CANOPY. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-23 OF THE ZONING CODE ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-2001, SV 93-2001 VAR. 401, AV 43-1993, SP 28-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 109-3-36 JON LAPPER & ROB SPIAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 47-2001, Cumberland Farms, Meeting Date: January 15, 2002 “Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The project required an Area Variance for the construction of the new canopy, as the new structure does not meet the minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? The project involves the expansion of an existing allowable use on the property. Minimal, if any increased burden on supporting public services is anticipated. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? The project includes the closure of one access point on Ridge Road. The closure of this access point will be beneficial to the traffic pattern at the intersection of Ridge Road and Quaker Road. Closure of the westerly access drive on Quaker Road would further benefit the traffic pattern at this intersection. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Minimal adverse impacts, associated with these issues, are anticipated with this project. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed addition, to the rear of the store, appears to be the most feasible location for an addition. The sign location, near the intersection of Quaker and Ridge, received a variance for setbacks. The site lighting appears to be excessive under the canopy. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The western access drive on Quaker Road is one of three proposed access points for the site. Closure of this access point would benefit the traffic pattern at the intersection of Quaker and Ridge. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The proposed off street parking layout depicts the appropriate number of spaces. Apparently, the applicant wishes to reserve several spaces and not construct them at this time. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The proposed site layout offers sidewalks around the building and striped, no parking areas between the building and the canopy. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed site plan depicts several areas for stormwater collection and disposal. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The existing building has connections to both municipal facilities. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The proposed site layout calls for additional plantings, mainly in the right of way for Quaker Road. Two significant (3” caliper) trees are planned for the site. The plan indicates that no vegetation will be removed along either the southern or eastern portions of the site. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The site plan does not specifically identify fire lanes or emergency zones, however, the site appears to provide adequate area for these needs. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The proposed grading plan depicts all developed areas of the site to be positively drained. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 92-2001 resolved 11/28/01 canopy enlargement Sign Variance 93-2001 resolved 11/28/01 setback relief Staff comments: Careful consideration should be given to allowing the use on this property to effectively double without concern for the potential traffic impacts caused by such expansion. Staff acknowledges that the closure of the northern access drive on Ridge Road is a concession on the part of the applicant however; staff recommends closure of the western access drive on Quaker Road or at least limiting the use of the drive to an in only motion. Reorientation of the drive, similar to the in only drive to the Hess site on Dix Avenue, along with on site signage, might make the in only option a viable one. Closure of the drive would still afford the site two full motion access points at preferable locations, relative to the intersection. The proposed lighting levels under the proposed canopy appear to be excessive. A maximum Foot-candle level of 25-30 is recommended for this application. Such a level would provide a more uniform lighting level for the site rather than a “hot spot” around the canopy. Staff recommends some form of oil separation method be employed along with the stormwater control devices, especially at the northeasterly corner of the site where an open swale is used. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Rob Spiak from Bohler Engineering, and Steve Knopftl from Cumberland Farms. We are prepared to address and hopefully satisfy the Board and the Staff on all of the issues which were mentioned as conditions that Craig suggested. Before I ask Rob to go through the site plan, if we can get agreement on all of the issues, they have carefully considered and would agree to an in only on that first entrance on Quaker Road. I want to point out, as Craig did, that they came in and voluntarily agreed to close off the first entrance on Ridge Road, which is not something that applicants and certainly gas station applicants usually do, because access is a pretty important issue, but they’re comfortable that that is going to improve the site, in terms of traffic, but also by adding green space right at the corner there, that that would be a nice improvement. In terms of the lighting, we’re all familiar with the Hess Station at Exit 19, which is a problem. Rob will explain why what is proposed here is a different design, and shouldn’t be anything like that, but what we’re asking for is 37 foot candles, as an average, which Rob believes will get you where you need to be, and he’ll discuss that, and in terms of t he oil separator, this is not the case where there is a manhole where you would usually put in an oil separator, but because of the drainage swale, which is sized really three times the size of what would ordinarily be here, and that was acknowledged by C.T. Male, we feel that that will serve the purpose to allow, it’ll have to be maintained, but the pollutants and sedimentation will be captured, and that it does accomplish that purpose. So Rob will just walk you through the site, and go through those issues in detail, and hopefully you’ll be satisfied with our response. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Take that microphone with you, sir. MR. SPIAK-What we have before us here is the proposed site plan for the facility. The proposed scope of the project here is basically an addition to the existing retail convenience store building that exists on the property today, and an upgrade of the fuel offering that exists on the property also, by adding two dispensers to the site. Associated with that, we are upgrading the existing tank, gasoline, all the underground systems that are associated with the gasoline part of the operation. We are closing the existing curb cut that’s on Ridge Road closest to the intersection here. As Staff and Jon had pointed out, we think that’s a good thing 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) for all involved parties, give some green space, and it cuts off what can be perceived as a traffic hazard today, and it just cleans up that intersection. As part of the application here, I’m going to work backwards a little bit, if you don’t mind. The stormwater management system designed on this site here has basically been designed to handle the first flush from the new development, which is going to take away the pollutants from the site. There’s no real proposed underground piping, catch basin system at all or anything of that nature, and the swale/retention area that’s proposed in this area here is three times greater than what’s required to handle those pollutants from your typical storm. That system does ultimately overflow into this ditch here, but it is designed in such a way that the standard timeframes and periods for the suspension of the pollutants and for the pollutants to drop off have long been met. So I think that that’s a good system and it should work well for this property. Related to the site lighting, for the canopy in particular, I know we’ve all seen the Hess stations, and pretty much every gas station I’ve visited around the Town of Queensbury here, you’re dealing with a style of light that we sometimes call a shoebox light. It’s a surface mounted fixture with a drop lens on it. That type of fixture basically provides the opportunity for a wide scattering of light. That type of fixture is very visible to the driver, to the public. It’s just there. It’s sticking down. The reason I think that this application is a better one is the fixtures proposed on this, as you’ll note on the lighting plan there, they’re all totally recessed, flat, flush fixtures, with the bottom deck of the canopy. There’s no drop lens or anything like that. So the lighting that comes out of these fixtures is directed down, and down only. The Staff comment addresses some hot spots. Some of these hot spots are generally generated, there’s a computer program that basically generates the lighting plan that’s before you there. Depending on where those grid ticks are placed on there, if they’re placed close to a fixture, they’re going to come up with a higher reading. We’d like to focus on the average lighting level that we’re getting under these canopies, because it’s more a realistic feel of what’s going to be there, and the average lighting level, under this canopy now that’s proposed is approximately 38 foot candles. The original application that we submitted before the Zoning Board and before we met with Staff and met with C.T. Male to address comments, I think our original proposal was for four hundred watt fixtures that generate an average about closer to 70 foot candles under the canopy. So we’ve cut that in half by going to the 250 watt fixtures, and, from the driver’s perspective, you won’t have that glare in visibility because the whole, the fixture is above the canopy deck, and I think that that’s a nice improvement, you’ll note, versus what you see out there today with a lot of the existing gas stations. The final issue with the access, the access point there currently exists as a two way access point. We’re willing to concede that we could make that a one way access point, with appropriate signage indicating one way, do not enter signs for traffic there, so that it’ll accomplish a mission, or goal for the Town to sort of clean up and get that traffic pattern flowing in a way that works better for the overall intersection. Just briefly, architecture for the building, this is a building addition, basically adding on to the back of the building, maintaining the brick style, giving a general update to the facade, cleaning it up, and just making for a neater appearance to the site. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MR. SPIAK-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-All right. This stormwater device that’s located in the, it’s called a proposed riprap apron that’s located in the northwest corner. MR. LAPPER-In the right of way? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Can you explain that, the function of that device. MR. SPIAK-Basically, the way that the site works now is, it’s pretty wide open paved area. There’s no curbing along that area at all, and the existing stormwater sheet flows into that ditch up there. We’ve tried to better define the curbing areas and the traffic patterns of the site, so I guess in a way it’s more so focused the runoff into this one area to ultimately end up in the same place it does under the existing condition. MR. STROUGH-Well, the reason why I ask is I wondered why you couldn’t use a drywell there and keep it on your property and keep the stormwater and the maintenance of the drywell would be your responsibility because it would be on your property. Right now it’s in the, I believe, the County right of way, and it becomes the County’s responsibility out there. Is it possible for you to, see there’s already a drywell located there, and it looks like because it’s in light lettering that it’s something that you’re going to eliminate. Can’t you maintain that or use that or improve that to maintain stormwater on your site, and not make it somebody else’s responsibility, as it’s proposed now? Because the maintenance of that riprap would be other than you. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I interject just a question here? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Aren’t they required in the Ordinance to maintain stormwater on their own site? MR. BROWN-Yes. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. STROUGH-Then stormwater devices should be on the site, then. All right. Well, it looks like they’re going to look at that. MR. SPIAK-Yes. I don’t see that as being a problem, eliminating that concrete swale and utilizing a drywell type system in that area there to contain the runoff on site. MR. LAPPER-So that would go in the green area. MR. SPIAK-It would actually stay in the paved area, the drywell. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, we’re going to look at that. Now, I don’t have any problem with the 38 foot candle down lighting, but is the ribbon of the canopy lighted as well? MR. SPIAK-No. MR. STROUGH-That’s not? That’s good. Okay. Good. The other thing I was looking at was traffic flow. I’m assuming that you have these striped parking lots which have your diagonal striping are no parking areas. MR. SPIAK-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And that is because we need to get cars that will drive up, fill up with gas, and may want to return to Ridge Road, so they’re going to have to drive around and you can’t have cars parking there because they’re going to need to drive around that and through between the canopy and the building to return to Ridge Road, am I right? MR. LAPPER-He’s talking about right there. MR. SPIAK-If you had a car coming in, facing what would be east, down toward Quaker Road, that wanted to get around, get to Ridge Road, yes, they would have to do a 180 degree and maneuver their way between those striped areas to get back over to Ridge Road. MR. STROUGH-Now, if there was a car parked in that first spot, in the front of the building, adjacent to where you have the diagonal striping. MR. SPIAK-Yes. MR. STROUGH-That’s not going to be blocking any car? That’s going to be okay? MR. SPIAK-There should be sufficient room for a single vehicle to pass through that area, if you had a car parked at the dispenser and in those adjacent parking places. MR. STROUGH-Okay, because I kind of drew in a car parked at the dispenser, and it was a sloppy driver, as some drivers can be, and I’m kind of limited for space between that sloppy driver who’s got its rear end stuck way out on the canopy, for what reason I don’t know, and the corner of that building. In other words, I’m working out traffic flow and I had a little bit of a problem there. Maybe you want to work with that. It’s a little tight there. MR. SPIAK-I guess it could be construed as a little tight. Yes, there’s always that driver that may pull up like that, and those two parking spaces may be full like that. MR. STROUGH-And the other driver may not park, I mean, it may have just snowed and they couldn’t see where it’s striped so they don’t know it’s not a parking spot. MR. SPIAK-Right. I would consider it as something that’s definitely possible, could happen. I would say it’s not going to be a common instance, though. MR. LAPPER-What Steve pointed out is that if somebody was filling up, they’d have to be right next to the pump to reach the nozzle. MR. SPIAK-The dispenser and stuff. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I know. I’m figuring the worst case scenario, but let me see if I understand. Now this is going to be a complete rebuild, or are you going to use any part of the old building? MR. SPIAK-Yes, we’re adding on to the existing building. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I was kind of hoping it would be a rebuild, and it’d shift you over that way a little bit away from the canopy, or shift the canopy. Now is the canopy going to be a rebuild? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. SPIAK-Yes, it is, but it’s maintaining the same footprint basically as the existing. It is a brand new canopy, and the fuel offering below it is being expanded, but the location of it, if you’re looking at a bird’s eye view of it, is not going to change. MR. STROUGH-All right. So it’s going to be a perennial problem between the canopy and the (lost words). MR. SPIAK-Basically you’ve got two fixed points. You’ve got the canopy and the building like that that are fixed at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-John, how big of an issue is that? MR. STROUGH-What do you mean? Do you see where I’m talking about, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we’re looking at the corner where you’re referring to. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’m just saying, there’s potential for that corner to be blocked, and you don’t see that. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’m looking at how severe that issue is, and I’m just kind of hearing other comments down here. MR. STROUGH-Well, if I had a format where I could sit down and show you my drawings, which this format doesn’t particularly work out well for that, you might see more clearly what I’m talking about. All right. Well, I see that as an issue, and I’m willing to move on, but it’s not a major issue, but I think the layout could have been laid out better. I mean, by putting a 45 in the corner of that building or, you know, something could have been done to make that not so tight in that area. I’m just suggesting that. So I’ll move on. All right. Now those are buried tanks located to the west of the building. Right? MR. SPIAK-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And that’s basically paved over? MR. SPIAK-Yes, sir. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks, and the grass swales are basically along the south side of the building, that’s going to be for stormwater retention. That’s good. Yes, I like that idea. The question that I have, I don’t think they’ve kicked in, but talking about the oil/water separator, or the oil separation, now, I heard that at the New York State Department of State presentation they had on the new stormwater code, they weren’t sure when that was kicking in, but it might be required of all service stations and gas stations to have oil/water separation around the perimeter of the building, and when that kicks in, I believe, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, that the communities can be held liable for environmental damage if the stormwater procedures aren’t followed. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that after it goes into effect, or prior? MR. STROUGH-After it goes into effect. I’m asking Craig, has it gone into effect yet, that he knows of? MR. BROWN-Not that I know of. I’m not sure that would effect any retrofits. I think if you ignore the regulations with future applications you could be liable, but I don’t think we can make anybody go back. MR. STROUGH-Right. I didn’t know if that had kicked in yet. Because they said soon, and they didn’t know when. Thank you. I like the layout. The interior layout I thought was excellent, and the architecture of the building is nice, too. Now, the only other issue that I have, before we move on, maybe it hasn’t been a problem for ten years, okay, is that access right to the intersection of Quaker Road and Ridge Road. I would like to see what we did for Stewarts on Bay and Cronin, the same thing we did for Stewarts on Big Boom and Corinth Road, one access off of one street , and one access off another street, and I know you’re opposed to it, but it just makes sense. Now, and I think some other of the Planning Board members might go along with this, I would like to propose that this be looked at by the County people, because we’re talking about a County road, and I’d like the State to review that. So I may be mistaken. I’m not pretending to be a traffic expert. It just is ringing an alarm in my head that this is not. MR. LAPPER-We are here tonight, which was not the original position, to agree to an in only at that corner, but that is something, they would not upgrade this site if they (lost words), and we’re offering that. MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, this isn’t like a negotiation type thing where you come in here and you’re going to present this, provided on that, though. MR. STROUGH-Well, you didn’t hear me out, Mr. Chairman. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Not you, that Jon. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but what I’m saying is, he might be right, but I’d like the State and the County to look at it as well. MR. MAC EWAN-The County should have already. MR. SPIAK-Yes. We’ve had this application before County Planning, and they were, they basically had, they were happy with the closure. MR. STROUGH-You had it before the Planning Board. Did you have it before the DOT? MR. SPIAK-No. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I’m saying. The DOT should take a look at it. MR. LAPPER-Even though it’s Route 254, which is a State road, it’s a County jurisdiction road. MR. STROUGH-Right, DPW, County DPW. MR. LAPPER-Okay, but if there’s no, since that’s an existing curb cut, they have the right to keep it, the County. MR. STROUGH-Well, then it is on an intersection with a State road, and it’s within the parameters I would think the State would have an interest in. So I’d like the State to look at this. MR. LAPPER-The State won’t look at it. MR. MAC EWAN-That portion of 9L, isn’t 9L taken care of by the County? MR. BROWN-I think we’re talking about State Route 254, which is maintained under the County’s jurisdiction, maintenance jurisdiction, with the County. MR. MAC EWAN-There is no State review in this particular area of these two roads. MR. STROUGH-Well, I would like someone that is an expert in traffic to take a look at this. MR. LAPPER-Well, C.T. Male has looked at it on your behalf, and the suggestion that we do an in only came from Craig, after talking to C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Keep in mind, the option is available to us. We can take the suggestions and the recommendations of the Town Engineer, one. Two, we can make our own recommendations or, three, we can seek someone else’s advice. Those are the options available to us. MR. STROUGH-All right, and one last thing. If we’re able to, I’d like to see some better landscaping done up front, and if this exit is determined by all, if determined by all, this access gets closed, then I’d like to see a landscaping plan for that area as well, but the landscaping plan that I see is rather minimal, and I don’t know if there’s going to be a sprinkler system. That’s another question, for the landscaped area. Is there? MR. LAPPER-Well, the plan takes away 3,000 square foot of pavement that exists right now. So there’s more green space than there was to begin with, and that green space is at, not exclusively, but is at the entrance where it was on Ridge Road, which is visual. MR. STROUGH-Jon, that’s a good thing. That’s a good thing, but I’d just like to see an upgrade in the landscaping if possible, you know, varied moundings like you’d see, some of the other places along Quaker have done a fantastic and beautiful job with the landscaping. I’d like to see it continued, but I may be alone, and it’s not unusual. We’ll just see. I’m done. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, wait a minute. You weren’t alone too much tonight. MR. STROUGH-No, I’m doing good tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-As far as the traffic, this location has something that most other location gas stations don’t, and that’s a traffic light, and I actually frequent this store, and I’ve never had a problem, in or out. I’ve never had a problem getting in or out. I think people work very well together because you do have the lights. So if you want to get onto Quaker Road, you can’t necessarily always make it across Quaker, and I would like to see that one proposed access in only, well, no so much in only, well, yes, I guess it would be in only, and then 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) the other one would be an out, which would be fine. My only concern with the other one, closing off the entranceway closest to Quaker, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the one that’s back, but it’s either a fence or shrubbery that’s there, and you have to nudge out to be able to see any. MR. SPIAK-On Ridge? MR. METIVIER-On Ridge. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a cedar tree there. MR. METIVIER-It’s something there, a cedar tree or something that has to be removed, because the reason why usually. MR. MAC EWAN-We did it Saturday when we were there. When we went out Ridge Road, you had to nudge out to be able to look up the road. MR. LAPPER-That’s on the neighbor’s property. MR. SPIAK-Yes. MR. METIVIER-That is a problem. So, I don’t know, if it’s on the neighbor’s property, there’s nothing, well. MR. BROWN-There’s a portion there that says approximate location of existing shrubs to remain, and that’s at the southwest corner of the property. I mean, those, I guess, would be under the control of the applicant. It says a large tree on the neighboring property, a 30 inch Catalfa tree. That’s a deciduous tree that’s not really going to give you any problem. The crown of that tree is 50 feet in the air. MR. METIVIER-Well, there is something there, and I can’t recall what it is, whether it’s a fence or a tree right now, that does cause a terrible problem at this present time. MR. SPIAK-If there’s any obstructions on our property, we would move that in a heartbeat. MR. METIVIER-Obviously, but my only concern, if you’re only leaving that one area, it could cause problems because for the most part, you know, people will use the one closest to Quaker, where there isn’t any problems, and with the light there, people working together that let’s you out, you can get on to Ridge going either north or south no problem. So that’s my only issue. Besides that, I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I really like the idea you’re going to close, make that a one way, and I definitely feel it should be. Craig, on your notes, in regard to lighting, did you have the reduced lighting that he mentioned, or were you talking about the previous? MR. BROWN-No, we’re talking about the lighting that’s proposed in the application, the average 37 under the canopy. Our big concerns are the 50 foot candle numbers under there, along with the lower numbers get you to the 37 or 38 foot average. The proposed Ordinance has built into it, in the lighting regulations, a uniformity ratio of four to one, and it’s difficult to apply to a site like this. What that means, it’s a calculation used to have some sort of a uniform lighting level on this site. Four to one on this site you’d have to kind of apply to an activity area around the canopy. You couldn’t very well apply a four to one for the entire site because some spots on the site you’re going to have a one. So that would allow you to have a four some place else on the site, and that doesn’t really work. So a maximum of, you know, 30 under the canopy, or 25 under the canopy may allow you a six or seven around the perimeter of the canopy, where now it’s, in some places a four to one works, but the maximum just appears a little higher than what’s going to be allowed in the new Ordinance, and that’s the basis for the numbers that we’ve come up with. MR. RINGER-How do you respond to that? MR. SPIAK-I guess at this point, like I mentioned, we reduced it from 400 watt to 250 watt fixtures. We could, I believe these fixtures are proposed as a clear lens. We could go to sort of like, I don’t want to say frosted, smoke type lens that would further reduce those levels, and get them down closer to the 30 foot candle average that the Town is looking for. MR. RINGER-And you’re concerned about the area around the canopy where the light is the heaviest? MR. BROWN-Yes. I certainly don’t want to direct the applicant to do something that’s going to cause diminished lighting out there. You certainly want some clear lighting, and smoked lenses, frosted lenses might not give you the clarity that you need, maybe just less fixtures, smaller wattages. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Reduce the number of fixtures. Reduce wattages. MR. BROWN-There’s 20 different ways you could. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the wattage you’re proposing now? MR. SPIAK-250 watts. MR. MAC EWAN-What if you dropped it to a 200 watt, or a 225? MR. SPIAK-The next level down for an industry standard fixture, without getting into a custom fixture, is a 175, which would put us way below the safety standards that, 175 standards get us down to probably around a 20 foot candle. MR. MAC EWAN-Then what about reducing the number of fixtures themselves? Keeping your 250 watt but reducing the number of fixtures? That way you keep your lenses that you want. You keep your wattage that you want, and we get the candle. We did it at Ridge and 149. MR. RINGER-Yes, the Getty Station. MR. MAC EWAN-The Getty Station. MR. BROWN-What they have now is 12 fixtures under the canopy. If they go down, it may require them to do a new grid, a new lighting diagram. MR. MAC EWAN-If you dropped it down to nine or ten, I would think we would get where we need to be. MR. LAPPER-Rob was saying that if they take out two in the center, so it would be ten, that that would accomplish what Craig is looking for, and still provide the safety that is needed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-It sounds good to me. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable. MR. RINGER-In regards to Tony’s comments about this exit on to Ridge Road, could that be moved up a little more, closer? MR. LAPPER-It’s probably not going to affect site distance. MR. RINGER-Well, it’s a tree or something that’s presenting the problem, apparently. If you moved it forward, you’ve got a greater distance from that tree. MR. BROWN-The reason we wanted that one driveway closed is because it was too close to the intersection. MR. MAC EWAN-The issue that we could probably look at, I don’t know how you could get that communication going, but if that tree, that shrub that’s obstructing site distance that’s on Ridge Road, I mean, if it’s in the County right of way, I mean, the County’s got the willpower and the authority to go and trim it, so maybe you could just pass it along to them, for what it’s worth. If it’s on someone’s property and it’s well off the County right of way line, nobody can do anything about it. MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m sure it’s in the applicant’s best interest to make that exit and entrance to the site as safe as possible. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m going to get into my pet peeve here for a minute, and it’s really with, when we did the Getty operation at 149 and Ridge, we gave them 51 lumens on the ground for that, and that was when Mr. Fortune was here, and I’m reading, he also had a 250 watt. He went from 400 watts to 250, but we allowed 51 lumens under the canopy, an average of 51 lumens under the canopy, and until we get a zoning law approved, I feel that when we, as a Board, project a proposed zoning law to an applicant, the applicant has to think, maybe I better go along with this or I may jeopardize my approval. I have a basic, fundamental problem with laying those kinds of things on applicants until our zoning law is a law. MR. MAC EWAN-I wasn’t look at it that way. I was looking at it just as being flooded with light and light pollution, which is an issue we’ve been dealing with for better than a year now. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) STEVE KNOPFTL MR. KNOPFTL-I think this site addresses that, the recessed lighting. I think it really addresses. MR. VOLLARO-If we’ve allowed 51 lumens to a competitor, for Getty, I don’t see what’s wrong with the way they’ve proposed their lighting now. I really don’t. MR. RINGER-I agree with you, Bob, except the applicant always has the ability to say, no, I want to keep it, and we can’t force them, but if they’re willing to cooperate. MR. KNOPFTL-I would much prefer to have those two additional lights, because I think that we have made concessions with the style of lighting. I think it’s an excellent lighting. I think it’s directed straight down. I think there’s some safety issues. We have had some crime at that store, fortunately not in the last several years, but the fact is our employees are of the impression that a better lit lot is a safer lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Until Mr. Vollaro made that statement, you were all set to go down to ten lights. Let’s keep it at ten lights. MR. KNOPFTL-No, I wasn’t ready to do that. I was making some comments that I would rather maintain 12. That would be much more desirable to do that. I’ve had limited raze and rebuilds in my region, but we haven’t made those concessions in the past, not that it’s been an issue. So I’m just cautious that I’m not sure that that’s something that corporate would. MR. MAC EWAN-Then maybe what we ought to do is just table this thing tonight and have you go back and rework your lighting plan to come up with an appropriate thing that’s going to get the lumens down. MR. VOLLARO-Where do you want the lumens to be? MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to have it less than what it is, and I’m not thinking of the proposed new ordinance that we may or may not ever adopt. I’m thinking of the amount of light pollution we have in this Town, and it’s an issue this Board has taken very seriously for the last year and a half. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-We have worked with a lot of different applications, not just gas stations. MR. VOLLARO-True, but we had the same considerations when we looked at Getty, and we gave them 51 lumens. MR. MAC EWAN-I was perching on the Getty thing from my position, and as I recall, and I remember saying, it’s a very rural area of Town up there. MR. VOLLARO-True, and we were concerned about getting that thing completely lit in a rural area. So we drove them down from, if you want to call it that, from 400 watts to 250. They were up to around 80 lumens under the. MR. MAC EWAN-And both Stewarts stores that we just recently did. We worked with the lighting on that and brought them down, and they’re kind of like in the same kind of setting that this store will be in. MR. LAPPER-None of those were those down lighted fixtures. Those are all the. MR. RINGER-They’re all reduced from what they originally planned. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the majority of the Board up here has an issue with the illumination and how bright that light is going to be, and we need to work with it a little bit. So we can either drop the thing by two, which I’m kind of hearing is acceptable to the Board, or we can send you back to the drawing board and you can redo the illumination plan and come back with a different plan. So, I mean, the choice is yours. MR. VOLLARO-You drive a hard bargain, there, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m doing what’s the right thing here. What other questions have you got, while they’re thinking? Have you got anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. On the site development data, I think that I didn’t quite understand those numbers. I’ve worked them out to where they would work. Do you have that in front of you, the site development data? MR. LAPPER-The chart? 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s the building footprint. It’s this guy, right here. MR. SPIAK-From the application. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Maybe I’m just not understanding it. If it’s my error, I apologize. I like to look at it. Under building footprint, A, building footprint, your 1516, and the proposed addition is 1392, and that’s 2952. That makes sense, but when I get down to C, the accessory structure is 1392 plus 2090, and the total is now 2090. It should be, in order for the math to work, that should be 698, to get yourself up to a total square footage of 2,090. The same thing down with the, well, then that comes out to be the total nonpermable should be the proposed additions there should be 3760. It all works out to .58 in the final column. In other words, the first column would be the percent nonpermable would be .51, plus .07 is what you’re proposing for an addition. MR. RINGER-I think what you’re missing is the existing is coming out. MR. LAPPER-The existing is coming out, it’s being replaced. MR. RINGER-In C. MR. VOLLARO-On C? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s why you get the 2090, that’s the new canopy, versus the old canopy. MR. RINGER-That’s the canopy. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that proposed addition should be struck. MR. LAPPER-No. You could use the net difference there to get to the 2090, because it’s a replacement, the chart doesn’t sort of address that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re saying that the way the chart is set up mathematically doesn’t work. That’s what you’re saying, because I just changed your numbers so it worked at the end. MR. LAPPER-Either way we’re saying 58. MR. VOLLARO-.58 is still a good number. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to make sure that the chart was correct, that’s all. Other than that, I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-You guys have done an awful lot. I really feel that I have no problem with the lighting at this point. Because you have changed the light fixtures, and they’re more down lighting. However, I will agree with the Board that if they feel that taking two out is going to mitigate some of the light pollution, I’ll go with that. Make sure we keep the stormwater on our own site, and your landscaping plan looks good, but there was one other, I think on one other site that we approved, now that I thought the landscaping was ample, but now that it is in, I know that we could have put a few more shrubs and trees in. So maybe we could enhance that a little bit in the front, but, I’ll tell you, I like the architecture, and I think everything looks fine. Now, the only thing is I’m concerned about that little area where the car has to get through, that John noted, but you’ve got to clarify something here. Are there two handicapped parking spaces there, or is there just one, on that little corner? MR. LAPPER-Those are not striped for the handicapped. Those are striped for no parking. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So if that’s striped for no parking, then the issue was, well, right now, if it stays like that, then there’s no problem with a vehicle getting through. You’re afraid that somebody’s going to park there, if the lines get, you know, get faded away? MR. LAPPER-What I think is a little deceptive, and I think why John has a problem with it, perhaps, there’s 10 feet between the island where the pump is and the edge of the canopy, and you sort of look at the edge of the canopy and the distance between that and the stripe, and it looks pretty tight, but since the canopy’s up in the air, it’s not preventing anything. You’re underneath the canopy. MR. STROUGH-But then put a car there. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. LAPPER-Right. You put a car there, in a 10 foot width, you have the distance between the edge of the canopy and the edge of the stripe, and that’s, what about 28 feet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, my question, Mr. Chairman, is some of these issues that the Board members have made, should we table this and have the applicant come back and address them, or can we put them as conditions in the resolution? MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re close. I think we can work something out with them. They’re all nodding their heads. MR. RINGER-We’ve still got a public hearing tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know that. Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I live right around the corner from this store and I go in there all the time. So I was thrilled to see it come in for site plan review, and I really like a lot of the things that you’ve proposed. I like the new sign. I like the facades, you know, a lot of the things that everyone else has commented on. John had asked the question earlier about the canopy being internally illuminated, and it does show that as being internally illuminated on Sheet Six. MR. SPIAK-That is strictly for the Gulf sign itself. MR. LAPPER-Not the whole canopy. MR. SPIAK-It’s not the whole canopy. MR. LAPPER-Just where it says Gulf. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the sign, then. MR. SPIAK-Yes, that’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted that clarified. MR. SPIAK-Yes, the rest of the canopy is a vinyl architectural treatment that goes around that. No other illumination. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Good question. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re talking about the, there seems to be a lot of discussion on the foot candles underneath the canopy. Do you know what the existing foot candles are at this store? MR. LAPPER-What are the fixtures? Do you know how many watts? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I know they’re different style fixture probably, but do you know what the, roughly? MR. SPIAK-The fixtures on that, on the existing site are 400 watt fixtures. They’re not as bright as some of the others due to the fact they’ve been there a while. They’re a little a weathered. The lenses are pretty well weathered, tired. So you’re not getting the true lighting effect from those fixtures, I believe. MR. LAPPER-But they are 400 watt. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re not sure what the foot candles might be? MR. SPIAK-Let’s put it this way. I didn’t go up and take a bulb out there, but just based on doing a lot of gas station work and looking at these things, my best opinion that they are existing 400 watt bulbs. MR. LAPPER-What kind of candlestick light? MR. SPIAK-The foot candles under that canopy, just off the top of my head, off the cuff, I would say are in the 30 to 40 foot range, as it exists today. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. LAPPER-It’s certainly not like the Hess Station at Exit 19. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, I think everyone would agree that that’s overkill. MR. SPIAK-You’ve got brand new lenses on those things. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and certainly the other lighting on the site is old style. I think the other, you know, 16 foot poles will be an improvement over what’s there now. I mean, there’s two street lights on the corner that just really disperse a lot of light and don’t really do much for the site itself. I had a question on the eastern edge of the paved area. I think on one of the drawings it might show the current edge. MR. LAPPER-I think what you’re looking at is the proposed parking that’s shown but not to be constructed. MR. HUNSINGER-No. On one of the drawings, it looks as though there’s going to be more green space on the eastern side is what I’m asking. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Pavement is being removed on that side. MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m curious as to the discussion of the closing of the northern most egress on Ridge, what the thought process was on that. MR. LAPPER-That it would make the Board happy and make it easier to get an approval, honestly. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got to respect your honesty. MR. LAPPER-Beyond that, there was some safety issue that cars were cutting the intersection. If you’re coming east, you see that first, you cut on to Ridge, you cut across the northbound traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-I do it myself. MR. LAPPER-I’ve done that, too. So, it’s better for safety. MR. HUNSINGER-Part of the reason why I asked is because I’m in agreement with John on closing the other entrance on Quaker Road, and that’s the entrance that I always used, because I come down Ridge, and I kind of do the same thing, coming off Ridge, you just sort of angle off and you come right in. MR. LAPPER-The simple answer is that they cannot agree to do that. I mean, fixing this station, improving the station and making this investment is not worth what they feel would affect their ability to conduct business here. It’s just that crucial an issue, and up until today, we didn’t have an agreement to make it just an in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, which I don’t think is worth the trouble, personally. It’s like no left hand turn into Lowe’s, you know, you see people making left hand turns every day. I don’t think it’s really enforceable. So, personally, I just don’t think it’s, you know, if you’re going to keep the entrance, keep the entrance. That’s just my own feelings. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, have there been a lot of recorded accidents there over the years, that you’ve? MR. HUNSINGER-Not that I’m aware of. MR. VOLLARO-Since you live there. So that configuration hasn’t lent itself to a lot of accidents? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the reason why I think the western egress is an issue is because that’s the, right in front of the store is where Quaker Road goes from two lanes down to one lane. So what you see is people that are stopped at the red light, you know, starting at Bay Road, the slow cars start to move over into the left hand lane, in anticipation of the narrowing. So the faster cars pull into the right lane, because it’s empty, and then when the red light turns green, you have people racing to get ahead of each other, and if someone’s turning into the store. MR. VOLLARO-I do that, too. MR. LAPPER-I would say that there’s not, I live right near there, too, and there hasn’t been accidents, anything substantial. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m not aware of any, actually. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. LAPPER-And I think that even though the taper, there’s a sign there, but it really doesn’t taper until before the AES building. It really goes a ways before it tapers. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-That’s just an absolutely crucial issue to the company. That’s just not something that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, at some point Quaker Road’s going to be four lanes anyway. MR. LAPPER-Yes, there is a proposal. All they need is money to do the work. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but you can’t think of the last ten years. You’ve got to think of the next ten years. MR. LAPPER-But that’s not a part of, I mean, a lot of the day it’s very quiet on that part of Quaker Road. MR. STROUGH-And Stewarts, I mean, everyone else that we’ve done, with an access on a corner piece of property like this, it has an access on one street and one access, a two way access on another street. They seem to be working out fine. They all seem to be making tons of money. I mean, it doesn’t hurt their business. MR. LAPPER-They do not want to do the project if they have to lose that. That’s what our instructions are from the company. I’m sorry. It’s existing, and they’re giving up one, and they feel that that’s significant. MR. MAC EWAN-How big of an issue is that with everybody else? MR. VOLLARO-It’s not an issue with me, unless there was a lot of traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got three choices, leave it as it is, how many want to leave it as it is? MR. RINGER-Well, closing off the exit out. Like they’ve suggested. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s one choice, entrance only. MR. RINGER-Entrance only, definitely. MR. VOLLARO-Entrance only I would buy. MR. RINGER-I like that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Seems like entrance only seems to be the winner here. MR. STROUGH-For me, I see two opportunities. One, I see it as a perennial problem down the road. I don’t think it’s needed, and I don’t think it’s going to hurt their business by eliminating that, and I think it gives additional area for landscaping, and that would only make their business look more attractive and actually help business, but that’s the way I look at it. MR. RINGER-I don’t think it would make it as marketable, and I think, for a gas station, you need that entrance for the type of business. If you say don’t put any gas stations on Quaker Road, then I might agree with you, but I think we’re a gas station. You need that because of the way gas tanks are. Some are on the right. Some are on the left. MR. STROUGH-We never said that to Stewarts. MR. RINGER-I think you’ve got a different traffic situation over there, a lesser traffic situation. MR. STROUGH-And I think you have a worse traffic situation here. That’s why you should even be more careful. Okay, but I would like at least some kind of traffic analysis coming from some authority of this, and I’d like to see it in print. MR. LAPPER-It’s an existing site. Where you just, we’re doing a small addition to an existing site. MR. STROUGH-I think what you’re doing is great, I’m just saying I don’t think what I’m thinking is going to hurt you. MR. LAPPER-In general, I’m always happy to provide a traffic report when it’s appropriate, and that’s in many cases, but C.T. Male did not ask for it, and it’s just, this is not a site that has had traffic problems. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-More importantly, we’re going to take an existing site, and what I’m hearing from the majority of the Board is by making that one egress and ingress to only, in only, is going to improve the site, so whatever traffic numbers or traffic analysis you come up with, whatever we’re going to do is going to improve those numbers. MR. STROUGH-If I remember from the Comprehensive Plan, if I remember correctly, maybe Craig can help, one of the objectives along the Quaker Road corridor is to reduce the number of curb cuts if you can. MR. LAPPER-And we’re doing that. MR. STROUGH-Is that accurate? MR. BROWN-That’s a Town wide goal. MR. STROUGH-And we have an opportunity to do it, and I don’t, I really don’t believe, and the applicant hasn’t convinced me otherwise, that it’s going to hurt business if they do close that. MR. LAPPER-We’re going from four to three, and that’s, and one we’re restricting to in only. MR. MAC EWAN-Craig, what’s your thoughts? MR. BROWN-I think it’s pretty clear in Staff notes what Staff’s position is. I think that that drive can be narrowed and reoriented to the point in only. I think that that’s going to be a big improvement over dual access that close to the intersection. That’s just my opinion. You guys get to vote. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I seem to remember years ago, in studying transportation planning, that there’s a, sort of a threshold that you shouldn’t have a curb cut within so many feet from an intersection, and, I mean, I don’t remember what the number was, 100 feet, 120 feet, something like that. Clearly, this one is closer than what was usually recommended. MR. BROWN-Yes. It does depend on the speed of the road that you’re entering, but this is an existing one, and to argue for the applicant, and I think their offer to narrow it and reorient it so it’s in only is definitely an improvement. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t, no. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. STROUGH-Traffic. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Existing traffic patterns. MR. MAC EWAN-Stop. What was that? MR. STROUGH-Traffic, I think, is a potential problem. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re one. The majority is saying no. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just putting my two cents in, so it’s on the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine. Understandable. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 47-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CUMBERLAND FARMS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Strough MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, do you have? MR. RINGER-I’ve got a resolution, and I only have two conditions. I’ll read the conditions first, and then we can make changes if we’d like. Condition One would be that the western most curb cut on Quaker Road will be changed to an in only and constructed to discourage left hand turns out. That would be an important. Two, light poles shall be reduced from 12 to 10. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s canopy lighting. The canopy lights. MS. RADNER-There was discussion about stormwater needed to remain on site, under the Town Code, as well. MR. BROWN-I think the catch basin to the northwest there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. We’ve got that, stormwater retention on the site. MR. RINGER-Okay. Give it to me again, please. MR. LAPPER-It’s the stormwater retention device on the northwest corner would be relocated on site. MR. HUNSINGER-If the western Quaker Road egress is in only, I guess it was my understanding it would be narrowed? MR. LAPPER-That’s what. MR. HUNSINGER-He didn’t really say it would be narrowed. He just said it will discourage. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think we can add some words. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, maybe enhance that language that it’s going to be reconstructed to only permit one lane, in only from the east/west bound traffic. East bound traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the landscaping? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The landscaping and sprinklers. MR. RINGER-I thought the landscaping was okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if we’re narrowing that entrance, the landscaping should be continued. MR. RINGER-I see what you’re saying. MR. VOLLARO-Is that public water there? MR. RINGER-Yes, that’s Town water. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re on sewer there too, right? MR. KNOPFTL-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you coming up with for quantity? MR. STROUGH-Well, I would like to see that the landscaping include varied mound heights, and a variety and combination of arborvitae used and Azaleas. MR. MAC EWAN-John, just for enforcement, we’ve got to have a number. MR. LAPPER-We have a pretty significant variety of species on that chart. MR. STROUGH-Well, I like to see things laid out. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you asking that we table this? MR. STROUGH-If you want my approval, you’re going to have to, but I don’t think, by the feeling of the others, that the landscaping’s not an issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, no, I think that what I’m hearing is that, yes, we’re open-minded to extend that to the green areas to be created by the downsizing of this egress, but we need to have some sort of number. I mean, if we tell them we want 10 more arborvitaes in that area or, you know. MR. STROUGH-Again, I like seeing things laid out in front of me. I’d like to see the new access drawn on here. I’d like to see the stormwater relocated. I’d like to see the upgrade in landscaping. I want to see it in front of me. In conditioning it, I can’t see it. MR. LAPPER-We think these are minor issues that can be done, with all respect to John. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with the applicant. I don’t think they’re major issues. MR. LAPPER-We don’t want to put arborvitae because they’re just tall, and that could block visibility. They can get tall. MR. STROUGH-I’m just looking for a variety here. MR. LAPPER-We’re talking about specifically in the area of the corner of Quaker and Ridge, where there’s some room for some additional landscaping. I think we’re talking about the area at the corner of Quaker and Ridge where there’s some room for some additional landscaping. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, enhance it by a third of what you have in there. How’s that? MR. SPIAK-I would propose to continue the scheme that’s basically out in front of the canopy there right now. MR. LAPPER-Well, he’s talking about here. MR. SPIAK-No, I mean, the same type of landscaping scheme that’s proposed right in front of the canopy. There’s Abbott’s Woods out there. There’s some Holly’s, just a combination of those to continue along. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Throw in some of those, those Stella Dora Lilies are excellent because they bloom all summer long. They bloom for three months, and they are literally effortless, Stella Dora Day Lilies. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking what you’ve got right in front of the island. Those number of shrubs and variety that you have in front of the island. How about if we do this and just say that the same quantities and varieties of species that are delineated in front of the islands on Quaker Road will be additionally continued in the new green space area by the one way ingress. That way we have a number, a quantity and a variety, and everybody’s happy, and it’s enforceable. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I think, no, I just want this, I think that you will be, if we had a Beautification Committee and I were on it, I would suggest that you put those Stella Dora Day Lilies in. You will find that they will. MR. LAPPER-We’re happy to do that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re inexpensive and they thrive, and they multiply, and they’re colorful, and they’re wonderful in the summertime. MR. LAPPER-Lilies are great. That’s agreed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thanks. The thing is they multiply. So you could just start out with 10 little plants in each area, five to ten little plants in each area. Use them as fillers. MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to take five minutes. You and Larry pen this thing up. MR. RINGER-I got everything except the last one, the landscaping, so you draw the landscaping. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got everything. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll call the meeting back to order. I think we have a resolution prepared, Mr. Ringer. MR. RINGER-We have a resolution prepared. However, Craig has some comments. Would you like to? MR. BROWN-I just wanted to make note that the landscaping in front of the island, per the plan, is subject to County approval. I don’t see the County saying no, but potentially you could have no landscaping there. MR. LAPPER-I frequently deal with the County. MR. BROWN-Yes, I don’t think they’re going to say no, and the other one’s to the southwest corner, I think if you were concerned about the visibility at that access point, you may want to limit those to smaller plantings. It talks about three to four foot tall. MR. SPIAK-No, that’s the spread on them. That’s ground cover. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. RINGER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 47-2001, Applicant: Cumberland Farms, Property Owner: V.S. H. Realty, Inc., Agent: Martin Auffredou, Zone: HC-1A, Location: 127 Quaker Rd., Intersection of Quaker & Ridge. Applicant proposes addition of 1,392 sq. ft. to existing 2,952 +/- sq. ft. gasoline service station and replace existing 1,104 sq. ft. canopy with new 2,090 sq. ft. canopy. Pursuant to Section 179-23 of the Zoning Code all land uses in HC zones require Planning Board review and approval. Engineering comments rec’d. 11/20. Cross Reference: AV 92-2001, SV 93-2001, Var. 401, AV 43-1993, SP 28-93. Warren Co. Planning: 11/14/01. Tax Map No. 109-3-36. Lot size: 1.25 acres / Section: 179-23. Public Hearing: January 15, 2002, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 10/31; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/11/02: 1/15/02 Staff Notes 1/8 Notice of Public Hearing 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) 1/4 CT Male from Staff – forward revised plans for sign-off 1/3 Meeting Notice 12/26/01 Revised Information received 12/ CT Male Eng. comments 11/28 ZBA resolution – AV 92-2001, SV 93-2001 11/20 CT Male Eng. comments 11/14 Warren Co. Planning 11/6 CT Male Eng. from LM WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 1/15/02 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The western most curb cut on Quaker Road be reduced in width and changed to an IN ONLY and constructed to discourage left hand turns out, and 2. Canopy lights reduced from twelve (12) to ten (10), and 3. Stormwater retention device on the northwest corner be relocated on the property, and 4. Extend landscaping to newly created area in the northwest corner, and include an increased number of shrubs by one-third in all areas, including Stella Dora Day Lilies as fillers, and 5. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 1/15/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 15 day of January 2002 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Strough MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MR. RINGER-I can’t believe you got that on the first night, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 68 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/15/02) Craig MacEwan, Chairman 69