The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-06-27 SP (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 27, 2002 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE, JIM EDWARDS STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HOME DEPOT PROPERTY OWNERS: NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC, ALEXANDER POTENZA, FRANK BORK, GERTRUDE STONE AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, VAN DUSEN & STEVES, LA GROUP ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: NE CORNER RT. 9 & QUAKER RD. INTERSECTION 3 LOT SUBDIVISION; 1.56 AC., 10.62 AC. AND 22.86 AC. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 54-2002, PZ 1-02, SP 12-02 TAX MAP NO. 72-7-2, 3, 4 LOT SIZE: 35 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER & DAVE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 12-2002, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Home Depot, Meeting Date: June 27, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision to create lots of 1.56 ac, 10.62 ac and 22.86 ac. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: Two of the three lots proposed are to have frontage on Route 9. The third lot, while having frontage on Montray Road, will gain access through the Northway Plaza parcel from Route 9. Topography: It is anticipated that the topography of all three lots will be significantly altered with the proposed Home Depot development currently under review. Water supply Sewage Disposal: Municipal connections are available for the lots. Drainage:. It is anticipated that the drainage patterns of all three lots will be altered with the proposed Home Depot development currently under review. Future development: Currently development is planned for the “Home Depot” and “Northway Plaza” parcels. No plans for development other than demolition of the 1,404 sf building is proposed at this time for the “Potenza/Bork” parcel. State Environmental Quality Review Act: The board should reaffirm the findings of the original SEQRA determination if, upon the environmental review of the subdivision no significant impacts are identified. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review 12-2002 pending 116,000 sf Home Depot Area Variance 54-2002 res. 6/26/02 Permeability, parking, frontage 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) Staff comments: The proposed subdivision is actually the reconfiguration of three existing lots. It has been determined that the boundary line changes proposed by the applicant are not “small conveyances of land to correct a boundary” and as such, are not exempt from the subdivision review process. No new lots are being created and it is the understanding of staff that the proposed configuration is closely related to financing issues. No impacts to the proposed Home Depot site plan are anticipated, provided that the appropriate cross easements, etc. are a part of the approval.” MR. ROUND-I’m going to cut to the chase. The subdivision, I think we informed you in a memorandum regarding the re-adoption of your SEQRA determination of non-significance, that the applicant’s requesting it in order to allow for financing of the particular property. There’s no changes to any of the site facilities, other than the boundary lines that are proposed. We don’t expect any impacts as a result of this change. There are concerns about reciprocal easements, access to the property. We think the applicant’s addressed those in their correspondence to you, and on the site plan. Beyond that, in regards to the subdivision, I don’t think there’s anything else of concern, unless you’d like us to focus on a particular element. MR. MAC EWAN-No, just a question, procedurally, as far as our findings, should we be positive on this thing, we’re just going to reaffirm our negative SEQRA declaration? We don’t do another SEQRA on this. MR. ROUND-You already did that. MR. MAC EWAN-But as far as for the subdivision as well? MR. SCHACHNER-Is it a modification of the existing subdivision? MR. LAPPER-No, they did it last week. MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to be sure. MR. ROUND-Yes, you resolved all the SEQRA issues. So this is the same project. You just did that so the Zoning Board could move forward with the variance application that was in front of them. They received variance approvals last night. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dave Carr. I don’t have much to add to what Chris said. Essentially there are three lots to begin with and there’ll be three lots when you’re done, and the two lots that will make up the new Northway Plaza would be subject to reciprocal easements for parking, driving, utilities. That pretty much covers it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, I’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I have nothing on this. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any questions because I think everything was satisfied. Really about the only thing to ask is how you determined where to draw the property line. MR. LAPPER-Dave and I tried to minimize the variances that we needed. So we tried to keep the green space as even as we could, so that only one of the lots requires green space variance because, taken as a whole, the whole center doesn’t need any variances, and we had to go ask for some Area Variances. So we really just tried to draw the lines to minimize the variance request. MR. HUNSINGER-And in terms of the, I forgot the proper terminology, the cross easements. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Would the Town see a draft of those before they’re filed? How would that work? Because I know it’s a significant issue. MR. LAPPER-We can, that would be a reciprocal easement agreement. It’s already been drafted. It hasn’t been signed yet until the deal closes, but we can submit that to the Town Attorney for him to look at. It freely allows the movement of invitees, employees, deliveries. So it functions as one center, and it’s perpetual, and what I didn’t mention is that the ownership of the two entities, the old Northway Plaza and the new Northway Plaza entity, which we can call Northway 1 and Northway 2, are all the same members that, guys that have been before you before, Bill Dutch from Syracuse. So it’s really, it’s just for the financing that it has to be a separate entity, but it’s the same people. So they will, it’ll travel together, and the Zoning Board, last 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) night, conditioned that when the financing is refinanced, in approximately six years, that the parcels will merge. So the two parcels that constitute Northway Plaza would then be one. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the intent? MR. LAPPER-That’s the intent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That kind of takes that issue off the table anyway. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s just a temporary situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’m clean. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-How’s the landscaping along Route 9 coming along? MR. LAPPER-You’re talking about the part up on top? MR. STROUGH-Yes, the part on top you were going to ask DOT. MR. CARR-Yes, and we have asked them, and we expect a letter, Shelly Johnston spoke with Mark Kennedy today, and we expect a letter within a week, I believe. MR. STROUGH-Did they give any oral indicator? MR. CARR-They did not give any oral indication on the landscaping, no, but that was part of the application. MR. ROUND-I might address. The subdivision is in front of you. There is a site plan approval that you’ve still got to do. So there’s two separate actions, but just on that note, I did speak to Mark Kennedy as well, and I know the LA Group and DOT had exchanged correspondence, and we’re concerned about landscaping within the DOT right of way. I didn’t speak to that issue with Kennedy, but providing for pedestrian accommodations on Route 9, they were aware, actually Bill Logan, the Region 1 Director, indicated, hey, we were aware of a tremendous amount of publicity that we did receive about pedestrian access issues on Route 9, and I think they’re going to direct the LA Group to look at that issue some more, but it could be handled through the work permit process and not necessarily as an element of the site plan approval. MR. STROUGH-But in any event, we’ve been dealing with the subdivision and site plan at the same time, so as to not segment. So that’s why I asked site plan questions. MR. ROUND-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Well, pardon me, but is this time to ask site plan questions as well? Because I do have some. MR. ROUND-I think you could certainly explore them all right now if you want to, but there’s a separate approval that you’re going to have to go through, or separate Board resolution you can do. MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, I’d just as soon stick with subdivision issues. MR. VOLLARO-So would I. I would, procedurally, agree with that. Although if we’re going to discuss this thing together, then I’m ready to discuss it, because I have notes on the site plan. So we either stick to subdivision, or we mix them. MR. ROUND-I think you got direction from your Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-I like the direction, Mr. Chairman. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Gee, thanks. Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing on subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 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-Would someone introduce a motion, please, for Preliminary. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2002 HOME DEPOT, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 12-2002 Applicant: Home Depot PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owners: Northway Plaza Associates, LLC, FINAL STAGE Alexander Potenza, Frank Bork, Gertrude Stone Type: Unlisted Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Van Dusen & Steves, LA Group Zone: HC-Int. Location: NE corner Rt. 9 & Quaker Rd. Intersection 3 lot subdivision; 1.56 ac., 10.62 ac. and 22.86 ac. Cross Reference: AV 54-2002, PZ 1-02, SP 12-02 Tax Map No. 72.-7-2, 3, 4 Lot size: 35 acres Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: June 27, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received 5/28/02: WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of June 21, 2002; and 6/27 Staff Notes 6/20 Notice of Public Hearing 6/18 SEQRA Reaffirmation of Determination of Non-Significance 6/26 Zoning Board of Appeals resolution: Approved w/conditions 6/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183--9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 27, 2002; 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 WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved as per resolution prepared by Staff 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion, please, for Final. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2002 HOME DEPOT, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 12-2002 Applicant: Home Depot PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owners: Northway Plaza Associates, LLC, FINAL STAGE Alexander Potenza, Frank Bork, Gertrude Stone Type: Unlisted Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Van Dusen & Steves, LA Group Zone: HC-Int. Location: NE corner Rt. 9 & Quaker Rd. Intersection 3 lot subdivision; 1.56 ac., 10.62 ac. and 22.86 ac. Cross Reference: AV 54-2002, PZ 1-02, SP 12-02 Tax Map No. 72.-7-2, 3, 4 Lot size: 35 acres Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: June 27, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received 5/28/02: WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of June 21, 2002; and 6/27 Staff Notes 6/20 Notice of Public Hearing 6/18 SEQRA Reaffirmation of Determination of Non-Significance 6/26 Zoning Board of Appeals resolution: approved w/conditions 6/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183--9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 27, 2002; 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 WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. 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 27th day of June, 2002, by the following vote: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED SEQRA NEG. DEC. – 4/11/02 HOME DEPOT PROPERTY OWNER: GERTRUDE STONE, NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC., LLC, ALEXANDER POTENZA AND FRANK BORK AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: HC- INT. LOCATION: SOUTH EAST SIDE OF MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF APPROXIMATELY 85,000 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 116,000 SQ. FT. HOME DEPOT HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. ALL COMMERCIAL USES IN HC-INT ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 1-2002 TB PH HEARING FOR REZONING, 5/6/02, AV 54-2002, SB 12-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/02 (PZ ONLY), 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 72-7-2, 3, 4 LOT SIZE: 5.32 AC., 25. 22 AC., AND 4.13 AC. SECTION: 179-22, 179-20 JON LAPPER & DAVE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-2002, Home Depot, Meeting Date: June 27, 2002 “ MR. ROUND-If you recall from, you don’t have any notes from last time. If you recall at our last meeting in May, the Board had a discussion and identified pretty much every issue was flat from the Board’s discussion, I’m sure you’ll chime in, there were three things that were outstanding, from an engineering standpoint, and we did not have signoff from C.T. Male at that point. We do have correspondence from C.T. Male. Jim Edwards is here from C.T. Male Associates, and if you have any questions, you can direct them directly to him. There were three issues. One was whether the proposed stormwater swirl separator type device was serviceable, from a maintenance perspective, we had concern whether the depth was in excess of 24 feet, and whether a traditional vac truck could access that. We’ve had confirmation from the vendor that that is indeed capable, direct communication to C.T. Male Associates. Second issue was stormwater basin elevation. The engineers had identified that the elevation was close to bedrock or groundwater, and the elevation, the floor elevation of that basin was increased, so that the depth was actually shallower and there were concerns whether there was a sufficient storage capacity in the basin. Engineers confirm that there is sufficient freeboard, and it wouldn’t affect the stormwater management plan, and the third item was regarding constructability of the retaining wall. There’s a significant amount of retaining wall structure, on both sides of the, around the building, and I think in the comment letter, the engineers recommended that any approval issued, that you would require the applicant to submit their final construction details and engineering for the retaining wall structure to the Town for review prior to issuance of a building permit, and I spoke to Jim, and Jim’s here and can echo this, but they have looked at the technology, you know, the construction methods that are proposed, and that they are feasible, and they’re comfortable to the conceptual level, and that they don’t have a problem moving forward along that line. MR. MAC EWAN-Should we get to that stage, would that wall be built under a separate building permit? MR. ROUND-No. When we issue the complete building permit, we anticipate that the building permit is for the structure and for the retaining wall in one, and those particular details are provided directly to the engineer as well as to the Town. MR. LAPPER-We would expect that we would submit those design drawings to C.T. Male, and they would have to approve them before we get the building permit. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. ROUND-As you’ll recall, the reason that you did not act on the application last month was that the applicant had been responsive to our comments, but there was not yet a set of plans in front of us that illustrated those comments. The engineer and the Staff has looked at them. They are responsive to the comments, as we had indicated they were, but we weren’t able to verify that, and we have verified that, and you folks have all had a chance to review those in the weeks that have expired since that last review. So, I’d turn it over to you. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll turn it over to you. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if there’s anything Dave wants to add at this point. I think Chris summed it up pretty well. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. CARR-Yes. The only thing I would like to add is that, beyond the requirements of C.T. Male, there were a couple of issues that came up at the last Planning Board meeting, more in discussion with the Board members, and those items that we revised I highlighted in my letter to Chris with the drawings on May 29, th and they included sidewalks between the Post Office and the Home Depot, two bike rack locations, the radius behind the Post Office was enlarged for better truck access. We included two enlargements of the intersections with Route 9. That was requested, which also actually helped with our application with DOT. Additional wording was added to maintenance concerning the sorbent materials, and then the buffer material on Montray Road was pulled closer to the road, to help screen the rear of the building better, and I believe, from what I had written down from the meetings, those were the items that pretty much emanated from the discussion between ourselves and the Board, and that’s what we did add to the plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Seems accurate. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I never like to be first, because I’m never sure what to say. The only thing I really had to say, I think, is, you know, this whole process, this site plan, I think, is a good example of how well things can work because, and you even just commented on how some of the things we’ve asked for helped with the DOT permit, and I really think that the final product that we have here is what we could have hoped for. Certainly everything that I could recall being an issue I thought was resolved, and I really appreciate that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just go through my notes real quickly. Some of the questions have already been answered. So I’ll start off with one that hasn’t been. There was the Fire Marshal’s letter on February 11, 2002. Has that been satisfactorily addressed? I haven’t seen an address to that. MR. CARR-Yes, we have. As far as, I believe pertaining to area around the hydrants, clear area around the hydrants, and then that radius behind the store, that nothing would be stored in that area, so fire trucks could get around there easily. Beyond that, I don’t recall. MR. VOLLARO-He had eight questions in his letter, and I just want to make sure that we’ve at least addressed those questions that he has had. He’s talking about seeking accessibility credit. I’m not even sure what that is. MR. CARR-That, I believe, from talking with the architect, that has to do with the building permit, as far as the building and not the site, is what the architect told me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. CARR-Because I was not aware, I did not understand that comment either, and the architect said that he was addressing that with, building permit issue. MR. VOLLARO-All right. A diagram of the turning radiuses, that’s been attached. You just spoke about that. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Applicant, that the location of any future fire department connections must be coordinated with the Fire Marshal’s Office. I’m just reading these, because I don’t understand anything about what our Fire Marshal does, I’m afraid. I’m not really up to speed on that at all. Please advise the applicant that any fire hydrants installed on property must be installed to Queensbury Water Department specifications. Please advise the applicant that the fire hydrants are not assumed by Queensbury Water Department. All private hydrants must be tested and serviced annually. Please instruct the applicant that no parking signs should be posted near fire hydrants, and that the area should be striped 15 feet each side of the hydrant, and please inform the applicant that the garden area enclosed by fence and such enclosure may negative affect the accessibility allowed for that side. It may therefore be necessary to designate, post and enforce the fire lane through the center of the garden area. That’s his letter, and I’m just wondering if those have been answered. MR. CARR-As far as the site issues, we have answered those. The last one was the one I was speaking of as far as, that is more of a building permit issue. Because the garden center is considered part of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just trying to make sure that that letter has been satisfactorily answered. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. ROUND-Bob, if I could chime in. We had this discussion, and I did review the plans, just this afternoon, with Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, and the accessibility issue is a building permit issue. We’ve run into the same instance with Lowe’s Home Improvement center, that the gate structures have to be of an appropriate, there has to be appropriate accessibility in order to qualify that they have the appropriate number of access points. You might have a fireproof emergency accessible door, inside the garden center, but if you have a fence around it, it’s locked, you don’t have the accessibility. So that’s a Code issue that they can correct during, make sure that they do that. The fire hydrant issue has been resolved, and there was concern from Building and Codes that the, there’s a lumber storage area that’s a different material that’s utilized, and it’s okay to use the concrete material, but our concern was that the concrete actually encroached on this 50 foot clear zone. They don’t have any problem with the concrete structure being as large as they’d like it to be, but we do want noted on the plans that that should be maintained as a storage free area, because that 50 foot access is required for emergency vehicles, and the same is appropriate with the garden center fencing. That does get relatively close, and I’m thinking it’s 30 or 40 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Forty feet. MR. ROUND-In one instance. So that same provision will have to be made along in that area. MR. LAPPER-We’ll add that to the plans. MR. ROUND-So those notes are, if that’s included as a part of any resolution, that they’ll comply with the 50 foot clear zone and so noted on the plan, that’s acceptable to the Town Staff. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I’m going to ask a question now. I’m trying to determine if we’ve completed the in-house review of the building permit, visa vie the concrete lumber pad. MR. ROUND-That was a response to that, and we have been, and we know that the applicant would like to construct as quickly as possible and we have been doing the review, and there are some architectural, they’re Code issues that don’t affect the site plan, but that’s not one of them anymore. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The question on the connection between the Post Office was duly answered. Now, in my observation, in reviewing all of the multitude of correspondence on this, it is, I’ve just observed, C.T. Male’s letter of April 11 really almost provided closure to his questions, as well as Mr. Hastings’ response of th May 14 and June 18. Now do we have a final signoff, however, by C.T. Male on this? Is this for, we’re thth close, I realize that, but I haven’t seen anything that says, okay. MR. EDWARDS-As far as the final signoff letter from us, we have not given, you know, the Planning Board that yet. We have one issue that was outstanding, pertaining to the retaining wall review. I think, pending tonight’s meeting, we’ll definitely give you that signoff letter, though, if everything goes as planned tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. My apologies. When we get these things at this time of night, after reviewing this all day long, and without having all the information, I missed this. So my apologies for the question. MR. EDWARDS-It’s a close to closure as you can get, but I will actually put a formal letter together and sign off on it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to do a quick revisit to the sign issue. At the 5/16 meeting, we did not anticipate a Sign Variance. Now would a sign come in under a separate application? I assume that it will. So, it’s not even a subject for this meeting, I don’t believe, but I just wanted to clear that. MR. ROUND-We received an application for a Sign Variance on Wednesday. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because at the last meeting, I think we had discussed this and a variance wasn’t considered at that time at least. MR. LAPPER-I was contacted last week by their sign person in Alabama and we quickly put together an application for Wednesday. What is requested of the Zoning Board are three signs on the building, one, “The Home Depot”; one, “Contractor Sales”; and one “Nursery”. So it’s pretty similar to what Lowe’s has in size and in concept. Just in terms of that, the main façade sign “The Home Depot”, under the Town Code, it could be 300 square feet, based upon the distance to the road. What they’ve requested is 417 square feet. Lowe’s got a little bit more also than the 300, my recollection, but, you know, whether or not the Zoning Board grants that or it’s 300 feet will be determined next month, but it’s not significantly different, and then there are two existing pylon signs. The Code allows Home Depot to have one pylon sign. It would be a sign for Northway Plaza, two main tenants as well as Depot, and they have requested two, one at the main entrance and one closer to Quaker, where that other sign is near Travelers now. Because it’s a bit more visible from Quaker Road, and as to how the Zoning Board is going to rule on that, I have no idea. I advise them what the law is, and we applied for the extra one. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. VOLLARO-To direct my question to Staff for a minute. Does that variance in any way impinge on this site plan? In other words, if we get to? MR. ROUND-No, it doesn’t hold you off whatsoever, but if there’s a concern about signage, it’s certainly something that you can comment on, and you don’t have it in front of you. MR. VOLLARO-The only reason I put this down because the last time we talked about it, there was no implication of variance, so I thought, well, there was going to be nothing to it. MR. ROUND-No. I think the discussion was the existing sign is rather large for the Plaza and antiquated, and I think we even identified that in Staff notes, you know, part of the plan review you look at what’s the site signage, and that was the extent of the discussion. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I guess my question is, we don’t have to deal with that tonight? MR. ROUND-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what I’m really asking. Now the question on the sorbent that John Strough had raised has been covered on the C2 under the maintenance notes, I noticed that, Drawing C-2, and of course you talked about the radius behind the Post Office, and the plantings on Route 9 within the ROW are still subject to New York State DOT approval. Is that still in the DOT approval stage? MR. CARR-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now the buffer planting along Montray Road has been moved to within the right of way. Now are any approvals required there? In other words, if we’re in the right of way, are there any approvals required on Montray at all? MR. CARR-I don’t believe so. MR. VOLLARO-What kind of a road is Montray Road? Is that a Town road? MR. CARR-It’s a Town road. MR. ROUND-You may need the permission of the Highway Department, I believe, the Highway Superintendent authorization. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to get that on the table, whether we make that a condition or not. MR. ROUND-Not necessarily make it a condition, but I think the concern would be in the event that they’re not able to plant it within the right of way, they would plant it on private property. MR. VOLLARO-And just move it back a little bit. MR. CARR-Well, originally, that’s where it was shown, and so maybe there may have to be some agreement as to the distance. It would probably have to do more with snow storage than anything else, I would imagine. I mean, it’s not a sight distance issue because it’s on the outside of that curve. MR. VOLLARO-No. Once I see something going in the right of way of a road, somebody has to nod, you know, and say something about it. Now, do we have a response from Warren County on the site plan? I only have one Warren County response in my records, and I don’t see any other that pertain to this site plan. MR. ROUND-Warren County Planning? MR. VOLLARO-Planning Board, yes. MR. LAPPER-We were there in June. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing that they commented on, now maybe my fellow Board members, I might have missed this. My fellow Board members may say that they’ve seen a response from Warren County. John, I’ll ask you. MR. LAPPER-We were there this month. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s in your package, June 17 recommendation to approve. th MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Fine. I missed it. Thank you. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. CARR-I believe that was for the variance and the site plan. There was two separate approvals that evening, I believe. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at the 21 March letter from William Logan, and his Number Six. Have we st adequately addressed the pedestrian accommodations in his letter of March 21? st MR. LAPPER-We’ve discussed that with Chris, and we’re looking at that as a DOT issue, because they’ll either, it’s all within the DOT right of way, and they’ll either tell us to include sidewalks or crosswalks or not and that’s going to be up to DOT, and we’ll have to abide by their decision. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I interrupt you just for a second? I failed to announce at the beginning of the meeting that Green Mountain Development, which was originally scheduled for tonight’s meeting, will not be heard tonight. They’ve been postponed to our July meeting. I apologize for that, not announcing that early on. MR. ROUND-Craig, that will be re-advertised, and actually, we’ve tentatively, we’ve placed it on our July 16. th MR. MAC EWAN-16? Okay. th MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to just close it there, but I’m going to make a comment on this application. I believe we’ve developed a set of extraordinarily good drawings on this project, and I think they probably 99% reflect what we’ve done without conditioning the application, to any great extent, and it’s almost, if you make it like the picture now, it’ll turn out looking exactly like what we’ve developed, and I’m a big believer in drawings representing the entire thing as opposed to being conditioned with a bunch of conditions that may or may not, you know, get applied, for whatever reason, but the drawings speak loudly, and I commend you on the set of drawings you’ve put together. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, we got the first one. The only question I have, actually more for Mr. Round, do we have the ability to check this CDS system, Continuous Deflective Separator? MR. ROUND-We do not. I know the Town Highway Department does have a vac truck, by checking, I don’t know what you mean by? MR. STROUGH-Inspecting it, making sure that maintenance is being done? You’ve got a nice maintenance agreement in the site plan, and how can we verify that? MR. ROUND-Well, we’ll ask for reporting requirement, I guess. We don’t want to be in the business of inspecting private facilities, I guess. That would be my first, just off the cuff reaction. I don’t know how Counsel feels. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we also don’t want to be in the business, if, let’s say maintenance team changed and. MR. ROUND-But what you could do is you could ask for the project engineer to draft up, rather than rely on a maintenance individual to do that, to the maintenance individual provides that to a contracting engineer, an engineer provides you with a letter, an engineer’s report, on an annual basis. That’s the way we deal, you know, we’ve done that with septic systems, where there’s things that need to be inspected, we require an engineer’s report to be prepared. MR. EDWARDS-Yes, this CDS structure is, what, I think 26 feet deep? So just looking at popping the cover and putting a lamp in there is not going to do any justice as far as inspecting it. We also have to look at confined space. So there’s got to be a certain protocol in inspecting this, which hopefully I’m sure Town Staff is up on the confined space entry, but it’s not a simple structure to look in, pop the cover, look inside and see how things are going inside there. It’s really, it’s going to be a super deep structure, way down there, and the best way to check is if you go down, using confined space entry protocol, check to see that solids are being handled inside the structure. That’s the best way to see that it’s work, because it will take the suspended solids, actually, it will take the floatables and some sedimentation and collect it inside the basin. So that’s probably the best way to inspect the structure that it’s so deep, you can’t just pop it, like I say, the narrow, like a small manhole and just pop the cover and look inside. It’s very deep inside there. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know. It’s not really answering my question, but I think, Chris, you’re on the right line here. Can we ask for an engineer’s report on the condition of the CDS system? MR. EDWARDS-I guess I wasn’t sure how to check the reliability and performance of it. I’m not sure how you do that. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not sure if it’s you, or it would be their engineers. How does that usually go? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. ROUND-I would imagine the manufacturer has an inspection protocol or a maintenance protocol. They prepare that and then you follow that protocol. I’m not familiar with whether you pull the basket out of this device, whatever it is that you do to clean the device out, that you note, you know, volume of material that’s in there, and if you notice a significant fluctuation in the volumes that are coming through, maybe it’s because there’s a failure of the system. That kind of. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask this. Is there a way to know that if you didn’t put some sort of inspection program in place, how would you know that the system failed? Would it be by the discharge? MR. ROUND-That’s the other option is to grab something at the discharge location, but. MR. EDWARDS-Eventually you’d see solids building up at the outlet of the stormwater structure, not by the bank. You’d probably see floatables. MR. CARR-Or part of it may be a certification that it’s actually being cleaned. MR. LAPPER-I guess the simplest thing, what Rich LaMont just suggested, is an annual report on what maintenance has occurred during that year. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s acceptable. MR. ROUND-Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District also, they’ve had an installation in Lake George, and they’re familiar with it and Lake George maintenance personnel may be familiar with it. So that’s something that, you know, if you, I recommend that you ask for the letter, you know, certified letter of report from an engineer, and if you want to go to the next level, maybe you look at somebody witnessing the inspection, you know, not performing it, but witnessing the inspection, for the next level of comfort. MR. MAC EWAN-That has to be a sense of integrity upon the applicant to maintain their own systems on site without us having to check it every six months or whatever, I’m satisfied that if they could file an annual report, you know, the catch is, how long do you want them to do it? Do you want them to do it for four years, five years, ten years? MR. STROUGH-The maintenance man, he probably has to make out a report or what he did to it, and just send a copy of it to Community Development Director. MR. ROUND-The Director of Building and Codes. How’s that? MR. MAC EWAN-All right. That’s doable. What else have you got, John? MR. STROUGH-That’s about it. Just, I think you win the award on the longest resolution. Is this history here? MR. ROUND-We’ve been in the practice of documenting all correspondence as part of the resolution, so that it’s easily accessed. It’s really not integral to the approval, but it makes it very simple for us to go back and say, well, where did this come from. MR. STROUGH-I’m not complaining. I’m just noting. MR. ROUND-Yes, there has been a lot of correspondence. MR. LAPPER-We’re very satisfied with how the process has gone, too. MR. STROUGH-And I’ll echo what everyone else has said. It’s been a pleasure working with you people, and nice presentation and excellent plans, and I’m very happy with the project as well. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t have much to add. I’m very pleased as well. I’m anxious to see the progress. I wish everyone in the Plaza well. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution, please. Two addendums to the written resolution. One regarding the construction of the retaining wall to be reviewed prior to a building permit being issued. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I’ve got that. I’ve got the applicant will allow the Town an opportunity to review the design of retaining wall prior to the issuance of a building permit. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Correct. MR. STROUGH-And the second one I have is, the second condition, an annual CDS/sorbent maintenance report will be sent to the Building and Codes Director. So only two conditions. MR. MAC EWAN-Added to the written, right? MR. RINGER-John, you first condition, I had it written up, too, and I had it just a little bit different, in that I’ve got it down that the retaining wall will be submitted to the Town Engineer for approval. I think we should get approval in there, his approval. The way you’ve got it written, it just says you’re going to show it to the Town, it doesn’t say you have to approve it. So the way I’ve got it written, I’ll read it if you’d like, and see if you agree with it. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, detailed design information regarding the retaining wall will be submitted to the Town Engineer for his approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Go with Larry’s. MR. RINGER-That way, rather than just saying do it, it’s approval. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I just added approval. I just said the applicant will allow the Town an opportunity to review and approve the design of retaining walls prior to the issuance of a building permit MR. MAC EWAN-Good enough. MR. RINGER-Just the approval is the only thing. MR. LAPPER-We’d like it to say the Town Engineer also, just so that it’s clear we don’t have to come back to the Planning Board, just in terms of timing. MR. STROUGH-The Town Engineer. Okay. Are you ready? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2002 HOME DEPOT, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 12-2002 Applicant: Home Depot Property Owner: Gertrude Stone, Northway Plaza Assoc., LLC, Alexander Potenza and Frank Bork SEQRA Neg. Dec. – 4/11/02 Agent: Jonathan Lapper Zone: HC-INT Location: South east side of Montray Road Applicant proposes demolition of approximately 85,000 sq. ft. of existing commercial space and construction of an 116,000 sq. ft. Home Depot home improvement store and associated site improvements. All commercial uses in HC-INT zones require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: PZ 1-2002 / TB PH for rezoning, 5/6/02 Warren Co. Planning: 2/13/02 (PZ only) Tax Map No. 72.-7-2, 3, 4 Lot size: 5.32 ac., 25.22 ac., 4.13 ac. Section: 179-22, 179-20 Public Hearing: March 26, 2002 (Tabled) Special PB Mtg: April 11, 2002 (Tabled) WHEREAS, the application was received on January, 2002; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/21/02: Petition for Change of Zone – PZ 1-2002 Site Plan Review No. 12-2002 Supporting Documentation 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) 6/18 CR from K. Hastings, LA Group: in response to 4/9/02 CT Male comments 6/6 CR, Staff from MR: Lighting Review 6/5 M. VanDyke from MR 5/16 Staff Notes 5/15 LA Group response (K. Hastings) to CT Male comments of 4/9 5/15 C. MacEwan from J. Brynes, K. Varney of Warren Wash. Co. Healthy Heart Program 5/8 R. Hirschhorn – eng. fees 5/8 CR from M. Ryba – Lighting review 5/8 MR from D. Carr – Lighting cuts 5/1 R. Hirshhorn from CB – meeting notice 4/24 CB from J. Lapper – availability 4/11 CR from J. Edwards – eng. review 4/11 Draft copy of PB minutes 4/9 CR from J. Edwards – eng. review 3/28 Post Star article 3/26 CR from J. Lapper 3/26 J. Edwards from staff – fax 3/26 CR from A/GFTC – traffic impact study comments 3/25 J. Lapper, D. Carr from staff – staff notes 3/22 Preliminary staff notes prepared by CR 3/22 CR from J. Edwards – eng. review 3/22 CR from R. Renned, NYS DOT 3/22 J. Edwards from staff – long eaf 3/21 S. Johnston from W. Logan (NYS DOT) 3/20 CR from D. Carr – Hartgen Arch. 3/19 L. Stone from K. Coe – comments 3/19 Notice of Public Hearing – Site Plan Review 3/12 D. Carr from M. Shaw – sanitary sewer review 2/26 Staff Notes – Petition for Change of Zone 2/26 CR from J. Edwards – eng. review 2/25 PW from LM – Water & sewer dist. Info to be placed in file 2/22 J. Lapper from staff – staff notes/agenda 2/19 Notice of Public Hearing – Petition 2/15 J. Houston from LM – see fax cover sheet 2/13 Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution – Petition – NCI w/condition 2/11 CB from SS (Fire Marshal) – comments 2/11 PW from Works in progress – FOIL 2/6 Warren Co. Water Quality Strategy Comm. Meeting comments 2/6 MR from K. Chadwick (BPSR) – Authorization form, Petition application 2/5 J. Edwards from LM – transmittal of application 1/10 TB from M. VanDyke – memo 1/9 PB from M. VanDyke – memo 1/3 D. Dougher from MR – application completeness 12/28 D. Dougher from MR – review of application Petition for Change of Zone – PZ 1-2002 Site Plan Review 12-2002 Resolutions 6/26/02 ZBA Resolution 6/18/02 PB Resolution: Reaffirm SEQRA 5/16/02 PB Res.: Tabled to 6/18/02 5/6/02 TB Res. 215, 2002 Res. Authorizing amendment of ZO 4/15/02 TB Res. 201,2002 Res. Setting PH on Petition for Change of Zone 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) 4/11/02 SEQR Negative Declaration 4/11/02 PB Res. PZ 1-2002, SP 12-2002 Res. Adopting a SEQRA Determination of Non-Significance concerning PZ 1-2002 and SP 12-2002 for Home Depot 3/26/02 PB Resolution – Table Site Plan 12-2002 2/26/02 PB Resolution – Recommendation to TB 2/26/02 PB Resolution- Resolution Acknowledging Lead Agency Status – PZ 1-2002 1/11/02 SEQRA Lead Agency request – PZ 1-2002 1/15/02 PB Resolution seeking Lead Agency Status for PZ 1-2002 1/14/02 TB Resolution 57,2002 Resolution consenting to Lead Agency Designation and Authorizing Town Clerk To Submit Petition for Change of Zone to PB Petition for Change of Zone – PZ 1-2002 Site Plan Review No. 12-2002 Application Materials 12/26/01 DB from J. Lapper Petition for Change of Zone w/sketch plan and long eaf 1/3/02 Petition for Change of Zone Received by Town Clerk Undated Site Plan Review application – partial 3/18/02 Hartgen Arch. Assoc. Field Work completed 2/26/02 Hartgen Arch. Assoc. – copies of Ph. 1A literature review 2/15/02 CME – Traffic Impact Study 1/30/02 LA Group – Engineering report / Stormwater Man. System 1/30/02 Maps 4/4/02 Cover Letter to CR from J. Lapper Revised EAF Phase 1B Arch. Field Recognizance Report Proposed Landscaping, Lighting and Directional Signage Plan w/foot candle plan Letter from K. Hastings to J. Edwards responding to questions regarding stormwater man. report 4/24/02 Maps w/ 4/24 revision date 5/3/02 CR File Markup map WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on March 26, 2002, April 11, 2002, and June 27, 2002; 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 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) 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 We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will allow the Town Engineer an opportunity to review and approve the design of retaining walls prior to issuance of the building permit, and 2. An annual CDS Sorbent Maintenance report will be sent to the Building and Codes Director, Town of Queensbury, 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 6/27/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. MAC EWAN-On behalf of the Town, thank you, very, very much for working with us. It’s a great project, and we wish you much success. MR. LAPPER-We appreciate hearing that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Good planning. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 28-2000 TYPE II MODIFICATION BOATS BY GEORGE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 18 ST. RT. 149, RT. 9 TO 149, TURN RIGHT, SITE IS ON RIGHT APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF 3,380 SQ. FT. OF GRAVELED BOAT STORAGE AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 28-2001, SP 9-2000 , SP 27-2000, AV 40-2000, VAR. 1012, VAR. 893 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.1/288.12-1-18 LOT SIZE: 1.52 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 28-2000, Modification, Boats by George, Meeting Date: June 27, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant wishes to modify a previously approved Site Plan approval to allow the expansion of a crushed stone boat storage area. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The applicant is modifying a previously approved site plan, which requires site plan approval. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) 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? Public services and facilities should not be burdened by this proposed site plan modification. 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 parcel that is under consideration in this application is to be used for boat storage. It is our understanding that this area will not be accessible to customers. Therefore, there should not be any issues concerning parking and traffic. 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? Any issues concerning previous historic uses of this site appear to have been dealt with at the time of the original site plan approval. 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. Buildings and signage do not appear to be applicable to this site plan. The site plan does not show any use of lighting on this property. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular access should not be an issue at this location. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Parking does not appear to be an issue with the use of this property. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian traffic for this project is not an issue. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant proposes a stone line trench and seeding of disturbed areas to help manage stormwater. The Planning Board should address any comments from the Town’s Engineer. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The effect on water supply and sewage disposal appear minimal with this proposed addition. 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 original site plan showed 23 trees that were to be planted behind the boat storage area. At this time those plantings are not in place. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The 20 ft. wide service drive that provides access to this property will serve as access for any emergency vehicles. It appears that this drive should be able to accommodate emergency vehicles. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) Erosion issues will be dealt with on site by using a stone trench and seeding disturbed areas. The applicant has submitted a letter discussing the adequacy of the proposed stormwater management techniques. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 28-2001 res. 5/23/01 setback relief for a pole barn, with condition of merging two parcels to the north SP 27-2000 res. 5/18/00 access drive to rear storage area AV 40-2000 res. 5/17/00 permeability relief for 20 ft. wide access drive Staff comments: The landscaping that was shown on the original site plan has not been put in place. Areas that were supposed to be seeded have not been seeded. However, Town staff has visited the site and feels that enough native vegetation now exists in the areas that were to be seeded to act as an erosion control measure. In order to ensure that plantings required at the time of original site plan approval are put in place, the Planning Board may wish to require that the applicant post a bond for the amount of such landscaping. An estimate can be prepared by the applicant’s engineer, and reviewed by the Town’s engineer prior to posting so that a realistic cost can be determined. The site plan calls for a 10-foot high chain link fence to surround the storage area. Currently, there appears to be a 6-foot high fence on site. The Zoning Ordinance allows for an 8-foot high fence in commercial areas, but the Planning Board has the ability to approve a higher height when it feels it is needed. Does the applicant plan to build a 10-foot fence? The plan calls for filling the site in the area of the proposed addition. The applicant plans to fill it with soil being excavated from the property to the north. The areas surrounding this fill should be seeded for stabilization and erosion control. The Planning Board may wish to include the cost of such stabilization in any bond for landscaping to ensure that the seeding is completed. The Planning Board should address any stormwater comments from the Town’s Engineer. Town Counsel has advised Planning Staff that one SEQR review be done by the Planning Board that will address this application and SP 32-2002. SEQR Status: SEQR will be reviewed as one review with SP 32-2002 Site Statistic Confirmation: Permeability remains within code requirements as a result of this Site Plan modification.” MR. HILTON-And just in summary, one of the main Staff comments concerns landscaping that was shown on the original plan, that upon inspection hasn’t been put in place and areas that were supposed to be seeded on the previous plan have not been seeded, and Staff wants to ensure that those plantings, and any additional plantings on this site, are actually done. So we’re giving the Planning Board the opportunity to request a bond be posted by the applicant in the amount to cover the landscaping, to cover the seeding and stabilization of such areas of the site that were there. We could ensure future plantings would be put in place. One other question, outstanding question, is, on a previous plan the applicant had indicated a 10 foot high chain link fence. The site currently has a six foot high fence. The Code requirements, you can go as high as eight. We’d just like the applicant to clarify how high they would actually like to go, and then any stormwater and engineering comments that might be outstanding on this site. Again, the plan calls for expanding a currently existing boat storage area with fill from a property to the north, and I think those areas will have to be seeded and stabilized as well, and stormwater management taken into consideration. Those appear to be the only outstanding issues on this site plan. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED BOATS BY GEORGE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 18 ST. RT. 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8292 SQ. FT. BOAT SHOWROOM BUILDING. COMMERCIAL BOAT SALES/STORAGE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 28-2001, SP 9-2000, SP 27- 2000, AV 40-2000, VAR. 1012, VAR. 893 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 36- 1-37.1, 37.2/288.12-1-13, 12 LOT SIZE: 0.84 AC., 1.97 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 32-2002, Boats by George, Meeting Date: June 27, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct an 8192 sq. ft. boat showroom building. Commercial Boat Storage requires Site Plan Review in the Highway Commercial Intensive (HC-Int) zone. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Boat storage buildings require Site Plan approval in this zoning district. 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? It appears that an addition of this size and type would not put an excess burden on existing 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 applicant’s plans and calculations show that the amount of parking needed by code will be provided. 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? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this Site Plan. 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 building location is compatible with the site. Building mounted lighting is proposed and meets zoning requirements. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The applicant’s plans seem to allow for adequate movement of on site traffic. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The number of parking spaces indicated satisfies zoning requirements. The location of parking spaces is not an issue with the exception of the two spaces shown on the southern end of the property (along the access drive to the rear storage lot). Parking in this area may present a difficulty to vehicles trying to access the rear lot. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian circulation does not appear to be an issue with this site plan. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report with this application. Comments from the Town’s Engineer regarding this report should be addressed during the review. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) Additional impacts on water supply and sewage disposal appear to be limited. 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 applicant has not submitted any plans for landscaping on this site. Staff suggests landscaping along the front property line as called for in Sec. 179-8-040 B of the Zoning Ordinance. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Fire lanes and emergency access zones appear to be adequate. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Flooding, erosion and stormwater management are addressed in the applicant’s stormwater management report. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 28-2001 res. 5/23/01 setback relief for a pole barn, with condition of merging two north parcels SP 27-2000 res. 5/18/00 access drive to rear storage area AV 40-2000 res. 5/17/00 permeability relief for 20 ft. wide access drive Staff comments: As a part of a previously approved Variance (AV28-2001) the applicant was required to merge the two lots that are the subject of this site plan. At this time these lots have not been merged. Staff recommends as a stipulation of any approval, that the two lots be merged prior to the issuance of a building permit for the boat storage building. The applicant’s plans show stormwater management techniques to be used during and after construction. Any comments from the Town’s Engineer should be addressed during Site Plan Review. As previously mentioned, landscaping along the street as required by the Zoning Ordinance has not been included on the plan. The plan shows some trees along the interior parking lot. These trees are existing trees that will remain on site, which satisfies Zoning requirements. Staff recommends landscaping be provided as called for in Sec. 179-8-040 B. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted; SEQR review to be combined review with the parcel to the South. Site Statistic Confirmation: Permeability at this location remains within the requirements as a result of this application, and all building setbacks appear to have been met.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, landscape architect, representing George Pensel, Boats by George. Actually George is here an he should be back in a little bit. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we dive into this modification, what’s the deal with what hasn’t been accomplished so far? MR. MILLER-Okay. Well, I just discussed that with the owner and apparently he’s been working with the Building Inspector, somebody who’s been doing an inspection on the property. When he originally had the thing constructed, the contractor didn’t do the landscaping and the seeding, and it was an oversight, and it was his understanding that he had an agreement with the Town Inspector that he could complete that planting this fall, and that was his understanding. I think now with this modification, it’s actually a good thing it wasn’t done, because now we’d be relocating it, and it would be tied in to this modification. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, do you know who, from the Town, has been up there? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. ROUND-It’s Bruce Frank, and Bruce has been in communication, and identified it last November that it hadn’t been completed, and then I think Jim’s accurate. We expected it to be done this spring, and follow up, he said if you’re proposing changes to the site, don’t do it, or do it this fall, you know, they missed kind of the best time to plant for this part of the year. We said, it might be the most appropriate to wait until the fall. So Jim’s accurate on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MILLER-I think probably the best thing to do, I mean, obviously he has a larger proposal here, is to tie them together so they’re all finished concurrently with the building. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s his willingness for a bond? MR. MILLER-He’ll be back and we can talk about that. Obviously, he would probably rather avoid it than incur the cost of the bond. MR. MAC EWAN-We originally approved this thing, two years ago. We don’t want to wait another two years, though, for everything to come into compliance with what it’s supposed to be. MR. MILLER-Okay. Well, he’ll be back and we can talk about it. This boat storage area was a landlocked property behind the Boats By George property on 149, and we had an easement from the owners of the retail property in the front, and a contract that they would build this road. So this road was built and this portion of the boat storage area was constructed. It’s fenced in. To answer George’s question, originally, we had talked about a 10 foot fence, and when it came time to put the fencing up, he decided he didn’t need a 10 foot fence and he went to a six. So my understanding is it’s going to be a six foot fence, which is less than the eight foot that’s allowed. The reason the extent of this was set the way it was, there was a high area in the middle of the site, and when we did a cut and fill calculation, that maximized the size of the storage area without bringing in additional fill material, so the existing fence ended in this area. The storm drainage was, basically what happens with any drainage here, it really collects along the side. This is the bicycle trail. It collects along the side of the bicycle trail, you know, and there’s a few culverts and some locations where it finds its way over, actually any runoff from here pretty much collects along here and infiltrates, but originally there was a proposal to put a gravel infiltration trench on the perimeter so any drainage that came off of that storage area would be collected and mitigated. The current proposal is to extend that area, long triangular piece of property, extend that area an additional, about 3400 square feet, and part of the purpose of this is the new building he’s proposing, there’s going to be some excavated material. It’s gravel material that he’s excavating, and rather than truck it off site, there’s certainly some economies to utilize it on site, and he would like to fill in this area to expand this boat storage yard, and this pretty much represents the maximum that could be, based on the shape of the property, and the proposal is to extend the stone infiltration trench around the perimeter, similar to what was originally approved, and the planting shown there is actually the planting, the same 23 trees that was in the original proposal, just relocated out further along the limits of the new work. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. MILLER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have a question, probably more directed towards Staff than the applicant. In terms of this proposal for a bond posting, do we have criteria that we’ve established as a Town, in terms of policy on this, or is this just an idea? MR. HILTON-It’s actually in the Zoning Ordinance. There’s a section that calls, or allows you to ask for a bond to cover the cost of such improvements. As far as the standards, I don’t think we have a standard. I would leave that up to. MR. SANFORD-Well, my question is, have we been consistent with this? Have we, for instance, ever requested a bond for, let’s say, the Aviation Mall, for some of the improvements that they’ve suggested? MR. ROUND-I can’t speak to that particular project, but we have, we often run into it when an applicant is facing a growing season, it’s often associated with landscaping or blacktopping when you’re running out of construction season, not able to complete an element of a site plan, we’ll ask for cash, an escrow deposit. We will ask for a letter of credit, and rely on the controller’s feedback, which he’s more comfortable receiving. The Town Board, I think the Town Board has that same authority to ask for that performance guarantee, and I don’t know if they did that in the particular instance you were speaking of, the Aviation Mall. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. RINGER-Chris, would this require any kind of permit before you can store the boats there? MR. ROUND-See, that’s the other problem, and I thought you were going to ask the question about, well, how do you enforce it. With facilities like this, there is a Certificate of Compliance, but it’s not something that you, hey, I can’t open the doors until I have this paper hanging over my doorway, or I can’t close on financing. So we don’t have the same leverage that we normally would have with another type of project. MR. RINGER-I thought if we could do something with a permit versus a bond. It would just be better, and if it doesn’t work without a building, it’s difficult. MR. MAC EWAN-It isn’t the first time we’ve entertained that kind of an idea, whether it’s been a bond or whether it’s been an escrow account. I recall we did it a few years back with Northway Plaza. We did that with them to insure that all of the landscaping was going to be put in place. MR. ROUND-The Town’s most frequent use of it is with road dedication. We won’t have the top coat of a road in, and the Highway Superintendent will require a bond, letter of credit, whatever form it comes in, for the cost of the final coat. Because we don’t want to be responsible for that cost. MR. STROUGH-Could we tie it to the CO of the building? MR. ROUND-They are, (lost words), I guess, so I think you could. MR. STROUGH-Well, possibly we could say the landscaping has to be done before a CO is? MR. RINGER-That’s what I was trying to get at, something like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t that presuming? MR. STROUGH-If we approve it, Chris. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got to deal with this one first. MR. SANFORD-Well, the only reason I brought it up was I just wanted to make sure that, you know, I felt comfortable in how we pick and choose here, and that we’re consistent in our application. MR. ROUND-Well, I think the reason we raised it, it wasn’t done with the previous approval. We wanted to ensure that it’s done with the second approval. MR. HILTON-There have been concerns raised as to why the improvements to the landscaping hasn’t been done, and this is just an option that the Planning Board has. MR. SANFORD-But I thought just a few minutes ago there was at least, you know, what I heard seemed to be a logical explanation. I mean, unless you disagree with that. MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t disagree necessarily. I just have documentation that enforcement staff has been out there and viewed the property. There have been some concerns raised. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, you’ve got your client here. What kind of assurance are we going to get that those plantings are going to be done? For the record, you are? GEORGE PENSEL MR. PENSEL-Okay. I’m George Pensel, owner of Boats By George. Boats By George owns the property, and the compliance officer did come in in the spring of this year, or earlier than that, actually last fall, or thereabouts, and there were, one of the situations was that we were doing this project at the mercy of the Factory Stores. They had to put the road in before we could do our end of the project, and the project was completed in December. So the following spring we had three feet of snow in March, and the boat business, it was very difficult that season for me to really get anything planned too well for that season. There were four issues, the fence hadn’t been put in yet. The apron at the base of the asphalt driveway. The hydro seeding had not been completed, and the planting, and we responded to the Town on all four issues, gave them a timetable when all those issues would be completed, and have followed that schedule right to the tee at the, with the blessing of the Town Inspector. We put in the apron. We’ve got the fencing completed. It was at the Town’s blessing that I reduced the height of the fence to six feet as well. I didn’t make that change without the approval of the Inspector. The timetable, I was told the best time to plant was in the fall, and the Inspector had agreed that this fall would be okay for the planting of the trees, and then the rest of hydro- seeding I was told did not need to be done because the native species had taken over well in that area. It was 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) in the contract to be done, completed by the excavator, and of course he couldn’t do that in December, and didn’t arrive in the spring to do that work. So I wasn’t even aware of it. So I followed the schedule as presented to the Town, and have every intention of doing the plan as soon as this project is complete. Depending on the timetable of construction, that may delay the planting until spring because, depending on when this excavation work is completed, at the lower section of my property. MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re now moving from the fall to potentially the spring of next year. MR. PENSEL-Only if construction takes place in the winter months. It just depends on the timetable of the project, but the first planting season upon completion of the excavation would be when those plants go in, the spring or fall. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, are we treating Boats By George in two different topics, or are we combining them? MR. MAC EWAN-No, they’re two different actions. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, but not for purposes of SEQRA review, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s true. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the Staff notes indicate, and I think appropriately so, that the actions are being treated together for the purposes of SEQRA review. So that means that if you all want to move forward on this application, you’ve got to make your SEQRA determination based on “the entire action” meaning both component pieces, and the applicant and the applicant’s agent have both described ways in which the two are somewhat, somewhat interrelated. For example, you just heard that, as I understood it, the planting won’t be implemented until and unless, and I think one of the Board members mentioned this as a concern, won’t be implemented until and unless, at least according to the applicant’s preferred scenario, won’t be implemented until and unless certain construction activities occur on the other components of the project. So there’s two issues here. One is make sure you review both together for the purposes of SEQRA compliance, and the second one is, if I understood the applicant’s most recent statement, that would raise the issue of, if for some reason that construction never occurs, the planting will never occur, under the applicant’s preferred scenario. So you should keep that in mind as you review the application, I think. MR. SANFORD-Can we do both of them if we want to? MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re going to have to. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well then the only other question I have, I guess it’s still with me, is, and again, as I’m reading through, there were, C.T. Male had some concerns on June 21, and my understanding is, and I just would like Chris or his Staff to respond to that, those concerns seem to be signed off by and satisfied? MR. MILLER-Those concerns are for the other project, not the modification. MR. SANFORD-Yes, we’re grouping them, I think, at this point. MR. MILLER-Okay. Yes, they have been signed off on. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim? MR. EDWARDS-For the expansion, yes, they were signed off on. I’m not sure what the day was, either today or yesterday. We put a quick letter together, yes, he faxed over excerpts of the plans showing corrections to the plans, and we have signed off on those changes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. STROUGH-To the modification? MR. EDWARDS-To the modification of Boats By George. MR. STROUGH-I thought they were talking about the expansion. What I wanted to know about is the modification of the extension of the boat storage unit. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. EDWARDS-The expansion of it, correct, yes, I’m sorry, not the modification. MR. STROUGH-Right. So that’s why I asked about the modification. There’s been no signoff on stormwater there? MR. MILLER-We didn’t receive any comments. MR. STROUGH-No comments? Well, that was a legitimate question. MR. MILLER-I was hoping there wasn’t some out there I didn’t see. MR. HILTON-Because they are using fill from the other site, that they’re excavating to, well, they’re using excavation from the other site to fill this site, I threw that in there. There are no comments from C.T. Male on this particular application. MR. SANFORD-I’m all done. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, so long as we’re mixing this, I do have a question. The applicant has not complied with Area Variance 28-2001, and that Area Variance talks about and requires the merger of the two lots. If Area Variance does not exist, then the Staff, you know, I don’t know whether we’ve got, where we’re going with this. If they haven’t complied with an Area Variance by the fact that they haven’t done something, then we don’t have an Area Variance approval. It seems to me. MR. PENSEL-The two lots are merged. MR. VOLLARO-The two lots are merged? MR. PENSEL-Yes. They’ve been merged. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not what I got in my Staff notes. MR. PENSEL-They’re merged. MR. VOLLARO-That the lots were not merged. MR. HILTON-Based on our most recent tax map information from Warren County, the lots were indicated as two. If the applicant says they’re merged, then we have to. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t necessarily have to accept that. MR. HILTON-No, no, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying our information indicates it’s still two lots. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Our information says it’s two lots, then the burden is on the applicant, I believe, to prove to us that there’s only one lot. I haven’t seen that yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Pensel, when did you merge the lots? MR. MILLER-When was it filed? MR. PENSEL-Months ago. MR. MAC EWAN-You filed it with the County? MR. PENSEL-It was filed with the County. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have some sort of documentation from the County you can supply us? MR. PENSEL-I do. Not with me. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I understand that. MR. PENSEL-I do have documentation we have done all that work. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PENSEL-We have a map showing it as one and I believe my tax bill indicates it as one. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. SCHACHNER-Staff notes also recommend that, as a condition of approval, if you like, although I don’t see it in your proposed resolution, but that’s perfectly appropriate. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m writing up here. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s perfectly appropriate. MR. ROUND-There’s a lag time between the Assessor’s getting the two. So everything that we’ve said probably is true on both sides of the table here, and usually it’s the taxable status day is like March 1 of the st year. So some of those corrections don’t get posted until March 1 of each calendar year. st MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s duly noted. On the fence, I know that the Code on our fencing is eight feet. You’ve got an existing six foot fence, and then we approved ten foot fence. So, I’m not sure where we’re going on the fence height. We have a Code that says we need an eight foot fence. So if you’re going. MR. RINGER-The Code says you can go up to eight foot. MR. VOLLARO-Up to eight feet. Okay. All right. On 5/18/02, we did a motion to approve Site Plan No. 28-2000 for Boats By George, with the stipulation that an archeologist review the site before the excavation is started, and then a written report be forwarded to the Planning Staff, and that if necessary the archeologist be involved during the excavation. Was such a thing forwarded to the Planning Staff do we know? MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall it was a Level One review. Is that the terminology you use, Level One? Phase I. MR. MILLER-That was completed. MR. HILTON-Phase IA. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen that. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember back at the application time. MR. MILLER-That was completed back when we went through the application. As a matter of fact, if I’m not mistaken, I believe it was completed before the project was approved. The project was tabled because the Town Historian had raised a concern, and then an archeologist was retained that did the investigation on the site. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just a question. It was included with the packet, and I thought I would just make sure that that was done. MR. MILLER-I didn’t think that was going to come up again, so I didn’t bring my old file. MR. VOLLARO-When I reviewed this, you know, looking at all the things that hadn’t been done, I can tell you what I wrote on this note, and I said I would propose that this site be brought into compliance per the original site plan prior to considering this modification. I may back off on that, based on what I’ve heard, but there’s an awful lot of things that haven’t been done over a long period of time, and that sometimes concerns me that, because I was going to recommend that this particular modification be tabled, and if it did, it probably would have affected the other one as well, and I’ll still hold up my feeling on that, but I wanted you to know where I was coming from on that one. MR. MILLER-I believe of the issues, we’ve talked about, the outstanding one is the planting. Is that correct? I mean, the merger and the archeologist, all these things have been completed. MR. MAC EWAN-Just supply some sort of documentation that those two parcels are merged as well. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I guess I’m a little bit hesitant to go forward into the site plan itself, here, with questions. I’d like to ask Mr. Round that question. I’ve completed my discussion on the modification program. Should we go forward and talk about? MR. ROUND-Yes, I think it’s appropriate. I think you need to resolve any questions that you have on this particular application, and perform your SEQRA review, and then come back and entertain each of the motions. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I haven’t seen a landscaping plan or a lighting plan. I see only one light, I have to go back into this second, the site plan and drop that over, but I’ve only been able to locate one light on this site. MR. MILLER-Well, if you look at drawing SP-1, there is one existing light at the main entry, but as far as the new building, it’s, this facility is accessed from the other building either by an outside walkway here or from 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) the inside. This, basically what George is looking to do is this entire side of the property is a gravel storage area for new boats. So he basically takes customers through that yard to show the boats. All he’s doing is building a building to enclose those boats. It’s the same function that happens there. Now the intent is that all customers will come through the main entry to the existing building into where the office and the sales area is, and then after talking to a sales person, they would access this area, and it would still be some outside storage. So there’s really no lighting proposed. If you can see, what we’ve shown, you can see the lighting overlay on that drawing, those are just building mounted perimeter lights, cutoff lights along the building, just for security, and this will not be open at night, and you’ll also notice that one of the, we have a second driveway here, that that driveway will be closed off, because he doesn’t want customers coming in this way. He wants everybody to come to the existing driveway, the way they do now, and this whole property is just for boat storage. So the lighting is very minimum, and the other thing you mentioned was a landscaping. Obviously having a lot of trees around in a boatyard is not a favorable thing, if you’ve ever had to clean boats, but one of the comments we received from C.T. Male was that they felt that some landscaping along the front of the building should be considered, and we discussed it. This is not a parking area in front. This is going to be storage of new boats, but what we’ve added to the plan was some landscaping along that side of the boat storage area of a height that would be two to four feet, and the intent was that would sort of screen some of the paving. It would screen some of the trailers, a boat sitting on a trailer or if it’s sitting on a cradle, it would screen that, but the new boats would still be visible, which is what he’s trying to do, sell boats. So we did add some landscaping along the front of that property there, at the recommendation of Jim Houston. Right now, there’s a fairly heavy row of evergreens that separates this property from the Log Jam property and the parking lots to the side, and all those would remain. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I saw Mr. Houston’s comments about planting. I assume those plantings are going to take place in that area that’s classified as lawn? MR. PENSEL-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where it would be? MR. PENSEL-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I just have a couple of questions as we go along here. What is the significance of the well in the middle of that parking lot there? MR. MILLER-That well provides water the existing building. So that would continue and continue to function. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is that well cap that’s in the lot? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s sticking up in the lot? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Now on the driveway of the 16 foot drive that’s on the, I guess it’s the western side of this proposed boat storage building, do you have any intentions of expanding that drive? Because the way it is now, and that’s sort of brought up in some of the documentation that I’ve read, the first two parking lots, parking spaces that are to the south, or, is it to the south? It’s to the south, yes. If that driveway was widened some, it would certainly take the burden off people that are parking in those two lots to try to, you know, there’s a place for traffic to interface with one another at that point. MR. MILLER-That driveway is very limited use. As a matter of fact, one of Jim Houston’s comments was to think about widening that, the only reason that driveway is used, if they’re taking boats up to the front storage area or removing them or for some reason some boats are delivered and they come through that driveway, so there’d be very few cars on that. The parking in the back is for employees. They all come in through the main driveway on the east side of the property and around the building and park in there. So that driveway on the west side there is just for moving boats in and out of the building and into the storage areas. There won’t be any cars up in that area. MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t think it would be advantageous to take it from 16 feet to something else? MR. MILLER-Well, I was trying not to disturb that tree row that was along the side there, and, you know, I felt with grading for that road, that, you know, the 16 would be adequate. If there was an instance a car was coming out of there, you know, somebody could pass, two could pass there, but it’s not likely that’s going to happen. That’s basically a service drive, just to move boats around. MR. VOLLARO-I guess that’s kind of in response to your own question. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. EDWARDS-That’s exactly the comment we had is what’s the proposed use of that driveway, and it’s not really wide enough for two way traffic, but if it’s not going to have two way traffic on it very often, then it’s not really an issue. MR. VOLLARO-As far as the gated area is concerned, I think C.T. Male also recommended that that gated area be moved back off Route 149, so that there was more room there. MR. MILLER-Yes, we did it. We moved it back. It would be 25 feet off of the travel lane on 149. So that if someone pulled in and the gate was locked, they could pull off the road, unlock the gate and get in. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So that will be moved back to how many feet? MR. MILLER-Twenty-five feet. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-five feet. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Off the edge of the right of way to 149? MR. MILLER-From the travel lane, the solid white line. It showed, and we’ve revised the plan, and that was the excerpts that were faxed down to C.T. Male, but it’s been revised on the plan that we submitted. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have a question on the, and I suspect this’ll go over to, let’s see if I’ve got it here. I’m going to be going into the stormwater management plan, I guess, Tom, did you, are you ready to chat on that for just a second? I think this may be just an error in placement, and that the other areas of the stormwater management plan will not be affected, but I just wanted to make sure. I’m going to draw your attention to sub-catchment number four. TOM NACE MR. NACE-I’ll have to look at a copy. MR. VOLLARO-Now in the description it talks that sub-catchment number four is to the west side of the building, and to discharge into that discharge area that’s there, that also has a pond at the end of it. You have it on the north side of the building whereas the documentation talks about being on the west side of the building. MR. NACE-I have it on the north side? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Existing building. MR. NACE-Okay. That. MR. VOLLARO-It looks like it’s just misplaced, Tom, because, you know, the rest of the. MR. NACE-Sub-catchment Four, west half of existing building roof, and that is, okay, it’s on the west side of the existing building roof. It’s the west side of the peak of the existing building roof. MR. VOLLARO-I thought you were talking about it being over on the west side of the building itself. MR. NACE-No, no, this is the west half of existing building roof. MR. VOLLARO-Is that dotted line indicating? MR. NACE-The division in the sub-catchments, yes. So that’s the ridge line of the building. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the ridge of the building, okay. It’s a question of play on words, because it says Sub- catchment Four is in the west side of the existing sales building in the site area between the existing and proposed buildings. MR. NACE-Go blame, Miller, he wrote that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and if that’s where you want it, then it doesn’t affect anything in your stormwater plan at all. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So much for the co-op. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. VOLLARO-I do not think I have any further comments on this, Mr. Chairman. I think I’m finished with my comments on this site plan. MR. HILTON-Briefly, just to address your archeological concern. There’s a letter in the previous file dated July 4, 2000, from an Edward Curtain, Senior Archeologist, who says he did some test pits in that area and found a clam shell and a bone, and that he deemed it not archeologically sensitive. MR. VOLLARO-Makes sense to me. Thank you, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Bob was very thorough. Did we get updates, I mean, we didn’t get updates, but, and obviously updates to this site plan exist. What are the dates? MR. MILLER-What are the dates? June 26. There should be, if you got copies of our response, we’ve th copied eight and a half by eleven on one of them the changes and attached our letter to C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s hard to review things the night of a meeting when they’re put on the table at seven o’clock. MR. MILLER-You just got it. MR. MAC EWAN-A bone of contention of mine. MR. STROUGH-Has the modification, Site Plan 28-2000, has that, SP-1 been upgraded? MR. MILLER-No, there’s been no revisions to that. We’ve had no comments. MR. STROUGH-Well just the height of the fence on here, it’s noted as 10 feet. We’ll have to change that. MR. MILLER-Well, that’s my mistake, because you know what I did, I used the original drawings, and I didn’t realize the fence was six. So I’ll have to change that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s all I needed to know. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Site plan, too? MR. STROUGH-Yes, with Bob here. MR. MAC EWAN-You guys are a one-two punch down there. I’ll tell you. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I really don’t have anything. I guess my only concern is more directed at Staff, as to why you’re stressing a bond in an area that the normal person would never, ever know is there. The biggest controversy that this project originally had had to do with the bike trail, and if you’re on the bike trail, you don’t even know that the bikes are there, and unless you are on the Queensbury Planning Board and you have to go visit the site to view the project, you wouldn’t even know that the boat storage area existed in the back. So I guess I’m questioning why it’s so important to follow through with those. MR. ROUND-Tony, I think it’s been the direction of the Planning Board that you want to make sure that the site plans are adhered to. We have a Staff person that that’s their primary role is to make sure that site plan conditions are adhered to. If they haven’t been, then we recommend, you know, we said it’s something that you can choose to include or not. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. ROUND-We’ve been criticized by the public for not having, and criticized by the Planning Board for not having made sure that these things happen. So we’re just trying to exercise due diligence. MR. METIVIER-And I understand that, but are there issues with it, without it being completed? MR. ROUND-No. There’s been a lot of talk about this particular element, which has really only been, I think Mr. Pensel’s correctly characterized it. It’s been very minimal. We just, we want to bring it to the table, make sure you deal with it. Do I think there needs to be landscaping out there? I think, you know, you folks did in your original approval. So we were just making sure that it was put in. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. METIVIER-Okay. I guess my only point, is there, without the original site plan, are there problems with this site as far as stormwater management or anything like that? MR. ROUND-We haven’t observed anything other than the construction activities that haven’t taken place. There haven’t been any other complaints there. MR. METIVIER-I’m not criticizing. That’s not my point at all. I’m just, you know, if there were other. MR. ROUND-No, there’s not. We did indicate, you know, one of the first things we looked at, any time you have a disturbed site, soil and erosion control measures and seeding as soon as possible after construction. That was a concern up front, and it wasn’t addressed in as timely a manner as we would have liked, but native species did take over and have stabilized the site. So that’s our Number One concern as it relates to stormwater. Beyond that, there haven’t been any complaints about the property or negative impacts as a result of the failure of the construction activities being completed. MR. METIVIER-And don’t think I’m. MR. ROUND-No. I just want to make sure, I want everybody else to hear it, too. It’s not just for you. MR. METIVIER-Overall, I mean, I think the storage facility itself looks good. I mean, you did a nice job, the road and everything , the guardrail, it really does look great, and as far as the building, you know, it’s an improvement. If you’ve noticed over the years, I think that Boats By George has done a tremendous job on the facing of the existing building out front. It’s been very positive. It’s something that belongs in Cape Cod. Overall I think it’s a good project. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-If we were satisfied that the native species of grasses were providing the stormwater detention, if the native grasses are providing the erosion controls that were hoped for, would we need to change the approved site plan? MR. ROUND-Contrary to popular belief, our field enforcement staff do exercise discretion when it comes to what’s taking place. I mean, there is some latitude that we do have. Our concern, and I think the Planning Board’s concern, is erosion control, and in this instance, it’s not aesthetics, you know. If this was some wild weeds that were growing out in front of a commercial facility that had high visibility, then you might want to address it. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to make sure that that was the intent of the resolution two years ago, because I wasn’t here. MR. ROUND-Not a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-While we’re talking about the landscaping, though, none of us on the Board got a copy of the proposal for the lawn area along 149. I can see from here that there’s something there on the map, but we don’t know what those details are. MR. MILLER-What we’ve indicated is we’ve tried to do two groupings with some taller shrubs and some lower shrubs, where we have nine barberry and along the front of the barberry there’s 26 junipers. So we’re looking to get a couple of different heights there that would landscape down the front, and these are shrubs that would, you know, the junipers may be two feet tall and the barberry will probably get to be at least four foot. So we’ve shown there a total of 35 plants in front. MR. METIVIER-Are those plants salt tolerant? MR. MILLER-Yes. I also think that we’re up higher than 149 and we’re set back enough that that’s not going to be a problem and they don’t use any salt up in that display area. I think we’re up, you know, the road’s dropping down there. So that planting’s actually up on the bank. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to, the lower lot where the trees were shown on the original site plan, I assume that the intent was to further screen the boat storage area from the bike trail. Okay. I mean, we should see that completed, and there was discussion earlier about, you know, making the Certificate of Occupancy contingent on that being completed, but I agree with Tony’s comment as well. The lower storage area, I mean, I never knew it was back there. I’ve been on the bike trail a bunch of times, and we were all quite surprised when we actually saw it from up above, you know, how nice it looked, the guardrails and everything. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Chris? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. HUNSINGER-The only other question I had was on the Staff comments on adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities, the stone lined trench and disturbed areas, in addressing comments from the Town’s Engineer, but I didn’t see any comments from the Town’s Engineer on the lower site plan. MR. HILTON-Again, I made that comment based on the fact that the stormwater report mentioned that fill was going to go from the north property to the south property. If there were any concerns, that was in the memo that was actually handed to the Town’s Engineer for review of the stormwater management plan, on the north property. I’m just simply saying if there are any comments, you should address them, and it appears there are none. MR. MILLER-At the time we got the original approval, that was reviewed by the engineers, I can’t remember if it was C.T. Male at the time or not, and, you know, so all we did was extend the same storm drainage design that was approved. As a matter of fact, proportionally, we installed more. MR. HUNSINGER-See, again, not having been part of the review two years ago, I wouldn’t have known that. So that’s why I asked the question. I didn’t have anything else, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? Staff? I’ll open 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. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now this SEQRA will cover both proposals, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There were two SEQRA forms submitted, but one was against the Type II. So I think we just do one. MR. SCHACHNER-You should do one form, but the review, as John points out, should be for both the proposed modification and the proposed expansion. MR. RINGER-Mark, why can’t we, since this is a modification, why can’t we just say that the modification has no change in the SEQRA determination from the previous approval? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the answer to that, Larry, is because, if I’m understanding it correctly, there are some interrelationships between the modification and the expansion. MR. ROUND-The original SEQRA review did include both the projects previously, too, that’s why. MR. RINGER-I don’t see any problem with doing them both. The only combination is bringing the fill from up above and putting it in the bottom. MR. SCHACHNER-And the applicant’s contention that the planting won’t happen unless the expansion happens. MR. RINGER-I don’t think he said that. Mark, I thought he said that, if the, a project building isn’t approved, he’s still going to have to do the planting from the previous site approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That wasn’t my understanding. My understanding was the applicant’s preference was not to do it until the first construction season after the expansion is done. Maybe I misunderstood. MR. MILLER-No. I think we were anticipating. MR. RINGER-If he doesn’t get expansion approval, then he’s got to go back to the. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. You need to make that clear. That was my concern. Okay. MR. MILLER-Yes. Our anticipation was we’d get approved, then the approval would affect the planting. We were being optimistic. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Do the SEQRA. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. STROUGH-Okay. This is environmental assessment for Site Plan Review No. 28-2000 and for Site Plan Review No. 32-2002. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 28-2000 & 32-2002, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BOATS BY GEORGE, 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 27 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please, for the modification. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 28-2000 BOATS BY GEORGE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 28-2000 Applicant: Boats By George Type II Property Owner: Same Agent: James Miller, Miller Associates MODIFICATION Zone: HC-Int. Location: 18 St. Rt. 149, Rt. 9 to 149, turn right, site is on right Applicant proposes the addition of 3,380 sq. ft. of graveled boat storage area. Cross Reference: AV 28-2001, SP 9-2000, SP 27-2000, AV 40- 2000, Var. 1012, Var. 893 Warren Co. Planning: 6/12/02 Tax Map No. 36-1-34.1 / 288.12-1-18 Lot size: 1.52 ac. / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: Not scheduled for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/29/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/02; and 6/27 Staff Notes 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) 6/20 Notice of Public Hearing 6/12 Warren Co. Planning 6/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June27, 2002; 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 We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution as it’s been prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the chain link fence will be changed to six foot on Site Plan No. SP-1, and 2. 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 6/27/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 2002, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-I intend to add some comments to the site plan that I will not add to this resolution. MR. STROUGH-Do you want to talk about this first? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. What’s the Board’s pleasure in dealing with the plantings in reference to the modification? MR. STROUGH-Here’s what I have. Not for this one, but I’m thinking about conditioning the next one. Landscaping plans depicted in Plan SP-1 for Modification SP 28-2000, and for Site Plan 32-2002 will be completed prior to the issuance of a CO for site plan 32-2002. MR. RINGER-That’s depending on the season. He might not be able to do that. I don’t know why we’ve got to condition it, because he’s got it on the plan, and if he doesn’t get it completed within a reasonable time, Staff can file papers and make him do it. MR. VOLLARO-I think so long as we condition it on drawing dated June 2002, which is the drawing that’s up there, that identifies the plantings. Is that what you’re saying, Larry? MR. RINGER-It’s in the plans. The trees are in the plan, even the modification. He’s got the trees in there. So he’s got to comply with them. MR. STROUGH-The only reason why I mention that, Larry, is because. MR. RINGER-He hasn’t done it. So Staff, after he gets the building built, assuming he gets approval on the building, then Staff can go back, when they do their inspection, and say, put the trees in. If they don’t put the trees in, they’re in violation of the approval of this modification. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s true, but I think the Staff’s position, and Staff can correct me if I’m misspeaking here, but I think the Staff’s position is that, given the history of the project, that the issue that the Staff does not want to be put into is, what’s the reasonable time you made reference to, and I think Staff’s preference would be to see a specific time, in some fashion, so that there’s no gray area on this, because once the expansion is complete, the modification is complete, business is going on and things happen, it’s very difficult for Staff to then enforce a condition that just has a notion of reasonable timeframe. MR. MAC EWAN-And additionally, too, by doing what John’s suggesting alleviates the potential, down the road, of having to do an enforcement action, which is a court action, and I think this is the better way to go. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s kind of what Staff’s getting at in its view, I think. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, can we ask the applicant if they’ll commit to a date that we can put in the resolution? MR. MILLER-Well, the one concern that George mentioned was, when we’re dealing with planting, we’re talking about a certain season, and if his building was finished in December. MR. SANFORD-Give an outside date. MR. PENSEL-The outside date would be Spring 2003. MR SANFORD-Does everybody feel comfortable with that? MR. RINGER-It would work for me. MR. MILLER-That’s probably the most reasonable time. MR. MAC EWAN-Past history sitting on this Board, no disrespect to the applicant, is that I would prefer to tie it to a CO. It ensures that it’s going to get done. If something happens that you build your building and it becomes too late in the planting season, you can always come back to us and ask for a modification to the approved site plan to get your CO, and then we could come up with a date at that point. I would prefer, at this time, just to leave it as is. I think that’s the best way to go. MR. RINGER-When would you expect, assuming you got approval on your building tonight, when would you expect the building to be completed? MR. PENSEL-I know how these things go. I’m full force forward, but I know how contractors are hard to get right now and we’re still in the bidding process. MR. RINGER-Give me a ballpark. MR. PENSEL-Well, my anticipation would be to break ground in July. MR. RINGER-And have the building completed? MR. PENSEL-The building completed in September. MR. RINGER-March would be a long ways away. I was thinking he wouldn’t complete the darn thing. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d prefer to go that route, though. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, when you say leave it as it is, you mean with the proposed condition tied to the Certificate of Occupancy. MR. MAC EWAN-As brought to the table. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And the only other question I have is, are you going to include, at some point, a proposed condition that requires the applicant to demonstrate that the merger’s been accomplished? MR. VOLLARO-I was going to do that in the next, or somebody’s going to do it in the. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t care when. I just wanted to point that out. MR. VOLLARO-Because of the mix here, it’s very difficult to determine what conditions you put into which motion. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. VOLLARO-But this motion ought to contain the condition that, because it has to do with the plantings, I guess it ought to be the motion that Mr. Strough’s put together. MR. STROUGH-The only one for this, would be. MR. HUNSINGER-The other item that John brought up earlier was relabeling the plot to show a six foot fence as opposed to a ten foot fence. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s got to come into this one. MR. MAC EWAN-Add it to it. Let’s get it going. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. John, you do the next one. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2002 BOATS BY GEORGE, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following, Site Plan Review No. 32-2002 Applicant: Boats By George Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: James Miller, Miller Associates Zone: HC-Int. Location: 18 St. Rt. 149 Applicant proposes construction of an 8292 sq. ft. boat showroom building. Commercial Boat Sales/Storage requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 28-2001, SP 9-2000, SP 27-2000, AV 40- 2000, Var. 1012, Var. 893 Warren Co. Planning: 6/12/02 Tax Map No. 36-1-37.1, 37.2 / 288.12-1-13, 12 Lot size: 0.84 ac., 1.97 ac. / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: June 27, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/29/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/02; and 6/27 Staff Notes 6/21 CT Male engineering comments 6/20 Notice of Public Hearing 6/12 Warren Co. Planning: NCI w/stipulation 6/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9, Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 27th, 2002; 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. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The landscaping plan depicted in SP-1 for modification Site Plan 28-2000 and Site Plan 32- 2002, updated June 26, 2002 will be completed prior to an issuance of a CO for Site Plan 32- 2002, and 2. Documentation showing the merging of both lots will be submitted to the Town prior to the Planning Board’s signature of the plat [Zoning Administrator’s signature], 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 6/27/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 2002, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I’m the only one who’s confused, but if that’s the proposed motion, if you were to adopt that motion, if he decides, for whatever reason, if the applicant decides, for whatever reason, not to go forward with expansion, you know, he’s not obligated to. He has the authorization, but he’s not obligated to, what makes the planting plan happen? MR. RINGER-The fact that he’s got it on the modification. When we approved the first modification, it included that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, but it’s not tied to the condition. The condition only kicks in if he goes forward and wants a CO. MR. RINGER-But he’d have to comply with the site plan, and the trees are in there. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Fair answer. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. MILLER-Thank you very much. MR. PENSEL-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, TOM NACE, JAMES MILLER ZONE: PO LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 33,920 SQ. FT. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 9-00, SP 13-01, SP 19-01, SP 24-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-24/60-2-4 LOT SIZE: 82.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 33-2002, Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., Meeting Date: June 27, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 33,920 sf Medical Office building and associated site work. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) Staff review and comments are based on consideration of the criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-10 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. The following general standards were considered during the staff review of this project. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed site design offers the building and all parking areas to be constructed at least 75 feet from Bay Road. The building elevation has been revised from the original proposal. The new elevation offers a change in the roofline in the center of the building. The proposed lighting appears to be consistent with the lighting scheme approved for the Day Care Center immediately across the subdivision road. The proposed elevation offers the majority of the signage on the “back” side of the building. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The project plans depict 120 parking spaces. The proposed plan is required to provide 113 spaces. The layout appears to offer segregated parking areas for employees at the ends of the building and patient parking in the middle, nearer the main entrance. Information regarding overall traffic impacts on Bay Road has not been identified. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Sidewalks are proposed immediately adjacent to the building near the center parking areas. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. CT Male has reviewed this item, please see comments. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The project is to be serviced by municipal water. Municipal sewers may be available, if the proposed sewer district extension is complete. 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 project plan offers a moderate landscaping plan. Additional plantings in the lawn area to the west of the proposed building may be considered. The plans call for the three existing Spruce trees along Bay Road to be maintained. Staff recommends maintenance of as many existing trees as practical. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The proposed plan offers two direct entrances to the site and significant access from Bay Road. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Please see CT Male comments. Conformance with the applicable design guidelines, landscaping standards and performance standards. The plan appears to be compliant with the design guidelines, landscaping and performance standards applicable to this project. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. This project is proposed on three lots within the subdivision. Staff comments: The proposed project appears to offer a building, associated parking, grading, landscaping and lighting that is consistent with the guidelines and performance standards envisioned for this corridor. The daycare center immediately across the subdivision road from this project offered similar cut off style lighting for the parking areas. However, the ornamental light fixtures were installed instead. Staff recommends clarification of the 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) discrepancy. As identified in previous applications, the sanitary sewer for this development is necessary prior to any further development. Staff recommends limiting development until sewers are formalized, i.e. sewer district extension/creation is completed. Further, the subdivision was most recently modified to relocate the Phase I/Phase II line. The applicant will need to either modify the subdivision phasing again or complete construction of the subdivision road and infrastructure as part of this project. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. ROUND-We have worked closely with the applicant for conformance with the Bay Road design guidelines, and just as an aside, this is a new process for us all, and we think we’ve, the applicant, I think, has, and his agents have a pretty good understanding of what the design guidelines entail. I think they’ve done a very good job to bring a project forward that conforms with those guidelines. We’ve provided some input on building architecture because that’s something that’s very subjective. I know Mr. Schermerhorn didn’t react most favorably when we offered some suggestions, but I think he did make some modifications, and just so you know that this does reflect a modification to their original proposal that’s already been in, and it’s often the case that, for everybody’s benefit, that we work very closely with all our applicants. We try to maintain good working relationships with everybody. There was a comment that came back to me about whether we were advocating for an applicant or not advocating for an applicant. It’s important for Planning Staff to have the respect of the applicants and vice versa, and I just want to throw that on the table. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s understood you people serve a dual role. You not only serve the pleasure of the Planning Board, but you serve the pleasure of the public in helping them with their applications. MR. ROUND-Right. This particular project, I’m going to cut to the chase. It is a pretty significant project, too, and so we hold this in, this is a very important project, from the perspective that the building that’s gone in, the daycare facility, it has to be consistent with some of the architectural elements of that. It’s really setting the tone for Bay Road. We’re very focused on Bay Road, as well as Main Street, and Quaker Road and Route 9 corridors, because they are gateways to the community. So we are paying particular attention to that. There are, I’ll just try to bullet some of the comments that we’ve made. The lighting plan, we have identified that the lighting plan is in compliance from a luminary or a lumination level. There was some concerns of whether the fixtures that are proposed are going to be the ones installed, because on an adjacent site they identified I think a shoebox or a cut off fixture, and they put in ornamental architectural lighting which, personally, we like it as a Staff, and they’ve identified the same kind of cutoff fixtures, and I’ve had a conversation, and the applicant will tell you, I think they’ve proposed to put in architectural style lighting, commonly known as acorn fixture. They have adequate parking facilities. There are sidewalks to facilitate pedestrian movement from parking into the office facilities. I’ll let the engineer comment on the stormwater drainage, and water supply, but water supply, there is a proposal for connection to the municipal water system. One of the big, open-ended questions is are municipal, whether the facility’s going to be tied into a proposed municipal facility extension, whether they’re going to propose on-site or a contract, be a contract user with an existing Hiland Park sewer district. I think the applicant’s going to be able to answer that tonight. Landscaping, again, another subjective area. They provide a pretty significant landscaping plan. We asked them for some modification. They are screening, we’re sensitive to the, some of the parking areas are visible from Bay Road, and one of our ideas is to screen that as much as possible. They’ve provided some screening elements for the landscaping plan. Access, this subdivision, and I think we’ve noted on traffic, the original subdivision proposal analyzed traffic impacts and analysis. All the access points are internalized, meaning there’s no driveways onto Bay Road. That’s going to help us maintain the integrity of the Bay Road capacity. I think we’ve touched on everything that we want to bring to you at this point. Jim Edwards does have some engineering comments, and I think the applicant’s been trying to be responsive to those elements and we’ll hand it back over to the applicant, in this case. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, with and on behalf of, Rich Schermerhorn, Jim Miller, Tom Nace, and Doug Auer, who has been working with both Rich and the Baybridge Homeowners’ Association to facilitate the new sewer district creation for the Bay Road corridor. I’d just like to make a couple of preliminary comments and then turn it over to Jim to walk you through the site plan. We’ve been here, of course, a number of times to look at the subdivision and to look at the first project in the subdivision that Rich built, the daycare center. This project on what was originally designed as three lots now to be combined into one lot is certainly the centerpiece of this development, because it’s the prominent frontage on Bay Road. Rich has worked, himself, with Chris and his Staff, and Rich has worked on the design to meet the design standards, and he’s real pleased and proud of what he’s come up with four a two story building. The 34,000 square foot building is a significant size office building for the Town. We expect that it’s going to really be a draw for that park, to make it a successful office park and a medical office park, or probably much of it will be medical offices, and design is real important here to attracting tenants to the rest of the site. So this is a big deal for Rich, in terms of how this building looks. He already has tenants for the whole building, and it’s already been announced by the Hospital that they’re going to be the main tenant for two-thirds of this 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) space. This is the first time that the Hospital has done something outside of Glens Falls, to do a medical building. So that’s significant for the Town as well. The only thing unusual about this application is that the sewer, the extension of the sewer district has not yet been finalized. We’ve been working with Mike Shaw and the Town Board. This all started before Rich bought the property. The Baybridge Homeowners Association has been under a consent order because they had a failing septic system, and when we got involved in this and Tom Nace took a hard look at the sewer line that had been designed already, it was determined that in order for the new sewer district to serve both Rich’s project as well as Baybridge and other users on the Bay Road corridor, the pump station had to be at the lowest spot, so that everything would gravity feed to that spot, and that’s how this has been designed. Tom Nace, working with Mike Shaw, is ready to finalize a map plan and report and get to the Town Board to form the sewer district. Everyone’s anxious for that to happen. We expect, in a couple of weeks, it’ll be submitted to the Town Board and we’ll start that process. At the same time, we’re here asking for an approval that would be contingent on either the extension of the sewer district, the formation of the new district, or, Rich has the option, temporarily, of being a contract user on the existing Quaker Road district and putting his own line in, down to the Stewarts where the line ends now. If he did that, it would be designed so that it would have the capacity and the design to be the main trunk line for the new district. He would only do that as a way of jumpstarting this so that he can get his building permit. He would just temporarily ask to be a contract user, with the understanding that the process is going to immediately go forward so that the district will be formed, and that’s what the Town is looking for and that’s what Rich and his consultants have been trying to facilitate. So it’s about an eight month process to build this large building, and he’d like to get going, and the sewer line has to be in before the building can be, a CO can be issued. So that’s the only thing at all unique about this, and I’ll turn it over to Jim to walk you through the site plan. MR. MILLER-Thank you. As Jon had mentioned, this was three lots. This is the Willowbrook Drive, the southerly drive into the, it goes in and it loops around. This is a northerly road that’s going to come in to the development, and the original subdivision, there was three lots in this area, which all three are being combined for this project. The proposed building, two story building, the main entry is on the side away from Bay Road. Bay Road’s on the top of the drawing, where it would be a covered drop off area at the main entrance where the main lobby would be, but there’s also entrances to the ends, where there’s stair towers and entries into the building that could be used for employee entrances and exits. There was also, as part of the hearing lab, there’s a drive through where patients can come in and utilize the drive through window for hearing aid equipment and supplies. The building is located close to the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback on Bay Road. We’ve got wetlands to the north of the property, and along the stream. So we’ve propose access. There would be no access off Bay Road. Access would be from the new road. This is the driveway, now, that serves the daycare center which is to the south. We’d have two driveways, one across from the daycare center and one further to the east, and what we tried to do with the fairly large parking lot was to try to break it up in components where we could landscape it and basically treat it like three smaller lots instead of one large parking lot, and the intent was that we would have an entrance, you know, the primary patient lot would be in the center by the main door, where we would use the second driveway, and that would be signed accordingly. There’d be a driveway. They could come in, circulate through, drop off and park or drop off and leave, or just come in and park and enter the building. The parking lots, to the ends, were set up primarily to serve as patient parking, or, I mean, as employee parking, or, if need be, for additional patient parking. The drive through functions off of the parking lot, separate, or off of the employee parking lot, separate from the main entrance at the south end of the building, and there would be a trash enclosure off that service door at the south end. Most of the site is cleared. There’s some areas some large trees up along Bay Road that we’re going to try to save, but most of the landscaping you see is new. We’re showing street trees located along Bay Road. Along the Meadowbrook Drive, we’re continuing with the planting that was started in the original subdivision in the earlier development of street trees of summit ash and what we tried to do, even though we’re set back substantially from Bay Road, create some berming along those parking areas and some additional planting in these areas to further screen those parking areas. From the sides from the new Town roads, we’ve brought some evergreens and some planting along, again, to try to provide some buffering and screening in those areas, and then accenting some screening at the entry areas, and then fairly substantial screening along the front of the building. One of the things that Rich added that wasn’t in the original plan was a desire to have a gazebo and some outside picnic areas for employees, and what we’ve done in the area, within some of the grassed area and this area, we’ve indicated there would be some outside area for employees, and certainly that’s something, if it was popular, could be expanded in the future. Drainage of the site, we tried to accommodate drainage in a number of ways. There’s eaves trenches around the building to collect roof water runoff. Primarily the drainage will flow easterly, where there’s a series of shallow grass detention swales where the water would be collected and then gradually released into the wetlands system, and these are fairly, especially the ones along the road, are very gentle and these’ll be relatively dry grass swales. You mention the lighting, and what we’ve shown on the plan was we had showed ornamental lights, one on each side of the driveway entrance, and then we showed the decorative lights along the walkways and around the buildings, and in this plan we’ve shown cutoff lights in the parking lot, and the reason we did that was two-fold. One is the cutoff light’s a much more efficient light for a large area such as parking lots and things. So it would need fewer lights, and the other thing, from a design point of view, is, you know, if you use the decorative lights on areas that are significant, like the entrances and around the building, you know, they have more prominence than if they’re scattered all over the parking lot. Personally I think, you know, you could have that discussion with Rich and whichever way you decide to go would be fine with me, but that was the intent of what we had when we did the plan, and pretty much that’s an overview of it. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. LAPPER-That’s it for us at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Architecture? Do you want to get on that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We don’t have a set of the new drawings with us. I have a nice big one in my office, but that doesn’t help. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. After my discussions with George and Chris and Craig, we took a lot of their input and we revised the plan, and I did bring in, there was actually 12 copies, and there was two large ones, and I don’t know if, we delivered them to Craig Brown, and I don’t know if you didn’t get them, but I’m looking around on the desk, and I see you didn’t get the correct one, but. You do have it? MR. VOLLARO-We have it. MR. RINGER-We have it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. That is the new one, and I apologize I don’t have the large one here. We hand delivered it, and you don’t have the large one in the file. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got one copy of the revised site plan, as well. MR. VOLLARO-The site plan that’s up there is not what we have. MR. NACE-The revised site plan was simply to answer C. T. Male’s questions. In the past, the policy has been that we do that with Staff and don’t confuse the issue with last minute submittals to the Board. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, if I may, Bob has the plan, and as he passes it around, that is the plan that we revised, after meeting with George and Chris. As you notice on the plan, there’s a lot of brick. There’s a lot of gables, different roof lines. We’ve added cedar shakes up on all the gables. The rear of the building, where the signage would be, for the entrance way, is much more decorative than the original. So that plan is rather important that everybody take a good look at it, because we spent a lot time on that. MR. SANFORD-Start with me? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SANFORD-I don’t have much, the first run around. A couple of items, though. The Glens Falls Hospital is going to be utilizing the majority of this building, I heard you say? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That is correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Just for the record, I believe if you check things out, you’ll find that they operate and perhaps own health centers in Granville, NY, Whitehall, NY, and also in the Town of Moreau. So this isn’t their first project outside of Glens Falls. I just thought I’d point that out. MR. LAPPER-This isn’t a clinic. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. LAPPER-This is occupational therapy, hearing, speech and physical therapy. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So I misspoke, in terms of, it’s just not a clinic. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I just wanted to clarify that they do have satellite operations around. Sort of going back to prior discussion tonight that I think perhaps applies here, earlier this month, I received from the Town of Queensbury a letter regarding your companion project, I think located nearby, which is the North Country Academy Daycare facility. That letter, by a Bruce Frank, Code Compliance Officer, spoke about a number of items that weren’t done, in terms of, very similar to Boats By George applicant. I was wondering if you could give the current status. Has that been corrected as of today? MR. ROUND-That is a separate project, but all items have been brought into compliance. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. SANFORD-They’ve all been taken care of? Okay. Because I was wondering if it was an oversight that you didn’t request a bond posting on this one. MR. ROUND-No. It’s a separate project. We can’t tie the two together. It is under separate ownership, I understand, or will be, but we identified those issues. They have been corrected, and we performed an inspection as late as four o’clock yesterday afternoon. MR. SCHACHNER-And before we leave that, I don’t want to belabor the point and take too much time here, but for future reference, because I know these issues will come up on other applications, the Board needs to appreciate the distinction between the previous situation where it was really one project site, one project, all though two component pieces of an application, as opposed to here, for example, as I understand the situation you’re referencing, it’s really a different project on a different parcel. It may or may not be owned or applied for by the same entity, but we don’t have the authority to tie, for sake of an example, the same applicant may own a piece of property on one end of Queensbury and another end of Queensbury and it’s not appropriate to condition approval of, you know, this project with some aspect of something way over here. The Boats By George application seemed to be, essentially, one project, from the standpoint of one commercial entity, one operation. MR. SANFORD-Maybe you could spend a little bit of time clarifying it for me, because I recall reading something in the paper regarding the Aviation Mall and some discussion taking place at a Town Board meeting whereby the Town Board could, perhaps, condition further projects on the same parcel to compliance with previous commitments on the part of the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. SANFORD-But not necessarily the same project. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, but the key words that you just said were “on the same parcel”. MR. SANFORD-The same parcel. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you just said yourself, on the same parcel. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Yes. Thank you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Richard, just to clarify for you, the items were taken care of, as Chris spoke. One was weather related and one was a problem getting a certain caliper of trees that we specked out, but it has been completed. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. No, other than that, I mean, I’m interested in hearing what other members have to say, and also if the public has anything to say, but this did go in front of this Board, not too long ago, along with the other referenced project, and I believe, maybe you could just take a minute and tell me where that stood. I mean, I thought you received approval at that point, for the other project. Right? MR. SCHERMERHORN-There was previously, we had three lots, and I had another physician interested at the time, and the deal just didn’t come together, and, ultimately, we signed with Glens Falls Hospital, and that took all three. So that approval is null and void at this point. Well, actually it’s in place until this one gets approved. MR. SANFORD-Now, this is coming in as a modification of that, or as a new application? MR. SCHERMERHORN-A totally new application, unrelated. MR. SANFORD-Unrelated. Okay. The other one’s been tossed aside. That’s all I have right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll start it off. I’m going to take the issues just sort of one at a time. I’m going to start with parking. I would prefer if we could limit the parking down to 113 spaces, which is the requirement for this site building. Now, the parking, I know you’ve met with Staff and they’ve talked about the parking, and I like the fact that it’s not too obtrusive on the Bay Road, where we’re trying to get the Bay Road corridor to get most of the parking out back, if we could. However, what I would suggest is a planting plan for the front of some of these. So that it would be, get a planting plan in here. You can do that within the 75 foot setback. MR. MILLER-It’s right here. It’s bermed and planted. MR. VOLLARO-I was using SP-1 as a. Well, I just wanted to ask about that. Do you have a need for more than the 113? Is that a definite need? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. MILLER-Yes, and as a matter of fact, when we started design of it, the Hospital had asked for 130 something, and when we went through the calculations, you know, we came up with the 113, and within the new Code, it’s my understanding we could increase, from the required parking, an additional 20%. So that’s how we added the extra seven, to get closer to the 130 something that was originally we requested. MR. VOLLARO-You’re only seven off the mark, I know that. MR. MILLER-It’s just, the 120 sounded a lot closer to the 130 something they were looking for than the 113. So we tried to utilize that extra 20%. I think the way the parking lot’s broken up and the amount of green space, you wouldn’t know the difference on Bay Road. MR. VOLLARO-I’d certainly still like to get, I’m looking at the planting plan now, it’s on the floor because most of this stuff is fairly large and you can’t get it all up here. So, you know how it goes. MR. MILLER-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m really interested in, when somebody’s going down Bay Road, the cars that are parked in these are forward spots here, either side of the medical office building, are pretty obscured. Could you do this with hedging? MR. MILLER-Well, what we’ve done is a combination of things. If you look at the grading, we’ve raised the grade there where we have berms, and we’ve tried to undulate them so they’re not just a uniform kind of a mound, but try to undulate it, create some interest, and we show some berms there that are two to three feet in height, and then in addition to that, we’ve grouped plantings, rather than try and do a straight hedge, what we’ve tried to do is create some natural planting with various sized plants, create interest not only from Bay Road, but from the people who are looking out from the parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So those berms will take, it’ll take the elevation above the level of the parking lot, plantings on top of the berms, and that’s how you plan to obscure most of that parked cars in that area? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-That sounds good. MR. MILLER-We sort of used a similar approach when we did the, had the parking lot along Hiland Springs there, and that berming was a little more dramatic, because we had some detention basins to deal with, but that same idea. MR. VOLLARO-No, that looks good on the plan. I’m satisfied with that. Sorry I didn’t have the planting plan up in front here, but now that I see it, it looks pretty good to me. I just want to get to the traffic for a minute. I haven’t seen a traffic study on this, but let me just try and, what I would like to see, and I think, Tom, we’ve talked about this before, you and I, about warrants in Warren County, a warrant for a traffic light. MR. NACE-For lights? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Now that this road, which I guess is called Meadowbrook Drive. What is the name of this? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Willowbrook Drive. MR. NACE-Willowbrook Drive. MR. VOLLARO-Willowbrook Drive. Okay. In a site plan that we saw the other night, I think it was Tuesday night, that was presented by Mr. Valente, who’s in the audience here, has lined up his road with your road. Now, taking a look at the amount of traffic that this might generate, because I think there’s going to be more in and out here, this is probably going to be quite a bit, I’m just wondering whether it’s appropriate for us to talk about a warrant for a light at this intersection, at the? MR. NACE-I don’t know what the opposing volume is from the property on the west side of Bay Road. When we did the original subdivision here, if you remember, we came up with some traffic figures that looked at the entire build out of that 82 acre parcel, originally that Guido owned, and even then, the numbers were still nowhere near what would be required to warrant the light. The numbers have to really be fairly high. MR. VOLLARO-You’re as familiar with that area as I am, because I live there and, you know, coming out Walker Lane and looking at the doctor’s offices just north of me, and this is coming in, the daycare center, not generating a tremendous amount of traffic, because people seem to go in and come out, and so, you 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) know, you get one in and one out essentially, on that site. As my fellow Board member says here, it would be, ACC puts a lot of traffic onto this road intermittently. MR. NACE-Right, and that’s really, I mean, that’s the type of traffic that you need to warrant the light. I mean, if you remember even, what, 10 years ago, there wasn’t the light at the ACC intersection. That was relatively recent. MR. LAPPER-Bob, I think we might look at that, what Tom is saying, that the warrants, anticipated full build out still doesn’t require it, but at the same time, over the next 10 years, as Rich builds this whole project, if background traffic increases in a later phase, you know, we might look at it again and, you know, Tom’s saying he doesn’t anticipate it still would require it, but it might, but certainly, at this point, with the buildings that are proposed now, and vacant lots across the street, it wouldn’t be warranted. MR. VOLLARO-Well, at what point does Bill Remington get into this, up at the County level? This is a County road. Does he begin to look into things like this on this road, or? MR. NACE-I think they’ve been looking at Bay Road. I know there is an improvement project scheduled for Bay Road, somewhere out there five years away. So I’m sure they’re looking at it continuously. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d certainly like to keep an eye on it, because there are times when, if you’re trying to make a left turn out of Walker Lane up toward the College at peak traffic period, it’s tough to get in there. So, I guess, as somebody who uses this all the time, I’m a little sensitive to that. MR. EDWARDS-Bob, I just want to add something to that, please. I think Warren County’s probably deferred to DOT guidelines on warrant analysis for this area, even though it’s a County road. They probably look at the DOT warrants, which is typically the busiest eight hours of the single day is looked at in terms of, does it meet a certain volume of traffic, and I think, at least for this point, to this point, I think you’re going to probably be way below that, that warrant condition, but he’s right, as it builds up, it’s worth looking at, because the first subdivision approval was kind of a hypothetical thing, what could develop there, what might develop there, but I think over the next couple, three years it worth looking at again for sure, and take some counts out there, see how close you’re getting to a warrant. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just wanted to bring it up and get it on the record, that that was something that that interested me. On the lighting, I understand the utilization of the new poles, so called, I guess they’re called acorns, or acorn poles, really nice looking on the property across the way. I still would like to have a better lighting plan, which gives me some foot candles on the ground to examine, to see, we have one. I have a lighting plan that you supplied, but I don’t see it annotated well enough to give me an idea of what the foot candles on the ground are. It gives me the spread. I don’t have this. MR. MILLER-We submitted them. MR. STROUGH-It’s a combination of the cutoffs and the acorns. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. All right. I think maybe I do have this. MR. MILLER-We actually did them for both when we were putting it together, and we did all acorns. We had to add like another four fixtures, and from my opinion, I just thought we were going to have an awful lot of them scattered around the lot, and that this was more efficient and put more emphasis on the entrances in the building. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this doesn’t show any spill onto the Bay Road, which was my big question, really. Now that I see the distribution of foot candles on the ground, there’s no spill to there. I was concerned about any, because this is going to be a facility that, you know, when it’s lit up, we don’t want it to glare on the Bay Road, and it looks like, with the amount of foot candles that you’ve got down on the ground on this diagram, it looks pretty benign to me. MR. MILLER-We tried to focus the main amount of lighting along the building and at the driveway entrances, in the area where there was most conflict. As a matter of fact, one of C.T. Male’s comments was they felt that, on some of the outside areas of our parking lot, it was a little dim, but my actual understanding is the night use is going to be limited. So we didn’t envision that would be a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I see now on this luminar schedule that this is a combination of the acorn luminar with the sharp cutoff optics included. MR. MILLER-Yes, that’s what’s shown on the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m happy with that. Now, right now, the way this site is configured, the only way in presently, as I see it, until the road to the north is developed, the only way into this site is through this drive. Is that correct? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-We won’t enter from the north, even when it’s developed. There’s wetlands on that side of the property that will remain natural. So both driveways are located off Willowbrook Drive. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. I’m talking about this northern exit. MR. MILLER-Yes, I know, but we won’t enter from that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It doesn’t look like it provides good entry. I just wanted to see, to make sure that you weren’t going to couple it in around. MR. MILLER-No. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve talked about Mr. Frank’s letter. I have that here, and I guess what we have is a list of, a fairly long list from C.T. Male. Now, how are we planning to do this? Tom, are you going to be answering these questions tonight? MR. NACE-If you have questions on any of them, I have provided C.T. Male, I think on Monday, with answers to all those, and we should have a letter back, you should have in your package, a letter back from C.T. Male that signs off on all of those. MR. RINGER-We just got that tonight. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. RINGER-C.T. Male has signed off, Bob. MR. NACE-If there are any particular questions regarding that, I’ll be glad to go over them item by item, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, could you answer that again. What did you say? MR. EDWARDS-Yes. We sent our first comment letter out I think on Thursday the 20. th MR. NACE-Correct. MR. EDWARDS-In plenty of time to get to you folks. The response letter, I think, came back on the 21, it st was dated, on Friday, I believe, which addressed, substantially, our comments. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. EDWARDS-And then we took some time to review that and we actually sent a signoff letter out today, which doesn’t do you a lot of good this evening, but I can tell you, again, the comments were gone through. I think Jim Houston actually spoke with Tom personally with those issues. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. EDWARDS-And they were addressed, one by one. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that the Staff had made a comment as well on the information regarding overall traffic impacts on Bay Road has not been identified. Should we be looking at this at all? MR. ROUND-No, I think Craig had drafted these, and that was an oversight on our part. We didn’t identify that the traffic analysis was done as part of the whole subdivision approval. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s, I just wanted to get that off the list. MR. ROUND-Something we’ve been trying to get the County, and it would be helpful if something came directly from the Planning Board, is that we’ve tried to establish a dialogue with the Highway Superintendent, regarding potential conflicts along the corridor. Right now, there’s not a center turning lane for much of the road, and I think that that has to come about in projects like these, and some of the significant turning volumes, people are using what they call the County refers to that area as a shoulder, that 16 or 20 foot wide bike lane/shoulder, and they’ve said to me that, well, the police aren’t enforcing people driving on the shoulder. I said, well, it’s a little bit more than a shoulder, and I think there’s adequate width out there where in certain instances, where a project like this comes along, that you could revise a striping plan to accommodate a center turning, you know, a left hand turn lane, and allow for through movements. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. VOLLARO-Well, for example, if I’m coming north on Bay Road and I want to turn left on Walker, the cars behind me would move over into that, now I’ve seen people on bicycles out there where the car and the bike are getting pretty close to interface. MR. ROUND-And they’re driving 45, 55, 65 miles an hour, and that’s an unsafe condition. MR. VOLLARO-Right. So that’s one of the reasons I’m trying to push on this driving thing. Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Bob, there was a letter that Jim Martin did that was published in the Post Star, and we’re going back about a year and a half, when I first started this project, and he gave what he believed Bay Road, be envisioning of with what we’re doing now, because that’s how we kind of came up with the daycare, but he did quote in there something, and I tried finding the letter, because I knew this could possibly come up, but there was something in there, something about Bill Remington that 2005 they were going to take a look at doing improvements to Bay Road. It was something that was actually in the Post Star that Jim Martin had said. Now, I don’t know if it was factual, but I would assume that it had some merit to it. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember one of the things he was talking about was actually having a separation between the bike path and the road surface itself by the planting of trees or actual curbing, something along those lines. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the last thing I just want to talk about is the sewer project. You mentioned that there was, you’re putting together a map plan and report, which will eventually translate itself into an extension of the Quaker Road sewer district. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That is correct, and at this time, we’ve included Baybridge Homeowners’ Association, my property of course. I’m also adding Baybrook Apartment complex, which is mine as well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How many people are in that now? In other words, how many people have identified themselves as wanting to be in to that sewer district? DOUG AUER MR. AUER-Pretty much as Rich had described it. We had put some letters out to folks on Walker Lane, and we haven’t received any response from those people at all. That was under advisement from Mike Shaw. For the record, I’m Doug Auer. MR. VOLLARO-If you had to come up and think a little bit about, how long do you think it would be before at least a sewer district extension was developed, as a result of the map plan and report? MR. NACE-As far as developed, you mean legally formed? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-I would expect that within this summer, the Town will pass the resolution to form it. It’ll go ahead with construction, or Rich will go ahead with the construction of it in the fall. The actual legal formation through the State, when it’s audit control approved, may be some time mid-fall, okay, early winter at the very latest, okay, simply because of their process, but the actual. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my next question is, how does Rich’s project line up with that explanation? In other words, we talked about a contract user as being an alternative to. MR. NACE-Simply, if there’s any stumbling block along the road in that district formation, that that is an alternative, he can go ahead and put the line in, down along Bay Road, connect. If he had to, he could even go over the Meadowbrook and connect to the Hiland. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but those alternatives are available. So we don’t have a possibility of a door shutting and closing us out completely. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I understand that. I think on-site sewer for this project is not feasible at all. MR. LAPPER-We need to have the sewer on-line by early next year. So that the building can be tenanted. MR. VOLLARO-Rich can go forward and do that as a contract user, as a potential contract user, he can put pipe in the ground and a pump station and do the things he needs to do to get his sewage down, but in parallel with that, and Tom is working on a map plan and report and trying to get those two to, into some coincidence, but we can’t be sure that’s going to happen. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. LAPPER-Well, Baybridge has certainly been working with Tom. They’ve given him all of their capacity needs. That’s all been prepared for in the map plan and report that Tom’s doing. So we’re working that through. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-So Baybridge would join into this venture? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And your apartments on Walker Lane would join into the venture? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the couple of professional offices that are right there near the corner of Walker Lane, have they been contacted at all? Worlco was one and? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Worlco and there’s two duplexes on the right hand side as you go up as well. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve been contacted? MR. AUER-There’s a total of three parcels there. I’m sorry, a total of four. MR. MAC EWAN-No response from them? MR. AUER-No response at all. MR. MAC EWAN-And as far as the private residences on Walker Lane, you haven’t had any responses from them? MR. AUER-Those are, there’s two duplexes and a residence and then the Worlco. So those folks have all been contacted. It doesn’t preclude them, at some point in the future, from connecting. They would have to do a map plan report. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m curious as to how many people are jumping on the bandwagon early here, I guess. MR. AUER-It’s a matter of cost. The ones that we do know that are interested, there’s two parcels on Bay Road that have always had a need and an interest. The folks up on, I’ll get his name, Ken Bruno is one and Virginia Mulder is the other one, and that’s the white house that we referred to across from Lupo’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. AUER-Those two, one is at the high end, the top of Bay Road. The other one is immediately next to the Ballet Center, which is currently a contract user with the Town, and that is the current point of service. There would be a gravity point of service that Mike Shaw had asked to be extended up Bay Road about 600 feet, I believe, to accommodate Virginia Mulder. So those parcels would then come on also. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my last question on that, is there, and I guess this is directed at, you, Tom. Is there kind of a closing date for people to ask to be included into the district? MR. NACE-Our intention is to have the map plan and report done within the next week and a half to two weeks, and that’s not an absolute shut door, but that’s getting very close. MR. AUER-It should be pointed out that this is a component, as we’ve said before, this is a lynchpin component to expansion on Bay Road and as you know, there’s going to be a discussion with Mike Shaw, I guess, and you’ve asked that Tom Nace, and Tom doesn’t know about it. He just came back, but that we come in and basically talk about a vision for what might be done to expand on Bay Road, basically to build on this, so that, as time goes on, Mike Shaw uses the term inching up Bay Road. I’m not sure that’s possible, but at least this provides a quantum jump component, so that folks can look at how one might be able to tie into this. MR. NACE-To sort of build on that, Bob, in laying out the facilities, in sizing the facilities, I took what I had done years and years ago for Bay Road, when the Warren County Sewer District was underway, and looked all the way up Bay Road to Cedar Court, in fact, and took flows for everything, in fact Mike Shaw and I worked back and forth to generate realistic flow numbers for all the properties from Cedar Court south, and those have all been accommodated for in the overall pumping and force main facility. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. VOLLARO-So the pump station is designed for an X quantity of gallons per day, is that correct? MR. NACE-That’s correct, which would include, would provide contingency for going all the way up past the offices here. MR. AUER-Which, by the way, dovetailed very nicely with what we had done originally when this was looked at two years ago, the work that Kevin and I had done. Tom’s numbers were like within a few percent of each other. MR. VOLLARO-I think we ran 186,000 gallons. That was on maximum pump design. MR. AUER-Something in that ballpark. I think Tom is very close, in terms of the (lost word) condition. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’m finished. I don’t have any further comments. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, good evening. What’s the timetable of when you’d like to have this built and completed and people moving in, do you think, Rich? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Realistically, it’s going to take probably eight months from the time I start. So I’d say probably early spring. MR. STROUGH-Okay, of next spring, about a year from now you’ll be starting? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Nine months. MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay, nine months. All right, and you’ll have the sewer and hopefully everything will be in place by then? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, thanks for working with Chris and the Planning Department. The architecture looks great, and it’s also in accord with, we’re trying to get that village appearance here, and you did a nice job with the daycare center and the acorn lamps look great out there, and I’d like to, for one Planning Board member, just to keep this, you know, we agreed that we’d have some features that would be continuous as this project grew, to kind of give it that village air, and I really like the acorn lamps, and so even if it includes four more, I just think it would look so much better and less industrial and less commercial with those big cutoff lamps, although the cutoffs are better than the cobra heads, but I’d like to see that, and you’ve already got a lighting report on that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’ve made it a covenant in the park that you have to have those now. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, how about the building mounted lighting. Is that going to be ornamental in style, too, or do you have any, you know, for the sidewalk and the doorways and the area? MR. MILLER-We’re using the acorns around the sidewalks. The only lighting would be where the drive through is and the covered canopy at the entrance, that would be indirect soffit lighting just to light those areas. The walkways are all going to be lit with the acorns. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I think that’ll look great. Now you’re going to need fill from here. Home Depot’s going to have a whole lot of it. Have you talked to them about that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, but I’m getting ready to. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I said, boy, one’s got it and the other needs it. Might be able to work something out there. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got a common link there, too, Rich. MR. STROUGH-Now this will be a medical center. Will there be any 24 hour nature to it? I mean, some of this therapy, I don’t know whether it runs during the night or not. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. The intended use, I don’t believe there’ll be any evening hours. It’s typically a nine to five operation. They have not indicated to me at all that it’s going to be anything that’s going to be open late in the evening or anything like that. MR. STROUGH-Yes, a typical medical is nine to five, nine to four. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s physical therapy, audiology, things like that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So the peak hours for traffic will probably be seven to nine to four to six, something in there? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and of course everything’s appointments. It’s not just walk-in. So everybody’s on appointments at different times. MR. STROUGH-Right. Yes. Okay. Now, how many offices will be in here total? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’d have to layout the floor plan, but I. MR. STROUGH-That hasn’t been done yet? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, there’s a floor plan. I actually have it. They’ve moved a few walls a couple of times, but a lot of it, because it’s physical therapy, the first floor, almost half the first floor, is big, big open space. It’s for exercise equipment and things like that. As far as offices, they have a personnel, well, without really looking, John, I’d have to open it. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well that new raised roof, is that going to be like an atrium or exposed ceiling in some of the upstairs offices? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Actually, on the plan, when you pull underneath that porch juts out about 18 feet. We’re going to have recess lights, wainscoting in the ceiling. They drop off, they walk in, and it is, it’s an open foyer above where you see the big round window, and then it also lights up the second floor, because there’s another physician that’s taking the other half upstairs. So it’s like another waiting room, but it’s very decorative. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’ll be nice. All right. Now, under stormwater, Mr. Nace, you can relax. I saw the stormwater report, and it’s satisfactory, and there’s no direct drainage into Old Maid’s Brook or Halfway Brook or anything else. So I found it to be satisfactory and I think you did a good job. Okay, and that’s it for me, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t have much to add. I think the building is beautiful. Do you have any ideas on colors yet, for it? MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s going to be in the earth tones. We’re going to try and have the brick compliment the daycare center. Because Omni Development, of course, which was approved last July, I believe they were approved using the earth tone colors as well. So it’s definitely going to be the earth tones. MR. METIVIER-No, the building itself looks beautiful, at least on paper. I’m sure it will be nice when it’s done, too. I have nothing to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a few questions. I agree with a lot of the comments that have already been made about the design standards and the cutoff lighting, or, I’m sorry, the decorative lighting. The dormers that are shown on the plan, are those just decorative? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The ones on the roof will be decorative, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because you had said earlier that it was two story. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Some of the dormers, the larger ones, they’re open into the office building itself, but the smaller ones that are up on the roof, those are just for decoration. MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s no third floor. MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’ll be attic space up there, but it won’t be access for, it’ll be basically mechanicals. MR. HUNSINGER-Mechanicals, storage? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No storage, just mechanicals. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on the landscaping, and this is something I probably should know, but what’s the height of a three inch caliper tree? MR. MILLER-Well, that kind of varies. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, the sugar maples, for example? MR. MILLER-Well, you know, they probably are going to be 12 feet or more. What happens, it depends, Chris, on how they’re grown in the nursery. If they’re planted fairly close together, by the time they get to three in a half inch caliper, they’re forced vertical. So they’re tall, without a lot of side branching, and if they’re more open, you know, they’ll be shorter and fuller. So it sort of depends on how they’re grown. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So they really could vary. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s probably likely that they would be fairly uniform in size and design? MR. MILLER-Yes, well, typically on a job like this, the material comes from the same nursery, so they’ll be fairly well matched, and actually, within a couple of years after they get accustomed and start to grow, they typically fill out fairly quickly. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I work down at Empire State Plaza, and I don’t know if you’ve ever been down there and noticed the maple trees that line the Plaza itself. They’re all square. I’ve never seen them actually cut them, but obviously they must. MR. MILLER-Yes, they must. I don’t think they grow like that. MR. HUNSINGER-No, but I like the idea of the sugar maples along Bay Road. I really didn’t have anything else, since we got the signoff from C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I certainly can’t add anything to what’s been said tonight. I’d like to hear what the public has to say and you’ve done a good job in your presentation, certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-Not at this point. We’ll see what the public has to say. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re certainly welcome to address any comments or questions to the Board and we’ll get them answered for you. I’d only ask that you give us your name and address when you come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-My name’s Dan Valente. I’m the President of Valente Homes. I’m the developer of a parcel across, directly across the street from Mr. Schermerhorn’s proposed project. ELIZABETH VALENTE MRS. VALENTE-I’m Elizabeth Valente. I’m Secretary/Treasurer of Valente Builders, but I also own the property that he is developing, as well as some property adjacent to Baybridge in the back. MR. VALENTE-Our main issue here, obviously, is our concerns over the sewer district or sewer extension. I’m going to refer back to obviously some of the statements they’ve made. We were contacted about the sewer extension. On June 15, I received a letter from Mr. Schermerhorn. Prior to that, I had had some th contact, a phone conversation with him, where he had called and said that, or I had actually called him and said that I had heard he was in the process of developing the sewer extension or taking over the project which Baybridge had the opportunity to continue. In that phone conversation I expressed anything that he might need or want to come and talk to us, we’d be happy to, if he needed any easements or what have you to do this sewer, more or less stating our cooperation to get this project underway and done. Since then, this 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) was the first letter I received from him, on June 15, basically stating that he was in the process of forming an th extension on a sewer district down to his office park on Bay Road. He also states that it will include Baybridge Homeowners’ Association and a few properties along Bay Road. The sewer extension will include a pump station located at the low point along Old Maids’ Brook within my office park. Gravity sewers will connect to this pump station from some point along Walker Lane. As we have discussed, it would be possible to include the remaining land you own adjacent to Baybridge in the proposed sewer district extension. However, I would need to make provisions to design the sewer system to assure that there is adequate capacity, so on and so forth. I responded to his letter, more or less stating that we have always intended being part of this sewer extension, and I referred back to the engineering report, done by Kevin Hastings, which was accepted by the Town originally, and the parcels are clearly specified in there what was in that sewer district extension, and there’s a number of parcels issued in there, both the front of Bay Road, Baybridge, which my mother owns, and also there’s a back parcel that has to be served in the sewer extension. So I referred back to this engineering report, which has all the numbers, all the information that they need to include us into the sewer extension. After I sent him my letter, I received a brief letter back, more or less just stating that the contract with the Town that Baybridge had was invalid, and that no longer exists, which I agree. I knew it was terminated, the contract was. The engineering report still stays the same, and those parcels and all the information in there is still good information that they can use to base their studies on. So, I have always intended on being part of this sewer district. The information that they needed, they always had at their disposal. I know Mr. Auer worked with Mr. Vollaro a lot, correct me if I’m wrong, Bob, in this report. MR. VOLLARO-True. MR. VALENTE-So all the information was at their fingertips. I don’t know why I have not been included, except for 12 days prior, I believe, today’s the 27. Twelve days prior I got the first letter. It’s been kind of, th it seems like, to me, it’s been kind of kept under wraps, but I guess we’ll see more of that down the road. My concern is what the design is and how it affects not only Baybridge, I have concerns for them, I can’t speak on their behalf, but I have concerns for them, but how it’s going to affect our front parcel and the back parcel. I don’t know how much concern, I mean, obviously we have to take a much deeper look at this sewer system before too much can get, go too far here. I mean, that’s a substantial building he’s looking to put there, and we have yet to see any design at this stage. MRS. VALENTE-We also realize that is not the function of this Board, and it is a Town Board function. We just have a lot of trouble with the fact that the Town Board chose, after spending $14,000, well, I think the Town contributed 82%, about the agreement of taxpayers dollars to just throw this report out the window. I thought it was a very good report, and a lot of easements had to be given, and I think it accommodated the parcels that were included at the particular time very well. As he said, Mr. Vollaro spearheaded this report, and it was unfortunate that the Town decided to throw it out. I’m just here, I have no opposition whatsoever to Mr. Schermerhorn’s plan. My main concern is fact finding. Like my son has said very well, we have sort of been kept in the dark. I find it very, very disconcerting that, knowing that the Bay Road extension is very, very important to this Town, I sat on a land use advisory committee for three years, prior to my, after my husband sat there for a year. It was a lot of hours and a lot of time, and we knew that we wanted this corridor to be the heart of this Town. You spoke about boulevards the other night. We wanted to see a boulevard up the Bay Road. Because it is the centerpiece of the Town. It leads to this building. I cannot fathom why we wouldn’t have been automatically included in any plans. I cannot understand why there has never been appointed a lead agency to deal with Richie and Dan and Baybridge or anybody that wanted to participate in getting this sewer district done. I have been involved with this since 1985. A lot of people have come across and said we’re going to do this. Mr. Passarelli, I believe, owns this property. We tried to work with Mr. Passarelli in this Town just several years ago, when Mr. Champagne’s tenure, when he was in office, and that went out the window. I’m really concerned that we could have another problem here. We should all be working together. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t be shown some kind of map plan. I realize it takes time to develop, but at least give us an idea. Are we coming down the Bay Road? I’m sort of hearing a private district, and then I’m hearing a separate district. I mean, I would just like them to possibly give us some kind of information as to where would we be connecting. The Baybridge town homes now are expected to come down Walker Lane. Do you have the room to come down Walker Lane, considering all the infrastructure that’s already there, all the utilities that are already coming down Walker Lane. Are you going to need a pump station on Walker Lane to go across, we’re being told that this pump station Mr. Schermerhorn is proposing is going to be within his property. Is the Town going to be contributing any money to this sewer district? Is it going to be totally privately done by developers? We have to have some answers here. MR. MAC EWAN-These are all viable questions, but you’re directing them to the Town Board. MRS. VALENTE-I realize that, but I’m not directing them to you, as much as I’m directing it to Mr. Schermerhorn’s staff or his, you know, Mr. Lapper, Mr. Nace. Why have we, I would think that it would be to everyone’s benefit if we went into a Town Board with a proposal for a sewer district that was cohesive, with all the people that wanted to be involved, and that we could all say to them, yes, we love this plan. It’s going to work. We’re finally going to get this done, and it has to get done, but all I’m saying to you is, as far as I know, we’ve been all out of the loop, but we want to make it very, very clear, officially, on the record, yes, 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) we absolutely intend to be part of a sewer district, but how and when it’s done still remains to be seen because we don’t know anything. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. VALENTE-One other note. When Baybridge Homeowners’ Association was developing this initial sewer extension, and correct me if I’m wrong, Bob, but I believe the Town had asked us to make sure they took or them to take into consideration his development across the street, as far as pump size and what have you. We would like the same consideration. That’s all we’re asking, and, you know, as far as what Rich does, like I said, I’m not opposed to what he does. All the power to him. I just want to be included. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? MR. HILTON-We actually have a letter to be read. CHARLES JARVIS MR. JARVIS-I’m Charles Jarvis. I live on Bayberry Drive, and our property abuts the north perimeter of the property under discussion. I’m concerned a little bit, I guess, by two things. First of all, a two story building in that area does not seem to be compatible with the architecture of the other buildings in that community, in that area, and it seems to be contrary to what the Board has talked about before, in terms of the, I’m not sure what terms they use, but the overall effect of this whole community, this whole stretch of Bay Road. So I question that. I don’t know. I assume he’s going to do a good job and it’s going to look good, and I wish them well. My other concern is something that I brought up at the time that we reviewed this previous project, or the previous version of this project, if you will, and that is the depth of the property along the northern border. The lots as they stood then and they do now, call for 100 foot depth. There’s a 50 foot setback, I understand, and I mean, a 10 foot setback, whatever you call that, in the back of the property. My concern is that I, or my neighbors along there own some fairly nice homes. They probably approach the $200,000 range, and from what I can determine, we’re going to be inundated through the back side by multiple family apartment buildings. That’s not cut and dried yet, I guess, but that’s, from what I understand, the plan. That certainly is going to, the closer they approach our property, that’s going to affect the value of our property as well, and what I’m doing is pleading with Mr. Schermerhorn and the Board to make, since we’re now revising this whole plan for that whole section, can’t we make that lot, those lots, deeper, and give us some sort of a screening or a buffer zone back there, more than what we talked about before, with some sort of a line of trees. If you put a line of trees on a 10 foot setback, from the back line, that’s not going to present very much protection, I don’t think, for us. I’d like to have you give that some consideration. MR. MAC EWAN-The lots that you’re referring to that abut Bayberry Drive are not part of this application that we’re referring to tonight. This site plan is much further east and south of where you are. I mean, where this complex is going to be built, this one building, is closer to the existing dirt road that would come out of Baybridge would be roughly about where we’re going to be cutting in, right about there. To give you an idea of how far this is away from your parcels. MR. JARVIS-I understand that we are back farther into that piece of property. However, when they approve the property as it’s laid out now, the one we are considering, and they put that road in, 100 feet of off that border, what does that do to the road by the time it gets down to our, behind our property? Isn’t it still 100 feet? Is that going to change, at that point in time? MR. MAC EWAN-To be honest with you, I don’t recall the way the plans were laid out for that phasing of it. Keep in mind this whole project is a phased project, and I’m not exactly sure when that phase of it will take place, but you certainly will be publicly noticed. MR. JARVIS-Well, that’s what I was told the last time, but doesn’t it make sense that once they put that road in 100 feet from the border of the line, that isn’t that going to continue on down 100 feet all the way down? That’s all we’re going to have is a 100 foot lot, with a building in between, a two story, perhaps, building, apartments, and what have we got left for protection? Do you understand my point? Once they put the road in, where are they going to do it then? How are they going to change it down at that end of it? Are they going to make a big loop and come out another 50 feet or whatever? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it doesn’t actually. MR. VOLLARO-That’s part of a different site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it is, and it’s a different phase of it, but as I recall, the design of that road does loop back around, and it doesn’t run totally parallel with the existing property lines. MR. JARVIS-I guess I’d have to see that. MR. VOLLARO-We’d have to break out the site plan that approved the entire program. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. JARVIS-Exactly. Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Because this is just a portion of it, and it’s not on these drawings. MR. JARVIS-I understand that, but, anyway, I’ve made my point, I hope, but I know that this fell on deaf ears the last time around, too, and apparently I’m not presenting it properly, but as I see it, once they put that road in, 100 feet from the line, the northern line of that property, it’s going to continue on down, as I recall from the previous plans, and we’re going to have 100 foot lots behind our houses, with no protection whatsoever. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand what you’re saying. MR. JARVIS-So with this major revision to this property, why can’t we move that road over 50 feet or whatever, make it up and give us some protection on the back line. That’s my point. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. JARVIS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? JOHN HUGHES MR. HUGHES-John Hughes, the owner of the property that borders on the north side of this. I do have a problem with the setback of 75 feet. Back when they widened Bay Road back in the early 70’s, I believe it was, they told me at that time that Bay Road is probably going to end up being a four lane highway sooner or later with the amount of development that’s going up through there. If this building is only sitting back 75 feet, it seems to me like we’re not going to have too much frontage. Now when I did the development across the street, we set the buildings back far enough to accommodate this, and another issue is, when you talk about the screening of the parking lot from Bay Road, you’re not doing anything for the screening of these people that own homes that can look right out into, towards this, and I think there should be some consideration taken there, and I can’t understand how this can be kept being done one phase at a time. I mean, he comes in with a building now. Next week he comes in with another building. How come he hasn’t got to show the whole concept of this whole 82 acres? And this is something that I’d like to see, and I think it would help the residents there if they knew what was actually going to be happening, instead of every time that they decide to put a building up that you come in here and have, that’s the only thing that we’re looking at. If there’s another plan, I’d like to see it, you know, what the future plans are for that whole piece of property. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Chris, that corridor. What do you know about provisions to make it as wide as possible for, the corridor setback is outlined in the Ordinance. MR. ROUND-Yes. Seventy-five feet’s a pretty significant setback, compared to other zones in the Town. Bay Road corridor setback is unique in that the Ordinance says we don’t want to see any improvements in that area. That’s meant to be the green space along the corridor, where some other setback you can do improvements within it. I don’t know of any plans for construction of additional lanes on Bay Road. I think there’s already pretty significant pavement width out there. MR. STROUGH-There’s 75 setback on the other side as well. MR. ROUND-There was presented to this Board the entire subdivision plan, and the Board approved an entire subdivision plan, and as part of that and the traffic analysis, I think they did some building layouts. I do have a copy. MR. STROUGH-The east end of it, Omni senior housing? MR. ROUND-Well, this is like the office park portion of it. I know there’s also proposed, there’s a senior housing and then there was also a concept, a multi-family apartments or whatever on, but each thing has to come back before the Board for approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? MR. ROUND-But I do have a copy of that, of this portion of the subdivision plans, the first gentleman who spoke, as far as the depth of those lots that border Bayberry, but I do have that, if you’re interested. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Once again, anybody else? MR. HILTON-We have a letter to be read. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got a letter? Read it in, please. MR. HILTON-The letter reads, “Dear Mr. MacEwan: As a concerned Queensbury resident, I would like to address my concerns regarding the Schermerhorn project scheduled Thursday, June 27, 2002 for site plan review. There are several issues that I would like to address: 1. Recently the Town Planning Board has required architecture review in regards to building appearance. This has been a wonderful – positive step towards improving and maintaining the appearance of our beautiful town. (The new Home Depot is a great example). I am concerned about Mr. Schermerhorn’s large 2+ story medical complex being set in the middle of the Bay Road corridor. The architecture is not consistent with the plans for the town nor with the surrounding medical offices located on Bay Road and Baywood Drive. This building will stand out against the landscape unlike the other architecturally pleasing professional offices in the area. I am strongly opposed to the ‘less than appealing’ look of this building. This is not an office building; this is a large medical facility complex with plans for expansion. Is this zoning appropriate for this type of facility? 2. Mr. Schermerhorn is asking for a special variance to put in this large medical complex prior to the sewer system approval. He is proposing a temporary septic system. There are many environmental concerns in regards to this type of system: What is the filtration capacity for a building this large in an area that has such a high water table. What sort of medical wastes are entering this system (Radiology waste, blood-born pathogens). What type of temporary septic could possibly handle such a large occupancy capacity? How long will this system last? Does anyone know when or if we will get sewer in that area? 3. Will the quality and appearance of this building be what we want here in the Town of Queensbury? The appearance of the new daycare building recently built by Mr. Schermerhorn is a disgrace to the professional and residential community. I am concerned that with such a high quality of work, we are at risk for a very low quality of workmanship. Please consider how these buildings will look in five years. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Concerned Queensbury Resident” MR. MAC EWAN-It’s unsigned? I wouldn’t have asked you to read that into the record, then. MR. HILTON-Okay. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-I wish I had known that first. MR. LAPPER-I’d like to respond to the Valentes. It’s heartening to hear that this is the first time that. MR. MAC EWAN-Before you do that, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-Yes, sir, that they want to be included in the district, because that, in the extension, because that certainly is good planning to include as many properties as possible. I just want to fully read, Dan read parts of the letter that Rich wrote, and I just want to put it in context. This was the letter dated June 13, that I guess Dan got on the 15. “Dear Dan: As you are aware, I am in the process of forming an extension to th the existing Quaker Road sewer district, which will serve my office park on Bay Road. As currently planned, this extension will include the Baybridge Homeowners Association and a few properties along Bay Road. The sewer system for this extension will include a pump station located at the low point along Old Maid’s Brook within my office park, gravity sewers will connect to this pump station from some point along Walker Lane. As we have discussed, it would be possible to include the remaining land you own adjacent to Baybridge in the proposed sewer district extension. However, I would need to make provisions in the design of the proposed sewer system to assure that there is adequate capacity and that there are reasonable points of connection to your remaining land. I am proposing to submit a draft of the district formation report to the Town for review within the next few weeks. Therefore, if you have any interest in being included in the district, I need to know by June 21. I will also need estimates of your ultimate sewer flow and information st on where and how you would connect to the proposed sewers. Please call me at your earliest opportunity to discuss this matter.” I just want to document that Rich’s intention with this letter was to be inclusive, to get the information, to have the Valente’s say they want to be part of it so they could be included in the new report, and that’s really all I think we need to say on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Do you want to talk about the neighbor on the north? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I remember Mr. Jarvis well from when we first did the preliminary office park. A number of residents from his neighborhood did address the concerns, when I do get ready to develop over next to those homes, and I did tell, I believe, Mr. Jarvis and a bunch of people out in the lobby when we left that when we get to that point, which will be a little ways off, I will certainly do everything I can to accommodate them. Someone mentioned fences. I also told them I wasn’t opposed to doing berms, and because when we get back near those houses that is Phase II of the development it is possible that I can move the road in that section. So it is a possibility, but we are a little ways off from where he’s talking about at this time. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? MR. MILLER-One of the comments related to screening the parking area, especially from the north. What I had mentioned that there’s an existing wetland that comes down the north side of where the parking lot’s going to be. We’re set back from that road, it’s got to be 150 feet, and that wetland extends all the way around. This wetland is basically a no disturbance area. It’s mostly brush, but it’s going to be allowed to grow up and become treed, but in addition, we use shrubbery on the Bay Road side and some berms, but we actually brought some spruce trees around along that side of the parking lot to even provide, you know, more positive screening on that side then we would get from shrubs. So we tried to address the buffering from that, even though we’re quite a ways away from the residents on that side. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you feel comfortable doing a SEQRA? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do it. MR. STROUGH-Are we going to do a Short Form or a Long Form? MR. VOLLARO-The Short was submitted, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. “C. 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. HUNSINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-I would like to talk a little bit on that subject, on existing traffic patterns. I think we can probably mitigate that by having only the one entrance coming in, but I have a hard time just saying no, that it would effect existing traffic patterns, because I think there would be some effect on, but I think it would be slight to moderate, at the present time. I think that’s what I’d like to be able to state there. MR. SANFORD-Are we clear, John, on the sewer at this point? I mean, there’s been a lot of discussion, and it’s about as clear as mud. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but at the point we get to conditioning it, we’ll condition it that this will be dependent on getting sewer. I think that’s the general consensus. Mr. Chairman’s probably the better one to ask. MR. SANFORD-Did he answer my question? MR. MAC EWAN-He kind of did. MR. RINGER-I don’t think the Hospital would take it without sewer. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and the applicant said that they would sign on as a single point contract if they had to. MR. MAC EWAN-It would be advantageous to Mr. Schermerhorn to have his sewers on it anyway, but, yes, I’d be inclined to do an approval with the condition that they be implemented. I want to jump back to Bob’s question for a minute, regarding traffic. He has a concern that it’s going to have a small to moderate impact, that you’re suggesting, how is it going to be mitigated, your impact on traffic? MR. VOLLARO-Well, by the fact that we’d only have one entrance onto Bay Road. I think that, in itself, is a mitigating circumstance. If we have more than one entrance on Bay Road, it would be even worse. MR. MAC EWAN-Does the rest of the Board go along with that? MR. RINGER-I agree with that. I still think that we did a SEQRA when we did the subdivision and we discussed the traffic and determined that the traffic was not an issue. It was an issue, but it was mitigated with what Bob just said, the fewer entrances off and on Bay Road. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I said, no, because. MR. STROUGH-And in my mind, it’s a medical facility, and my familiarity with other like medical facilities, they are not large traffic generators. They’re rather moderate to mild. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so, too. I just wanted to raise the issue that each one of these additions that go on the Bay Road, slowly, you know, if you begin to do the iteration on these things, you’re going to see a lot more cars. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree with you, too, Bob, but we did have a traffic report for the subdivision that took into account the complete build out, not just one particular building. On complete build out, the traffic impact was not significant. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t recall now, but at the time we examined that, was the medical arts building, I don’t recall whether the medical arts building was part of that examination. MR. RINGER-No, professional offices was part of the subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-There were three of them there. Three of them. So you’ve taken three individual office spaces that potentially could have a heck of a lot more traffic impacts, and combined it into one parcel that’s going to have less than I think the combination of the three that were originally proposed. MR. EDWARDS-And again, this project is not actually adding a curb cut to Bay Road. It’s utilizing an existing curb cut. That’s an important thing to note, I think, that we’re not adding a new curb cut. It’s just utilizing what’s there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-So it’s a small to moderate impact that is mitigated by the nature of the enterprise, and the fact that the traffic flow is directed to one road, one access. MR. RINGER-And previously discussed under the subdivision for the traffic report. MR. SCHACHNER-Just so I understand, you’re not answering that question no. You’re answering that question yes, and that’s how you’re describing the potential impact, is that correct, as a group? MR. RINGER-That’s how we mitigated it. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. RINGER-Well, don’t you agree with that, that’s the way we mitigated it, with the traffic study in the subdivision. MR. STROUGH-And the wastewater was brought up as a concern, but I think that will be mitigated by the fact that this project will not happen unless sewer happens. MR. LAPPER-Either as a contract user or as a district extension. MR. SCHACHNER-And on that point, unless I’m mistaken, the applicant is not proposing any other approach to the sewage disposal. MR. STROUGH-Right. Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 33-2002, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) 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 27 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, or do you want to take a few minutes and pen something? MR. VOLLARO-Take a few minutes and pen it. MR. MAC EWAN-Take ten and pen it. All right. I’ll call the meeting back to order, please. Robert, do you have a motion up? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Strough’s going to do the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough’s going to do the motion. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2002 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following, Site Plan Review No. 33-2002 Applicant: Schermerhorn Properties, Inc. Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Guido Passarelli Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Tom Nace, James Miller Zone: PO Location: Bay Road Applicant proposes construction of a 33,920 sq. ft. Medical Office building and associated site work. Professional Offices require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SB 9-00, SP 13-01,SP 19-01, SP 24-01 Warren Co. Planning: 6/12/02 Tax Map No. 296.12-1-24 / 60-2-4 Lot size: 82.22 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: June 27, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/29/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/02; and 6/27 Staff Notes 6/21 CT Male engineering comments 6/20 Notice of Public Hearing 6/12 Warren Co. Planning: NCI w/stipulation 6/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9, Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 27, 2002; 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 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) 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 approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the exception that the 6/27/2002 C.T. Male letter will be added to the list of documentation and is subject to the following conditions: 1. No Building permit shall be issued until the Town Board has accepted the applicant’s map plan and report for the proposed sewer district extension, and 2. Parking lot and sidewalk lighting will be of the acorn luminar style, as similar to the adjacent Day Care center, 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 6/27/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 2002, by the following vote: MR. ROUND-So you’re going to allow the, our concern that we’ve communicated to the applicant right along is that we don’t want to issue a building permit until sewer is provided or accessible, and issuance of a CO, I have a concern with that. MR. LAPPER-We would really like it to read CO, just because the big issue with Rich is to get in the ground. I mean, he can’t open his building, I mean, it’s his risk to build it. He can’t open the building without sewer. MR. ROUND-I’ll defer to the Counsel on that, but generally we don’t issue building permits for any facility unless they have on-site septic or they have to have their building connect to municipal system, and they have plans in front of us that document either of those alternatives. MR. MAC EWAN-Re-read your condition. MR. STROUGH-The applicant must secure municipal sewer capability prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MR. MAC EWAN-Their comment was, you’re either going to extend the sewer district and get that hooked up, and if that doesn’t come to fruition, they were going to be a contract user to the sewer system. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but the issue here is, what’s the Town’s leverage, and what comes, it’s a cart and horse issue, and what Staff is saying, and I’m going to back that up as counsel is, that Staff would be more comfortable, I believe, since it’s more in compliance with our typical precedent where we don’t issue a building permit until somebody has their utilities in place, and what Staff is suggesting is that the condition as worded is fine if the word “Certificate of Occupancy” was replaced with “Building Permit”. MR. LAPPER-Let me just make one comment, if I could. If we have to do it at building permit, Rich is going to have to go to the trouble of requesting the Town Board to give him the contract user status, which he has no intention of taking advantage of, but we’d have to go immediately do that so we could get the building permit to become a contract user in the district, go to the Town Board and have them pass a 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) resolution, which, if there’s no choice, that’s what we’ll do, but it we, since the best thing is for the district to be extended, which is in everyone’s interest in the corridor. So if we don’t have to go bother to be a contract user now, we’ll go just ahead with the map plan and report, work on the district, and obviously one or the other has to be in place before he can get his CO early next year. MR. MAC EWAN-If we went along those lines and stuck with a CO issue and it’s contingent upon that this motion says that the condition is that he has to be tied into municipal sewer, whether it be extending the sewer district or being a contract user, he’s got that building built and he’s not done one of those two things, how’s he going to get his CO, how’s he going to occupy it, and how’s he going to rent it and how’s he going to make money? It’s incumbent upon him to do that. MR. ROUND-I think it sets a bad precedent, Number One. MR. MAC EWAN-Based on what though? Maybe I’m missing something here? MR. ROUND-Where do you draw the line? There’s a pending sewer district extension. There’s no, there’s not a map plan and report on the table. I have every belief that these guys are going to do what they say they’re going to do, but, it’s a what if. It’s a potential. MR. LAPPER-We’re the ones driving the train here on the sewer. He’s going to build it. He’s designing it. His consultants are doing it. MR. SCHACHNER-And I’ll add, succinctly, that our view as counsel is that it’s generally a bad, it has nothing to do with the specific application, these specific applicants, or this specific project. It’s generally a bad idea to encourage or facilitate significant construction of facilities without knowing for sure that they’re going to be able to be utilized in the manner proposed. We can’t sit here, as Staff and Counsel, any more than you all can, and absolutely guarantee that a sewer district will be created or extended, or that a contract use situation will occur. Do we believe these things are going to happen? Sure we believe these things are going to happen, but I think our recommendation has nothing whatsoever to do with this applicant, this project, or these specific facilities. It’s just not a good idea to facilitate, encourage or foster a construction when we don’t really know for sure how significant utility infrastructure is going to be handled. MR. VOLLARO-I just like to make a comment. That, and take off on something that Mr. Lapper had just said. If the applicant has to go for a contractor user position, he is, in my view anyway, a lot less likely to be very serious about forwarding the total sewer project than he would be, because in that case, his mind is going to be, okay, I’m a contract user. I’m going to put that line in, and when I get time, and when I, you know, then I’ll work on getting the rest of it done, but in the meanwhile, that’s all I’m concerned about now, because I’m a contract user. I’m going to put that in. I don’t have to worry too much now about getting a sewer district in place. I think it’s an inhibit, in a sense, to him being, very, very interested in doing that. So, you know, on balance, I think we’ve got to look at that. I want to give Mr. Schermerhorn every encouragement to move forward with that sewer district. MR. SANFORD-I agree with Counsel and Chris on this one. You might recall Shorum Nuclear Plant which didn’t have the evacuation plan, and they built it and never went on line. Now that’s a very complicated thing, but that proved to be an embarrassment to the whole State of New York, and, you know, if for some reason something happens, you don’t want these people to be moving along with some kind of construction. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he has the option of moving to a contract user right up front, then. MR. HUNSINGER-I want to comment on Bob’s comment. I don’t disagree with what you were saying, but there is clearly a financial interest in them to establish a district, versus paying for the line themselves. MR. VOLLARO-Not necessarily. It’s just a question. I don’t think Rich would ever say, okay, I’m not going to develop the district, and that’s the end of it, I’ll remain a contract user forever, but I’m concerned about not pushing the sewer district as hard as you can. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree with that. I agree with that, but what I said was, there is a very clear interest of him to create the district, rather than front the whole cost of line extension himself. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but the problem is, what we’re saying here is we’re not going to let him start, he can’t even get a building permit to start that. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand exactly what we’re saying. MR. SCHERMERHORN-May I just back up a little bit? With respect to Chris Round and Mark Schachner, what they’re saying is, I understand where they’re coming from, but I met with the Town Board probably going back three months ago with Greg Sherry, Doug Auer, Dennis Brower, Tim Brewer, there was a bunch of Town Board members there. I certainly had other options. My parcel abuts Meadowbrook Road where there already is an existing sewer. I simply could have created a sewer district of my own parcel and just gone 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) into Meadowbrook Road and not worried about the rest of Bay Road. That was never my intentions. When I met with Dennis Brower, everybody was encouraging me to establish the district, the Bay Road Sewer District. So I guess, if you would allow me to go forward, like you’ve proposed, out of good faith, I’ve done what the Town Board has been encouraging me all along to do. I guess what I’m saying is I actually had a choice in the very beginning, where I could have just gone into the Meadowbrook Sewer District, because my parcel abuts that, but I’ve chosen to include my other properties on Bay Road, or on Walker Lane, and Baybridge. So my intentions, again, have been to move forward for the best interest for the Town, Baybridge residents, and including myself, of course. MR. MAC EWAN-What would be your opposition to having it tied to getting a building permit? MR. LAPPER-We would just have to start up, immediately make application to the Town Board for Rich to be a contract user, which, it’s just the time and hassle of going to the public hearing and, you know, just spending time doing that, rather than Tom just moving ahead immediately, which he’d do anyway, with the map plan and report for the district. So it’s just an inconvenience. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I realize, I mean, there’s a substantial undertaking for me to build this building and not have sewers, but what would be more of an impact is if I had to come back and ask the Town if this Quaker Road, if this didn’t happen on Bay Road, I say Quaker Road, if this didn’t happen, I’d be very embarrassed coming back saying, gee, now I need an alternative plan. I wouldn’t go forward if I didn’t think this was going to go through. MR. STROUGH-What if the applicant provided bonding for sewer? MR. ROUND-It’s not an applicant issue. It’s not a financial issue. It’s just that, you know, you don’t. It’s the cart before the horse kind of thing. MR. SANFORD-The principle here, I have to agree with Staff. MR. ROUND-We’ve made our point. I think there’s options out there. I know this is, I think what I’m also hearing, though, it’s all schedule driven. It’s all applicant’s concerns, all right. MR. LAPPER-It’s the applicant that’s going to build the line. MR. ROUND-It is, and I’m not making a case against you, but just so the record is accurate, though, the meetings with Mike Shaw, any district formation and any contract user is a discretionary action by the Board, and the Board listens to the Director of Wastewater. The Director of Wastewater indicated that, for this particular property, that they wouldn’t be looking at anything on the west side of the site being tied in to Meadowbrook and to the Hiland Park Sewer District. They want everything that’s on the west side to go west, and everything on the east side to go east, and that’s accurate, and I’ll argue with anybody in the room. All right. I think there is some middle ground. I think if you’re looking to help the applicant and you’re looking to help the sewer district, allow them to apply for a building permit upon acceptance of the map plan and report by the Town Board. That’s not the full district formation process. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. That would be great. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Will you amend your motion, there, Mr. Strough. Is that middle ground for everybody? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that works. MR. MAC EWAN-I like working for the cause. Good thinking, Chris. MR. VOLLARO-That accomplishes two things. I moves it faster. That makes a lot of sense. MR. ROUND-That’s not receipt. There is a formal process. I just want to make sure everybody knows that. MR. VOLLARO-Acceptance of the map plan and report is what you want to put in there. MR. STROUGH-Here’s what I have. The applicant must secure municipal sewer acceptance by the applicant’s map plan for the sewer district extension? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SCHACHNER-I think what the proposed condition is, is that no building permit shall be issued until the Town Board has accepted the applicant’s map plan and report for the proposed sewer district extension. MR. STROUGH-Great. Let’s run with it. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/02) MR. VOLLARO-That’s good. I like it. So noted from Counsel. MR. MAC EWAN-Amended. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a Counsel comment. It’s a suggested condition of somebody’s motion. MR. STROUGH-I amend my condition number one as suggested by Counsel. MR. MAC EWAN-Do I have a second on that? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. Thanks, Chris. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, your committee has been enacted. You are to contact Staff regarding their review, application review meeting, effective July’s, so that you can participate in application completeness. MR. VOLLARO-Understood. I’ve got it. MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, thank you. MR. RINGER-Do you know what dates? MR. MAC EWAN-The 16 and the 23, I do believe, is what we’re shooting at. thrd On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 58