Loading...
2003-01-28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER LARRY RINGER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE –JIM HOUSTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-(Lost words) at their request they’ve asked this application to be tabled, and we’ll table that to our second meeting in February, which is the 25. I’ll open up the public th hearing and leave that open. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2003 JEFFREY L. AND SALLY A. KELLEY PROPERTY OWNER: JEFFREY L. KELLEY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT A RESIDENCE TO A RETAIL STORE, GIFT SHOP AND RESTAURANT-FOOD RELATED ICE CREAM STORE. RETAIL STORE, GIFT SHOP AND RESTAURANT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW IN MU ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 72-2000, SP 63-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-37/129-1-15 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020, 030 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 58-2002 TYPE II REDEEMER REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENG. ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 211 LUZRENE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY AND SUBSEQUENT PARKING FACILITIES. PROPOSED ADDITION 2,740 SQ. FT., TOTAL SQ. FT. 4085. PARKING SQ FT. 12,895 EXISTING, 21,737 PROPOSED. PLACE OF WORSHIP IN AN SR ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 98-433 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/11/02 TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-84/121-1-33 LOT SIZE: 2.68 ACRES SECTION 179-4-020 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a public hearing this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-As you may recall, this application was before the Board last month, December. However, there was an error on the part of the Post Star where the application was not noticed publicly. Public notice wasn’t put in the paper. Therefore we’re hearing it this evening. Public notice has been done. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing church on Luzerne Road. Previous Staff comments from last month just describe the application as 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) meeting setback and permeability requirements. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan which conforms to Zoning Ordinance requirements, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed as part of this review. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HILTON-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Mr. Jarrett. MR. JARRETT-For the record, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Martin Engineers. We’ve submitted a site plan for expansion of the Redeemer Reformed Presbyterian Church on Luzerne Road. The expansion would be to the west of the existing structure. As part of that expansion, a new wastewater system would be installed, primarily because the existing, or the expanded structure (lost words) and the existing leach field is now (lost words) expansion. We also propose closing one of the driveway/parking lot entrances, closing the easterly one and expanding the westerly one to meet Town standards. We would also expand the parking lot to meet the Town parking requirements and provide new lighting in accordance with Town standards. The stormwater as proposed, two basins, one would be to the west of the new church building and one to the north of the expanded parking area, per Town standards. We’ve received a number of comments from C.T. Male. Our office has addressed those comments, and I believe that C.T. Male is prepared to, we believe that we have addressed their concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else. MR. JARRETT-I’m open to Board comments and questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I’m trying to get a sense of whether C.T. Male has signed off on this or not. I was looking through tonight’s stuff. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a sign off letter from C.T. Male on December 18, 2002. MR. RINGER-We got it tonight. MR. METIVIER-That’s what I’m trying to find. MR. RINGER-Yes. They signed off. MR. METIVIER-I really don’t have any comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I had a couple of comments from the previous package that was marked off. I think it was in reference to some trees that were going to be relocated, and I’m looking for my notes, of course. I really didn’t have any specific questions or comments. I remember when we went on site visits and had reviewed it for the December meeting, and C.T. Male had signed off on it, and I just had a question on the relocation of some of the trees. I didn’t see where they were coming from and where they were going to be going. There was also some comments from C.T. Male that apparently were addressed in the final site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. HUNSINGER-That was it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. I didn’t have anything else either. I got the sign off from C.T. Male. The project looks good. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The possible future parking, would you have to come to us for an alteration to the site plan to put that in or is that all going to be, is that all part of the motion right now? MR. JARRETT-That’s up to you. I guess we would prefer to see it part of this approval, to be expanded as required. MR. MAC EWAN-Comments, George? MR. HILTON-You can approve it as is. However, if they do down the line wish to come in and construct that parking and put new impervious surface out there, the Board may wish to see it as a modification to this plan or have some review over it and possibly any stormwater issues. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Just a couple of questions. One, on the revised lighting plan is dated 1/21/03, looks okay, but just to keep the record straight, C.T. Male’s approval for sign off is dated December 18. So I don’t know if they’ve ever gotten a chance to look at this? th MR. JARRETT-I talked to George today, and basically Staff has looked at it, and I don’t think, unless you feel uncomfortable with it. MR. VOLLARO-No. It looks okay. I’m just going to say that C.T. Male’s letter does not cover that drawing. Is that correct, George? MR. HILTON-That’s probably correct. I don’t believe they’ve seen it yet, but Staff, you know, we’re comfortable with the way the lighting plan looks. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, I’m just going to make a comment that the drawings that we have or I have, at least, are not the drawings that we’re going to be finally signing off on tonight if we sign off on them at all. It’s a whole different set of drawings. We don’t have the drawings in front of us that are dated the date of the new drawings. Okay. MR. JARRETT-Just to clarify that, you have the basic drawings. They have been modified, sent to Staff and C.T. Male since then, minor modifications per C.T. Male’s comments. I have a set here tonight. I’d be glad to provide it to the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just talking about the motion that’s made. If the motion is made tonight, they can’t be made on these drawings. They would have to reference the drawings of C-1 through C-3 dated 12/16, C-2 dated 12/18, C-4 dated 1/21 and D-1 dated 12/18. Those are the drawings that have to go into the record. Is that correct? MR. HILTON-I believe our documentation for the motion references all correspondence and updated plans. I understand the Board may not have seen the updates that were traded back and forth, but the resolution does reference those documents. You can add language to the resolution stating that a final sign off be submitted or something along those lines. MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male has already signed off, based on his revised drawings, and he revised them because C.T. Male requested they be revised. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m comfortable with that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. So am I, so long as we don’t use the old drawing as a reference in the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all. The one other question I have is that, and this goes to the new resolution, and it’s the Planning Board’s insert for Number One, well the Staff’s insert, it says possible future parking. I don’t think my drawing shows that either. I’ve never gotten to see the possible future parking. I don’t know whether it’s on my drawing or not. MR. RINGER-It’s on mine. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on mine. C-1. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s right here. MR. VOLLARO-Is it on it? Okay. MR. JARRETT-It’s the very north edge of the proposal, the very north edge of the parking area. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see it. MR. RINGER-Fourteen additional. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I have on this one, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Good evening. I’ll have to second what Bob said because my plans were last revised November. Then we have a detail plans change, the lighting schedule changed, wastewater system changed, grading/landscaping plan changed, site plan changed, reference to a fax, and I don’t know what any of that represents. I mean, I don’t know what was in the fax, and then they refer to some changed plans, and the plans were last revised December 18 and th December 16, and how am I, as a Planning Board member, supposed to assess the plans when th they might not be like the originals were? I’m supposed to make an assessment on behalf of the community, and I don’t have the revised plans to make that assessment on. So, you know, nothing opposed to the applicant. If this were a more serious application, we might have had problems with that, and I think Bob would agree with that. With that aside, all right. Well, the lighting, and Staff’s reviewed the lighting. I know Staff does very well at that. There were some questions about that. I still have a couple of questions. The timer settings on the sign and the façade lighting, what are going to be the times? MR. JARRETT-The times that the sign will be lit? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. JARRETT-All night. MR. STROUGH-So the façade and the sign lighting will be all night. CARL JARDIN MR. JARDIN-If there’s some objection to that, then the timers can be modified. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you to identify yourself, please? MR. JARDIN-I’m sorry. My name is Carl Jardin, and I’m a member of the Redeemer church. MR. STROUGH-The reason why I ask is if there’s any community concerns that would be shared during the public hearing, that might be one thing that that they would want to know. If they have a concern, they should address it. MR. JARDIN-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-Landscape specifics on C-2. There’s references to trees and shrubs, and it doesn’t tell me what they are. It just says a mix of coniferous and deciduous shrubbery. MR. JARRETT-Along the parking lot, the edge of the parking lot, where we close off the existing driveway entrance, you’re talking about white birch and/or white pines. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I see that, but usually the shrubbery is listed specifically. I mean, do we have something in mind? MR. JARRETT-Frankly, we felt the existing buffer was pretty adequate except for the dead of winter, and the church board felt that transplanting trees from the property was the most appropriate way to go I don’t have a specific list to give you tonight. MR. STROUGH-Well, making use of those resources using natural materials, I agree. That’s excellent. I just didn’t know what those shrubs were in front of the parking area, and, you know, just adjacent to the area where you’re talking about. Okay. Well, usually it would be nice if those were, are they going to be Yews? MR. JARRETT-Yews? I don’t think we can give you a list tonight of what they would be. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We can certainly submit a list to Staff. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and just so that I’m covering all the issues, and if the community’s here they’ll have the benefit to hear that, noise, how late do the activities go on? MR. JARRETT-How late? MR. JARDIN-Normally about eight o’clock in the evening. Nine would be the absolute latest in the evening that we are presently operating. MR. STROUGH-Any regular exterior activities go on? MR. JARDIN-Exterior? MR. STROUGH-On a regular basis. MR. JARDIN-No. At the moment, no. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So, okay. The access to the rear, is there a sidewalk to the rear access? MR. JARRETT-The rear door of the existing building? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Or the proposed building? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. STROUGH-I don’t think there is a rear access to the proposed building. The rear access to the existing building, is there a sidewalk from the parking lot to the access? MR. JARRETT-It doesn’t show up on the site plan. I believe there is a sidewalk there now. MR. STROUGH-There probably should be some kind of. MR. JARRETT-The survey does not show anything. MR. STROUGH-Is the rear entrance the handicap entrance? MR. JARRETT-The rear is not, no. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is there a sidewalk going to that? MR. JARRETT-That comes out on gravel. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m just wondering, a wheelchair and mud doesn’t go well. I mean, it might be, gravel might be fine, but I just didn’t see any sidewalks to either entrance, and I thought it might be a good idea. MR. JARRETT-It functions well to date. If need be, what they could do is upgrade that gravel area to the same crusher level planned on the parking lot, a firm, stable surface. MR. STROUGH-Well, that would be better than just nothing. MR. JARRETT-We had to propose that at this stage when we (lost words), we could stabilize it (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Well, it might be a problem. The adjacent property owners, can we go through that real quick? Who’s to the west of you? MR. JARRETT-I don’t have the names on hand. MR. HILTON-Cathy Carpenter. Cathy Carpenter is the owner. MR. STROUGH-Carpenter, because that’s not listed on my plans anymore. Cathy Carpenter. All right. How about to the north, George. Do you know that? MR. JARRETT-The survey by VanDusen and Steves lists Wesley Carpenter, west side, Charles and Stella Trombley on the east side. MR. STROUGH-And how about on the north? MR. JARRETT-Michelle Clark. To the northwest would be Earl and Penny Maille. MR. HILTON-That’s the property line. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Now, George, last notes, these notes date back, too, I have Warren County Planning Board pulled this application. MR. HILTON-At first it was referred to them. We made the, I guess, incorrect judgment that it was on a County road. During the process we realized it was not a County road. So they pulled it from their agenda. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks. Okay. That seems about it. I guess, you know, the only overriding concern I have at this time, unless something is brought out in the public hearing, is, 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) you know, the sidewalks to the access areas. Just seems to make sense to me, and it wouldn’t seem to be a big deal, but especially the handicapped access area. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? I’d ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Any discussion? MR. STROUGH-Do you think we ought to have the applicant at least provide some kind of a gravel or some kind of a sidewalk? At least to the handicapped access? MR. MAC EWAN-I would be in agreement to make it part of the motion that some sort of access be given for handicapped access, yes. MR. VOLLARO-How is it working now? How is it functioning today, the handicapped? MR. JARRETT-Apparently there’s not a problem now, but they would agree to a condition that they upgrade that to make it more stable. MR. MAC EWAN-It would just make sense, I think. MR. VOLLARO-What are we going to use to upgrade it for stability, just crusher run, is that what you would be looking to put in? MR. JARRETT-We’re proposing that for the parking lot. So it would make sense to use that. MR. STROUGH-What’s that, crushed stone? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Type II, we don’t need to do a SEQRA on this? MR. VOLLARO-It’s Type II. MR. STROUGH-Type II. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone have a motion in mind? MS. RADNER-Before you make a motion, why don’t you take Tom Jarrett’s plans and pass them down the line, so it’s clear on our records that everybody has compared the plans they have with what’s before them, and that’s what they’re voting on. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine. Do we have something drafted up? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got something ready. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do you want me to do it? I’ll do it. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll let Cathy do it. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Could we have a motion up on the table, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-2002 REDEEMER REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 58-2002 Applicant/Owner: Redeemer Reformed Presbyterian Church Type II Agent: Jarrett-Martin Eng. Zone: SR-1A Location: 211 Luzerne Road Applicant proposes expansion of an existing church facility and subsequent parking facilities. Proposed addition 2,740 sq. ft., total sq. ft. 4085. Parking sq. ft. 12,895 existing, 21,737 proposed. Place of Worship in an SR zone requires Site Plan Review. Cross Reference: BP 98-433 Warren Co. Planning: 12/11/02 Tax Map No. 308.6.-1-84 / 121-1-33 Lot size: 2.68 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: January 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/15/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/24/03, and 1/24 Staff Notes 1/22 GH from Jarrett-Martin: Lighting schedule revised 1/21/02 12/30 Meeting Notice 12/19 GH from Jarrett-Martin Eng.: response to CT Male 12/18 CT Male engineering comments in response to 12/12/02 comments (rec’d 12/13/02) 12/12 Notice of Public Hearing 12/11 Warren Co. Planning 12/5 Meeting Notice 11/20 Application materials forwarded to CT Male WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on January 28, 2003; 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, 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: 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) 1. Planning Board approves the plan with the area indicated as “Possible Future Parking” which is to be constructed in the future when necessary. 2. That we use the new drawings that are C-1 and C-3 on December 16, C-2 on December th 18, D-1 on December 18, 2002 and C-4 on January 21, 2003 are our reference. th 3. That the handicapped access be made more stable using the same crushed stone that is to be used in the parking lot. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: PUD SITE PLAN NO. 1-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED PREVIOUS SEQRA COMPLETED THOMAS J. FARONE & SON & J. BUCKLEY BRYAN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS APPLICANTS PROPERTY OWNER: TRA-TOM DEV., INC. AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, MATTHEW JONES, ESQ. ZONE: PUD LOCATION: FARR LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES FINAL APPROVAL OF PHASE III OF THE INDIAN RIDGE PUD. PHASE III IS FOR 25 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: PUD SP 51-99, 35-2001 TAX MAP NO. 295.16-1-2.21 LOT SIZE: 20.73 ACRES SECTION: ART. 12 TOM NACE & MATT CHIVERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-A public hearing is not required this evening, and the SEQRA was completed previously. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 1-2003, Thomas J. Farone & Son & J. Buckley Bryan, Meeting Date: Project Description: January 28, 2003 “ The applicant proposes the subdivision and development of 25 single-family residential homes. This represents the final buildout of the single-family portion of the Indian Ridge PUD. Per the PUD section of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance this application is listed as a Site Plan, however the application represents a subdivision of land within the Indian Ridge PUD. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The 25 lots are to be developed to the north of previously developed homes in this PUD. The homes will front on Farr Lane, which will be constructed as part of this subdivision. Topography: Site topography is generally level and does not appear to have areas of excessive slope. Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed homes will be served by municipal water service. On-site septic systems will be constructed with each home. Drainage: The applicant has submitted grading and drainage information as part of the application. This information has been forwarded to CT Male for their review. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) Lot sizes: The proposed lots range in size from .44 acres to approximately 1.32 acres. Lot sizes, and layouts have previously been reviewed and approved as part of the PUD approval. Future development: The subdivision plat indicates a single family home and on-site septic system to be constructed on each proposed lot. State Environmental Quality Review Act: As part of the PUD approval a SEQRA review was completed. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 51-99, Phase I approval, resolved 2/15/00 SP 35-2001, Phase II approval, resolved 9/18/01 Staff comments: The submitted plans provide areas of no clearing on some lots. In order to define and protect these areas, language could be written into the deeds of the properties with no-clear zones defining and referencing the areas not to be cleared. A SEQRA review has previously been completed for the entire Indian Ridge PUD. The Planning Board should affirm consistency with the previous SEQRA review that was completed for the Indian Ridge PUD, if the Planning Board feels that no further Environmental Review is necessary. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The comments I have mainly concern the no clear areas that are indicated on the plan, how are these going to be I guess enforced, recognized. Staff suggests possibly some language be put into the deed of these properties indicating that the no clear zone exists, where they exist on the plan. As indicated, the SEQRA review has been conducted for this, as part of the PUD approval. The Board, if they feel no environmental review is necessary, should reaffirm the previous SEQRA, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during this review. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Matt Chivers from Matt Jones law firm. We have addressed the C.T. Male comments. You should have a sign off letter from C.T. Male dated yesterday in your file. As far as delineating the no clear zones and trying to define those so they could be enforceable, that was also a comment of C.T. Male’s. We have put on the plans actual dimensions from the property corners to the no clear line, on the lots where it varies beyond a set distance offset from the property line. So those are a defined distance or a defined location for the no clear line. As far as enforcement, that would have to be done simply through neighbors or somebody reporting that it’s been violated. There’s really no other good way to do that. I think that’s a problem you’ve addressed and dealt with before, and, you know, it’s impossible to have the Town Staff inspecting each lot every year for compliance. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MR. NACE-That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I was a little surprised when this came before us because I though this had already been approved. I really didn’t have any specific questions. I guess my sort of 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) interpretation of no clear zones is that it would be in the best interest of the homeowner to maintain that buffer because of the proximity to the school. So provided, you know, the builder who would construct those houses understands that that’s the intention, I think, you know, once that happens, then. MR. NACE-They will be defined on the plat for each property, and that becomes part of the building permit process. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, typically, when we talked about a no clear zone, it’s because we’re trying to protect the neighbor, not the owner of the property. MR. NACE-Right. In general, these no clear zones are fairly generous. They’re about 200 feet back into the property. So, you know, most clearing that would take place for building the houses is going to occur within the first 100 to 150 feet. So, it would be unlikely that the builder would get back that far for any reason. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have anything. For Staff, they’ve completed all the requirements in Phase II of selling the lots or having permits? MR. HILTON-The answer is yes, but I believe, and I’m not sure the percentage of building permits had to be issued in Phase II before Phase III. MR. NACE-Sixty percent. MR. HILTON-Yes, and Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, has determined that that has been accomplished. MR. RINGER-Yes. I don’t have anything. We’ve got the sign off from C.T. Male, and that’s all I had on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just had a question. I know that you’re complying with the fire hydrants which are just within 1,000 feet between each of them, but the engineer had kind of suggested that for a development of this level, that he kind of thought they should be a little bit closer. Is that a safety factor? MR. NACE-I don’t know. The engineer can speak to his side of the argument. We’ve generally used 800 to 1,000 feet in the Town. In fact, these hydrants were adjusted at one point by comments from the Water Department that resulted in this spacing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, do you want to offer a comment to that? MR. HOUSTON-Jim Houston, C.T. Male. Just as a rule of thumb, we use something less than that, but if the Town standard is 1,000 feet, then that’s, I think it’s, I try to shoot for six to seven hundred, and my design is a maximum distance. So that’s no more than 350 feet from any house to a hydrant, but it’s up to the, they’ve already consulted with the Water Department. I don’t take any precedent to that. Usually it is the people that have got to fight the fires. If they’ve looked at it and they’re comfortable with it, then that takes precedent. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I just wanted to hear your side, too. Thanks. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. NACE-Ralph VanDusen revised the Town Water Department standards, I think in the Year 2000, and if I’m not mistaken, the fire companies were consulted as part of that process. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anything else, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I just want to make sure, I guess, in discussing with my fellow Board member here, that all of the requirements of this PUD have been met, and this is our, because John and I were discussing this, this is our last shot at it, to make sure that all of the requirements of the PUD have been fulfilled. MR. NACE-Yes, they have. The requirements, if you can remember back, mostly dealt with interfacing with the school and the access way to the school, the clear zone, the no clearing zones, the property over toward the wetland that was separated from this and dedicated, to the best of my knowledge. MR. VOLLARO-So all of Phase I and Phase II are totally compliant with that and so Phase III will just follow along there. MR. NACE-Phase III, this is just a formal final approval of plans that have already had complete review. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-And what about the property to the front that was going to be developed commercially or given to the Town? MR. NACE-I’m not sure where that stands. There was a window of opportunity there, and I’m not sure whether the Town Board ended up exercising the option on that or not. MR. RINGER-I’m just curious, and I didn’t mean to interrupt you, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay, Larry, no problem. Good thought. That’s the only thing I have after that, and I think that Staff has mentioned that as the deed restriction shall define the no clear zone on those properties containing such zones is a note that I had put into the resolution, my note anyway, and I saw something in here from Ralph VanDusen. I guess that’s done automatically once the construction is completed, the water mains must be pressure tested to AWWA standards. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s something you’ve got to do in any event. MR. NACE-That’s something we have to do and I have to sign off on. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Is this 24 lots or 25 lots? MR. NACE-Twenty-five. MR. STROUGH-Because I count 24 on the cover sheet. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. NACE-I haven’t counted since we did the original plan, and that’s been a couple of years ago, but, I believe it’s 25. MR. STROUGH-Because I went back to Phase II, and I got Phase II in back of me, and it doesn’t include Lot 31, but now we are including Lot 31 in Phase III. So originally it shows that Lot 31 was already approved in part of Phase I. MR. NACE-That may be a drafting mistake on that. Yes, it’s a drafting mistake on the cover sheet. My apologies. That can be corrected. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think the cover sheet’s accurate. I think the. MR. NACE-No, the cover sheet is not accurate. Because I’m looking back at the as built for Phase I, and Lot 31 was not included in Phase I. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because there’s that homeowners association lot in between that kind of separates that. MR. NACE-Yes. If you look at the actual plat for Phase III, which is Sheet P3-2., okay, it shows clearly that Lot 31 is part of this Phase III, and that makes 25 lots in Phase III. Okay. What is wrong is the delineation of that phase line on the cover sheet. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, then the cover sheet was inaccurate last time. We just didn’t catch it. MR. NACE-It will be corrected, right. MR. STROUGH-Now the school has bought the 10 acres that was originally designated for senior housing. I mean, it transferred from the Town, and went from the Town to the school, and I’ve got the Indian Ridge development here, and although it was an afterthought, and I ran down the basement where I keep this stuff, and here we’ve got the Indian Ridge PUD agreement still in draft form. I didn’t get the final form, but, I mean, this is, like Bob pointed out, this is the last opportunity to make sure that everything is signed, sealed, and delivered. Because they’re not going to be before us again. This is it. I mean, things, and if I remember right, part of the PUD agreement was that those no cut zones be deeded. I don’t even know if we need to condition it because I think it might have been part of the original PUD agreement. MR. NACE-They’re written into the deed. They’re not deeded over to anybody, but there’s a deed restriction. MR. STROUGH-The restrictions are within the deed. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. NACE-That is absolutely correct. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I thought, and now the conservation area, originally there was discussion, and there’s discussion in this draft, too, but I don’t know if it made the final version, that that conservation area was going to be deeded to the Town, that 51, whatever, acres? MR. NACE-I believe, yes, it was either going to be deeded to the Town or to a conservation conservancy, land conservancy. MR. STROUGH-Has that been done? MR. NACE-I don’t know the answer to that at this point. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. HILTON-Are you referring to this rear piece here, I believe, the 51 acres? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. HILTON-We show the ownership as the Town of Queensbury. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’s been done. Would it be a bad idea, Mr. Chairman, just to make sure to condition this that all prior agreements, PUD and otherwise, have been made before final approval of this Phase III, that the Department check everything and make sure that I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing wrong with that. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. STROUGH-And the only other thing that I didn’t notice, that I noticed when I was going back and reviewing our approval of Phase II, was the Highway Department reviewed Phase II, and I didn’t see a Highway Department review of Phase III. MR. NACE-That’s Staff’s responsibility. MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments to that, Staff? MR. HILTON-I’ll look through the file here for just a second to see if we sent out some correspondence, and maybe we did and we didn’t get something back. MR. STROUGH-Well, we can just condition it saying that it has to get Highway Department approval before. Is that okay, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-They’ll have to sign off on it anyway. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. HILTON-They’re going to be signing the final subdivision plat. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the road names. I couldn’t find any of the road names on the plans. MR. NACE-The road name is Farr Lane. Farr Lane and Farr Lane. MR. STROUGH-It’s all Farr Lane? Okay. All right. That’s all the little notes I’ve got on this project. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t know who I’m going to direct this to, but if this is a PUD, because the area is zoned Single Family Residential One Acre. These lots are not one acre. Is it because it’s a PUD that it’s clustering? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. METIVIER-So that’s okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, a PUD is a separate designation of the zone, and really what it is is an agreement, when the Town rezones that, it’s an agreement whatever the developer comes up 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) with to the Town Board, and however they want to develop it, that’s part of the agreement of the PUD. MR. METIVIER-I’m just surprised that both Phase I and II had at least one acre lots, and these are some less than half acre. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s part of the design of a PUD. It gives you that mixed, the mixed size of lots in there, mixed usage in there as well. MR. METIVIER-Okay. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, comments, anything? Does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. STROUGH-I’ll draw up a little something here. MR. MAC EWAN-Your list of conditions should be short, I would think. MR. STROUGH-Yes. It’s just the first one. I’ve got to word it. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s going to do this? MR. VOLLARO-We’re letting Mr. Strough do it. He’s writing up a motion there. MR. STROUGH-Final approval of the Indian Ridge Phase III will be contingent upon confirmation that all prior PUD, EIS, and other agreements have been completed, and, two, Final approval of the Indian Ridge Phase III will be contingent upon approval of the plan by the Highway Department. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-He didn’t really make a motion. MR. MAC EWAN-He just did. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 1-2003 THOMAS J. FARONE & SON & J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: PUD Site Plan No. 1-2003 Applicant: Thomas J. Farone & Son & Type: Unlisted J. Buckley Bryan Previous SEQRA Completed Property Owner: Same as applicants Property Owner: Tra-Tom Dev., Inc. Agent: Nace Engineering, Matthew Jones. Esq. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) Zone: PUD Location: Farr Lane Applicant proposes final approval of Phase III of the Indian Ridge PUD. Phase III is for 25 residential lots. Cross Reference: PUD SP 51-99, 35-2001 Tax Map No. 295.16-1-2.21 Lot size: 20.73 acres / Section: Art. 12 Public Hearing: Not required WHEREAS, the application was received 11/14/02, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 1/24/03; and 1/24 Staff Notes 1/17 Water Dept. comments 1/13 CT Male engineering comments 12/30 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for this application, 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 Planning Board reaffirms previous SEQRA, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final approval of the Indian Ridge Phase III is hereby granted and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval will be contingent upon confirmation that all prior PUD, EIS and other agreements have been completed. 2. Final approval of the Indian Ridge Phase III will be contingent upon approval of the plan by the Highway Department. 3. Recreation Fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot [ 25 lots = $12,500.00 ] are applicable to this phase/project at the time a building permit is applied for. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. NEW BUSINESS: 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) SITE PLAN NO. 5-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED COBY MCDONALD/COBY SCAPES PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN MAHAR AGENT: MICHAEL O’CONNOR, JAMES MILLER ZONE: LI LOCATION: LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT THE EXISTING SITE AND BUILDING FOR NURSERY SALES AND LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND RETAIL USE ALLOWED IN LI ZONE WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: NOTICE OF APPEAL 4-2002 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-14, 15/308.12-1-4, 5 LOT SIZE: 2.98 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, JIM MILLER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-2003, Coby McDonald/Coby Scapes, Meeting Date: January 28, 2003 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to use existing buildings, as well as construct new buildings, for the operation of a Nursery Sales and Landscape Construction business. 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 Zoning Board of Appeals has stated that a use of this type is an allowed use in the LI zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? No increased burden on public services and facilities is anticipated. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? No adverse traffic impacts are anticipated with this proposal. 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 application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed buildings appear to be compatible with existing site development. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular access will be provided from an existing driveway that will be widened and paved. The proposed access will allow adequate access to the interior of the site. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The number of parking spaces provided conforms to Zoning Ordinance requirements. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The site plan indicates walkways to be constructed to provide pedestrian access to nursery sales areas. The pedestrian walkways should provide adequate access for these areas. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which has been forwarded to CT Male for their review. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. This property will be connected to the municipal water system. The site will be served by an existing on-site septic system. 7. 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 submitted a landscaping plan with the application. Further comment on landscaping will be provided in the Staff Comments section of this note. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Access for emergency vehicles should not be a problem at this location. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan, Staff comments: As mentioned in the CT Male comments of 1/15/03, consideration should be given to consolidation of driveways between this site and the single-family residence to the south. The applicant has indicated that construction at this location would take place in separate phases. At first the site would be cleared, regarded, paved along with a limited amount of building construction. Buildings in the interior of the site would be built at a later time. Staff recommends that future development that is shown on this site plan, but is proposed to be constructed at a later time, be reviewed by the Planning Board as separate phases when 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) construction is planned to occur. Phase lines delineating future areas of construction should be added to the final site plan. The Site Plan does not contain any information on proposed wall pack lighting. Cut sheets should be provided that indicate the lighting is shielded and directed to the designated area. A foot-candle level should be specified. General flood lighting fixtures for security lighting should be discouraged since glare defeats the purpose of security, which is identification of intruders. Comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application. SEQR Status: Unlisted, short form EAF has been submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant has indicated that construction at this location is proposed to occur in phases, and Staff recommends that phase lines be added to the site plan and all future phases come before the Planning Board for review and approval. The site plans also do not contain any information on wall pack lighting that is proposed, and cut sheets should be provided indicating the fixtures and the direction which the light is being directed, and all comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during the review of this application. That’s all I have. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m with Coby McDonald and Tom Nace and Jim Miller, who actually put together most of what you have. Basically, this is an existing site. We did go to the ZBA and went through a review with them as to the proposed uses and then are here before you. The only comments that I think are still outstanding is Staff’s recommendation that you consider this a phased approval with a requirement that we come back for separate phases and I would probably take a different position on that. The site plan that you have before you shows everything that’s going to go on on the site. It’s just a question of when parts of it, the buildings themselves, are going to be constructed. When they are to be constructed, they’re going to be constructed as shown. I think it would be an unnecessary burden on the applicant to require him to come back and tell you, yes, I’m going to build Building Two or, yes, I’m going to build the addition to the back of the existing building as shown on this plan. We’ve taken into consideration parking requirements for the full build out. We’ve taken into consideration stormwater for the full build out. We’ve taken into consideration landscaping, and we’ve actually, in the presentation, put together everything as though this was fully to be built out tomorrow, and this is basically a small business that’s operated by Mr. McDonald, and he wants to see what the market will bring and make his investment based upon the growth of the business. He doesn’t think it’s something that’s going to happen overnight, and this is his trying to show you, trying not to segment what he’s going to do and say this is his total build out on this site. So I think we’ve answered all the questions that we would be asked later, if we came in for second phase, third phase, or whatever it is, and I don’t think we are even in a position to number which of the additions will go place or what the order of them will be, depending upon what his market demand develops. The issue on lighting, we can stipulate that the lighting will be downcast. There’s no, and I guess we’ve got a cut sheet of it. There’s no great proposal for lighting. We can answer whatever questions you might have on lighting now or in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we do that, what was Staff’s thought on wanting to have this phased? What would be the need for it? MR. HILTON-The applicant has indicated that they plan to pave and clear the site first and come in and construct some of the rear buildings at a later point in time. Understanding that the applicant has taken into consideration stormwater for the future and various other items that they mentioned, the fact that you’re going to be adding buildings in the future, the Board 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) may wish to take a look at it, should anything change, should the applicant, down the line want to do something different. MR. MAC EWAN-Two schools of thought on that. If he does this at his own leisure, per se, and he does his own phasing, each building he puts up he’s going to come in and get a building permit for. Right? MR. HILTON-Yes, he’d have to. MR. MAC EWAN-Each one of those building permits, the Building and Codes Department is going to look at the site plan and make sure it’s positioned correctly, that it meets all the site plan criteria. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Why would we need him to come back and phase it? If he came in and did something different than that, at that time the flag would go up where Building and Codes would say, you need to go back and ask for a modification if you want to do it this route. MR. HILTON-With other applications and other site plans that have been approved, if it’s knowledge that the applicant is going to do things in phases as they’ve acknowledged, our general comment has been, okay, let’s delineate which phases you’re going to develop and which stages, and come back for review. I understand what they’re saying, taking into consideration all the development and putting that data into this plan, but standard practice has been to at least have them delineate what they’re going to do in the future, and then come back. MR. MAC EWAN-Which brought me to my second question. I don’t recall, in recent times, where we did a phasing on another site plan of a commercial activity. Do you? When have we done? MR. HILTON-Offhand, no, I don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-I honestly don’t see the need to phase this thing out like this. MS. RADNER-What you might want to consider as a fall back position would be a time limit on getting this done. Where some communities run into problems is where you have an approved site plan but then it sits for 30 years. It changes hands three times and then someone comes forward and wants to build something. Times have changed. There’s a different Zoning Ordinance in effect, and they’re claiming the right to build something, when it was anticipated that that was going to be built 30 years before and different things have happened around it. MR. HUNSINGER-That was exactly the question I was going to ask. MR. MAC EWAN-You know the question I’m going to ask, right? MR. O’CONNOR-Does somebody have a crystal ball? MR. HUNSINGER-How long is it going to take? MRS. LA BOMBARD-We don’t know. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, we’re not trying to be cute, but basically we can’t tell you whether it’s going to be five years or ten years. We hope that it’ll be three years. If you take a look at the site plan, you’re talking about three additional, or three greenhouses. You’re talking about some additional square footage for indoor display of landscaping goods that will be partially used in the wholesale business or installation business, and partially retail. Those are the type of things we’re talking about. I think we’re talking about an equipment garage to be constructed. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just trying to think of the options that are available to everybody, making it easy for everyone, and a way to track this to ensure that it is going to be built the way the proposed application is. MR. O'CONNOR-I agree with your comments that if it’s not built according to what’s submitted today, then we would have to come back to you and amend the site plan, and I would think that that would probably also take place, if you changed your rules and regulations, and maybe that’s what you’re thinking about is that, you know, 30 years from now you could have different rules and regulations. We wouldn’t be grandfathered if we did not have it actually constructed, and, you know, basically, I would probably even look for some wiggle room on that and say that we would like to have it considered by the Board, say that we construct what’s there within a five year period. If we don’t construct it within a five year period, we’re at risk as far as grandfathering as to any future regulation or change in Ordinance, and that gives you your protection, that you haven’t approved something forever, and gives us some time that we can live with. Coby’s initial response is 10 years. That’s a long time in the Zoning Ordinance. Five years, you know, typically your master plan and revision of Ordinance takes, about every five years you take another shot at the same Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-So that, realistically, is a realistic timetable, from a zoning point of view. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MS. RADNER-That would address the concerns I raised. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-No, at first when Mike was talking, I agreed with not phasing, but I agree with Cathi, too, and the five years is something that I wouldn’t have any trouble with either. Other than that, on that driveway there for the house, Staff has recommended perhaps putting a gate there now, if you want to keep that driveway. MR. MILLER-Mr. Chairman, Jim Miller, landscape architect. Both properties are in the same ownership, and the intent is to keep that driveway connection for convenience. It was one of the comments that C.T. Male raised, and what we have agreed, we’d put a sign there saying private driveway, and during the busy season, you know, he would put a sawhorse or something up so people wouldn’t cut through there, but at this point, it would be under the same ownership. The other thing we agreed that if that property were ever sold off to another ownership, that the driveways would be, some of that pavement would be removed so they wouldn’t be connected. MR. RINGER-If we made that a condition of the approval? MR. MILLER-Yes, I’ve already made the change on the plan, based on the comments from C.T. Male. MR. RINGER-Okay. That’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. My question is, we already have, you already have, we were up on the site, four buildings. Isn’t that correct? As you go up the driveway to the end. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So what are we going to put in, well, I wish I could go over there, Jim, would you walk over there, please, and just point to each of those buildings and please tell me what they’re going to be used for. MR. MILLER-Okay. Well, the residence is going to stay as a residence. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MILLER-Okay. There’s a residence here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s what I wanted to know. Is there somebody living there? MR. MILLER-I don’t. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. McDonald lives there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You live there now. Okay. MR. MILLER-So that’s going to be used as a residence and an office. This is going to stay as a storage building. The barn that’s there will eventually be some nursery sales, and that’ll be the main sales office. The proposed new buildings are addition to the rear. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, well that in the back hasn’t been built yet. MR. MILLER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I wasn’t sure of. MR. MILLER-No, that would be new. That would probably be the final phase. The first building that would probably be built, there’s three greenhouses in this area. Probably one of those greenhouses would go up this year, and then to the rear is an equipment garage for the landscape construction business. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, where would, Coby, would you grow like your own trees, your nursery, like up at 88 Acres where he has little trees in over? So where would that all be, all your farm part, where you’re growing stuff, where your little trees are growing? MR. MILLER-Well, that would be limited. I mean there would be some growing, but most of the stuff here is going to be bulk. It’s going to be pots and bulbs and burlap, as opposed to a larger nursery. He may have some things that are growing, but obviously, on three acres, we couldn’t do much of a full scale nursery. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because it just looks like there’s such a vast area where, in the back there where that, all that open space is. MR. MILLER-This area back in here, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MILLER-Well, for the parking for the retail, one of the requirements, it’s one per three hundred square feet, for even where the nursery stock is. So the area through here is actually has to be designated, you know, during peak season, for parking for the retail portion of it. Some of this area in the back is going to be bulk storage for different types of mulch, stone mulches, maybe paving stones, wall stones, some of that stuff would have to be stored in the back as well as any equipment for, because it also is a landscape construction business. So any of the equipment will be stored in the back, and in that garage. So the intent was that the retail would be more in this area, and using this sales, and then the construction would be more, and the storage would be more to the rear. Because a lot of things are going to happen. When he 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) has projects, he’ll get deliveries of material. They’ll come here and then they’ll go from here to the construction site. So that’s why we need that crushed stone area in the rear for that operation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So really, the only building that, we just have the addition to the barn and then the one in the back corner, that would be potential builds. MR. MILLER-That’s right, well, plus the greenhouses. MR. VOLLARO-And the greenhouses. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, the greenhouses, but do greenhouses have foundations? I mean, they’re really not. MR. MILLER-Yes. They’ll have a foundation. I mean, but it typically comes delivered and you just assemble it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MILLER-They’re pre-engineered structures. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, and what about the main house? Will you be moving from where you are now into the main house? COBY MC DONALD MR. MC DONALD-Probably eventually. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then will you rent out where you’re living now, or will you just use that for offices? MR. O'CONNOR-The intention is to keep it as residential, and maybe with some people that work for him. It’s not going to be a commercial operation. At least it’s not intended. It may be rented, though. That’s why we’ve shown it as residential. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it’s such a great piece of property, and it’s a good use for it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-Do you know what it was used for at first? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, what was that, seriously? MR. O'CONNOR-Aronson’s Slaughterhouse. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, Double A Provisions. Probably about 40 years ago. The stone building, or what we call the barn, used to be where they used to slaughter. I used to draw fill out of the back end of there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Like Champlain Beef. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if they were that big. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That big, but the same idea. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The first time I ever saw them slaughter a cow. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-We won’t go into any of the details, all right. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want me to tell you about that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I’ve heard, Mike. MR. MAC EWAN-Moving right along. You’re turn. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m going to go down through my notes before I kind of look at what C.T. Male had to say on it. There’s a slight amount of light spill onto Luzerne Road at Site Plan SP-3. Is there any way to pull that in off Luzerne Road? SP-3. MR. MILLER-Coby says that one in the front belongs to Niagara Mohawk, the Town light. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, why do we have it on there as part of the site plan? MR. MILLER-Well, just to show that that entrance is lighted. MR. VOLLARO-Pardon? MR. MILLER-It’s listed as an existing light and it’s just shown to show that there’s light at that entry. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s a Niagara Mohawk light. Okay. Fine. What feeds the septic field on the industrial lot? Is it that, what I call the industrial lot is the lot that’s separate in my mind. These are, I think we’re talking two separate lots here. Am I correct in that presumption? MR. MILLER-That’s correct, both owned by Mr. McDonald. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-There’s a septic system right here, for the residence. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s not the one I’m talking about. MR. MILLER-There’s another one here, for both of these buildings tie to the same system. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, I noticed that I couldn’t find the water, the thing I was looking for is the water source on this property, and how that water source is split up internally once it gets on the property itself. Now, I just wanted to make sure that none of those lines that are under pressure come within X amount of distance of each of the septic system. Is that? MR. NACE-Those are all in. They’re existing. They were put in as part of the service from the Town of Queensbury. I presume they would have been inspected at the time they were put in. MR. VOLLARO-There’s nothing on the plan to show the water source. MR. NACE-Well, they’re from the main out on Luzerne Road. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Is there one tap for this property? MR. NACE-I’m not even sure. I think there are two, but I wouldn’t swear to it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It would be nice to know what the water source was internally there. I’d be interested in that. Okay. My next question is, on SP-1, what material composes the white 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) surface? I’m just looking at this one, from a permeability point of view. What kind of material is in the white surface? MR. MILLER-The white surface. MR. VOLLARO-The surfaces that don’t show, stay right with the plan, that’s fine. MR. MILLER-You said SP-1, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MILLER-Anything that’s white is pervious. Some of the walkway and some of the area in the nursery stock sales area where the walkway is, we counted that as impervious, but anything that’s in the white would be plant bed, lawn, or mulch where the nursery stock is. MR. VOLLARO-The reason I ask that question is not just to throw a question out there, but on your site development data, I went through that, and you’ll meet the requirement all right, but I couldn’t identify these numbers with things on the drawing. I was having a problem. For example, it says porches and decks, and you’ve got a blank. It says other, there’s a pool and a concrete pad. That’s a blank, and I’m assuming everything’s up in the 10,753 number. I’m making that assumption, but once I went through this, I saw that you, and that’s the only reason I’m asking the question, to make sure that this paved gravel or other hard surfaces is really 42,000 square feet. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, on the plan there, I guess I’m looking at SP-1, and on the north side of that property is a setback of 30 feet. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And I noticed that one greenhouse sticks into that 30 foot back about 5 foot. MR. MILLER-That’s the, if you look carefully at that, Bob, the corner of the greenhouse is at 30 feet. What you’re seeing there is the eaves trench that runs along the side of the greenhouse. That’s the stone eaves trench that collects the roof water. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s close. I’ll tell you. MR. MILLER-We can get close. We just can’t go over it. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. It’s a question of survey accuracy I suppose. Now, who owns the property between Luzerne Road and the plotted property line? Is that? MR. MILLER-That’s all Town right of way. There was a project that occurred there at one time. There was a realignment by the Highway Department, and they shifted the road over. So we sort of have an extra wide front yard there that belongs to the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s Town property? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, I think we’ve established that we’re talking about two separate lots here, and that what I’m trying to get at in my mind is I think there was a letter from Coby- Scapes that talked about the request from Jim Miller to George Hilton and these were, shows the deeds were recorded on December 23, 2002. Am I correct on that? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MILLER-Yes. The question there that we were addressing, when Staff looked at the records for the ownership of the lot, the previous owner, Mr. Mahar, I believe, was listed as the owner. So there was a question whether or not Mr. McDonald had purchased the property. So he sent that letter indicating the date when he closed on the property and the deed was recorded. Because he is the owner of the property. That was the purpose of that, both properties. MR. O'CONNOR-The Assessor won’t pick that change up until March 1. So their assessment st records show Mahar as being the owner, as opposed to Mr. McDonald, even though the closing took place. MR. VOLLARO-His closing took place on December 23, 2002? MR. O'CONNOR-Some time in that area, at least prior to there. The date of recording might be a couple of weeks after the actual closing date. MR. VOLLARO-The reason I’m asking that question is that, looking at, the reference I’m looking at is 179-19-020, Paragraph C in our Code, and in there it talks about that the industrial lot shall have a frontage of 130, has a frontage right now of 132.68, versus 200 required in the Light Industrial zone. The residential lot fronting on a collector road should be two times the width permitted in the LI zone. I’m just. MR. O'CONNOR-These are pre-existing lots and would not be subject to those standards. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I was making an assumption that that’s true, until I saw when the property was actually purchased. You say they’re pre-existing lots. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That runs with the land. Is that what you’re saying? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it does. Mr. Mahar owned those as two pre-existing lots, and I think, in fact, there were two separate deeds recorded for those, so that there would be not any question of merger. The only place there’s a merger in the Town of Queensbury is if you’re in the APA land, or if you’re in a Critical Environmental Area. There’s a merger by operation of law, but other than that, as of the date of the adoption of the Ordinance, you had separate lots, it’s my understanding, Cathi can verify it for you, that they are still pre-existing lots, and I think the change in the Ordinance was ’88. Those lots pre-existed. I think those lots go back to the 50’s. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Our current Ordinance references in 1988 as well. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to clear that up in my mind. I guess my next question is, basically you’re going to be dealing with plants and trees and things of this nature. It’s going to be a nursery in a sense. So how are you planning to handle your pesticides and herbicides? You’re going to have to get some DEC permits for that. MR. MILLER-He already registered for all the applications things. Actually the amount of storage we talked about that. The amount of storage on the property be limited, and it’ll either be stored initially inside the building, but you’ll see in the back there’s a covered storage area. So any fertilizers or anything there, and it’s typically going to be the types of things that are commonly used, the stuff that’s for sale there, commonly used and sold at Lowe’s and things like that, and anything he uses commercially, he’s already licensed and he’s currently handling that now, but he’s not going to stockpile a large amount of that. You can see it’s only limited to that back area. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-Now I’ll get back into C.T. Male’s comments. They were quite extensive, and I saw your answers to his questions, and I also know, now, that, just reading this last sign off letter here from C.T. Male, it says the letter dated January 21, a revised set of plans. So there is st a revised set of plans, and a new plan sheet, SP-5, bearing the latest revision date of January 22, 2003. There are things that are very similar to the previous applicant that we had. We’re not looking at the final drawings here. They’re not in front of us. MR. MILLER-Those are the final drawings, yes. MR. VOLLARO-They are, but what I’ve reviewed is not. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we updated them to satisfy the comments by the engineering review. MR. VOLLARO-See, I see a slight breach here. When I do my review at home, which takes me a fair amount of time, I’m reviewing it on a set of drawings. I think my fellow Board member Mr. Strough made the same comment, and when I sit here now and see that, really, there’s been changes that I haven’t had an opportunity to really look at, and yet I’m being asked to approve it, I have a problem with that. MR. MILLER-What we do, as soon as we get the comments from C.T. Male, we try to address them as quickly as possible, and we usually address them by fax, and like the changes to the drawing, we’ll Xerox it so we can fax it an we immediately copy the Town with that, but I mean, like we got the comments, as a matter of fact this month was fairly early. We got the comments early in the week, but by the time we were able to resolve everything, it was the end of the week. I think if you look through the extent of the comments, a lot of it was clarification. There’s some things that talk about, you know, directing some drainage and things. There was nothing we did that really changed the plan. We added a drywell. There was nothing that really changed the site plan, the landscaping and any of those things. Some of the very questions you asked about, like the driveway and the light levels and were really clarifications. The one thing that was different is the Sheet Five that was added is there’s a new requirement that came off from DEC on January 8 now for a stormwater pollution prevention plan which is th basically an erosion and sediment control plan during construction, it’s a new requirement, and we addressed that with a drawing, and this was the first time that, you know, we’ve had to do that. So apparently we’ll be doing that from now on. So that was a drawing that was added, and basically was just a supplement to the existing and clarification to the erosion and sedimentation grading plan that was submitted in the original package. MR. VOLLARO-I had a note here on that as well, the new pollution prevention plan, but I never get a chance to see that. See, I don’t even know what that is. I haven’t got the foggiest idea. MR. MILLER-We’re just trying to figure it out ourselves. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. It still doesn’t alter the idea that I like to know that I’m reviewing the final plans for something, and I feel that it’s the Planning Board, regardless of what the Staff does, it’s this Board that makes the approval, and they should have the opportunity to see all the latest drawings, I feel. That’s one Planning Board member talking. MR. MAC EWAN-I would suggest to the Board with this application or any application that at any time you feel uncomfortable that you haven’t had an opportunity to review revised drawings or additional data in ample amount of time, in a thorough amount of time, you can always request an application be tabled so you can review it. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, Mr. Chairman. I’m just trying to get this on the table so the rest of my Board members understand where I’m coming from on this. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you can ask the engineering consultant that you have retained whether or not we have anything substantial, and if there was something substantial in what was submitted, I would understand maybe your concern, but I think you’re damned if you do 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) and damned if you don’t. Comments are made, and we try to respond to them as quickly as can, so that we have a document that you can turn to your consultant and say, have your issues or have your concerns been answered in a reasonable manner and shown, or you could approve it, subject to the plans being modified and being signed off by the consultant after the fact. If they’re minor changes, it would seem to be an unnecessary burden on applicants to adjourn it simply because you haven’t had the opportunity to review it, even though I agree with you that you’re the ones that approve it, and I’m not sure how you get a middle ground there. MR. MAC EWAN-That one’s not easy, Mike. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a question of timing. I mean, you know, things are getting so that submissions to this Board are getting more and more complex, and possible not this one, but in general terms, they are, and I’ve made the comment, through e-mails to Staff and so on, that maybe we can’t run these cycles as fast as applicants would like them to run, until Board members have had a chance to review all the data. I’m just trying to bring this out. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it’s a matter of dealing with each application on an individual basis and trying to see what you can work out on that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s true, Michael. I don’t have a problem with that. MR. O'CONNOR-If you get too fixed in rules, sometimes it hurts people unnecessarily. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if that’s a fact, that the rule shouldn’t be there, we should strike it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a philosophical thing. Let’s move along with this review. MR. MILLER-I think any questions you have about any of those items on C.T. Male’s letter, I’d be happy to address them. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The last one I’m going to come up with is the test pit info. on the grading plan. Now, I couldn’t find it, unless I’m looking at the wrong, did I see, is it on there? MR. NACE-No, it was inadvertently left off the original plans that were submitted. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I searched all over for it, and I said, well, it isn’t’ here. MR. NACE-That’s my fault. It was accidentally left off. It has been shown now. As you’re well aware, the soils out there are deep, sandy, well drained soils. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I know what the basic soil looks like, but what it said, it’s on the plan, I was just looking to see where it was, and it wasn’t there. MR. NACE-It is currently on the plan, but it wasn’t on the plan submitted to you. I’m sorry for that. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Let’s start off with, could you explain the drainage proposal for the sub- catchment one? MR. MILLER-Which one are you talking about, John? MR. STROUGH-Sub-catchment one, the drainage proposal. MR. MILLER-Is that the front area? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. STROUGH-No. It’s in front of what you call nursery sales. MR. MILLER-Okay. That’s this area here? MR. STROUGH-No. It’s the building up in back of the house? MR. MILLER-This area here? MR. STROUGH-Back further. There. MR. MILLER-This. MR. STROUGH-No, in front of the barn. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-That’s sub-catchment one. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m looking, it’s addressing Number 12, I think C.T. Male has suggested a problem, and it’s on a blow-up. MR. MILLER-Yes. They had a concern that the water would sheet off of this, this area is paved now, or graveled now. It would be asphalt paved. They had a concern that water would drain in this area, and drain onto that septic fail. So basically a swale was added to just direct that water around. MR. STROUGH-That’s the problem. Is this one lot or is it two lots? MR. MILLER-This is two lots. MR. STROUGH-And stormwater is supposed to be maintained on its own lot. MR. MILLER-Well, this is an existing. MR. STROUGH-You can’t have it both ways. MR. MILLER-It’s an existing condition. All we’re doing, we’re not changing the drainage in that area. We’re just recognizing a concern that C.T. Male had. Instead of that water sheet flowing across the corner of that property, we’re just directing it around. MR. STROUGH-But, you’re still having stormwater drainage flow from one parcel, one proposal, to another area, to someone else’s, possibly someone’s property. MR. MILLER-Well, but that happens. I mean, water drains across property lines. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a current condition. MR. MILLER-I mean, we’re not increasing runoff into that lot. MR. STROUGH-We’re (lost words) to approve stormwater flowing onto someone else’s property. MR. MILLER-Well, it’s an existing condition, and as a matter of fact, what we’re actually doing is now it flows onto there. By putting that swale is we’re taking it and directing it over into this area. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. STROUGH-It’s an existing condition, doesn’t give it approval. MR. O'CONNOR-Is it the requirement or the standard that after the project, that there not be an increase in flow of stormwater off the site. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-But all stormwater should stay on site. MR. MILLER-No. MR. O'CONNOR-No. It’s that there not be any increase in flow off the site from pre-existing conditions. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ll get an affirmation of that. MR. MILLER-When we do a stormwater report, we do an analysis of the existing conditions. MR. O'CONNOR-If you have a concern about that, we will do a recorded easement that will allow that to be a permanent condition. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, part of the problem with this being treated as one parcel or two parcels, when we did the site development data, were we treating this as two parcels or one? MR. MILLER-The only parcel, the residence is not before you. That lot is not before you. The only lot that we’re looking at under site plan is the other lot for the nursery. There’s no changes to that residential lot. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t understand what the issue is, John. They’re taking an existing condition and they’re improving it. MR. STROUGH-Well, they have a condition, Mr. Chairman, where they’re developing a parcel and part of their solution for the development of this parcel is to use another lot’s property for the drainage. The detention, the retention swale that they’re proposing is on the residential lot in the southwest corner. MS. RADNER-John, what the standard says is that it has to be on site stormwater control measures. So we’ve got two (lost words) but we have a single site. I think this is similar to the Northway Plaza one we looked at, where we had some division of ownership, but we were still considering a single site, and I think you can look at this the same way. MR. STROUGH-But I’m not. The problem is that Coby might be selling off, as they said in the report, they might be selling off the residential part. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s exactly what happened in Northway Plaza. They sold off the footprint for the Home Depot store. MR. STROUGH-But that was apples and oranges here. MR. O'CONNOR-How about the Ames/Wal-Mart. That’s three separate ownerships. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re splitting hairs here. I don’t think anybody else has got an issue with it, so let’s move on. MR. STROUGH-Well, to me it’s an important issue. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MILLER-I think, when we do a storm drainage report, I mean, there’s an existing drainage condition on the site that exists, and, you know, you could have a subdivision and water could flow from one yard to the next yard. That’s a natural condition. Just because we come for site plan doesn’t mean, you know, so as long as we don’t increase the amount of water that’s currently exiting our site onto another lot, that’s what we’re required to do. MR. STROUGH-What bothers me is that you’re allowing stormwater from your site, at the time we’re developing it. We’re developing it now, you could do something about it, but what we’re allowing is stormwater to flow from one site, one owner, to possibly another site, and possibly another owner. To me, that’s not right. MR. MILLER-Actually, if you look at the swale, John, we’re taking that water and we’re directing it onto our driveway. So we’re not draining it onto that property at all. We’re basically diverting it away from that septic system into the nursery’s sales area where we’re putting the new drywell and the detention basin. MR. STROUGH-Well, fine. You could either do one of two things. Either move the swale more onto the property that’s being developed or move the property line, you know, so the swale is in the property that we’re talking about, that stormwater is contained on this site. That’s the issue. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re comfortable with it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, reading in the stormwater management report, what I labeled as Page Six, which I’m trying to get the driveway, the sub-catchments, the drainage diagram, and we’re talking about sub-catchment one, and it says driveway and landscape display. Is landscape display and nursery sales, is that synonymous? MR. NACE-That is the same, yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. NACE-Yes. The drainage areas are really depicted on the plan that’s with the drainage report. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right, and, two, Bob brought it up, but the stormwater pollution prevent plan is something that I think, you know, as a Planning Board member representing the community, I should review. I mean, this is new. I understand that, and it’s new to me. I’ve never seen one. MR. NACE-It’s a DEC regulation. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it’s fairly new, isn’t it? MR. NACE-But it does get filed, eventually, with the Town, yes. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I’m just wondering, in the future, is that going to, you know, are we, as a Planning Board, going to have a chance to review the stormwater pollution prevention plan? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. NACE-Now that it’s in effect, they will be submitted with the site plans. MR. STROUGH-So we have, all right, SPDES, and we’ve got FOIL and now we’ve got. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MILLER-Well, this is part of SPDES. MR. STROUGH-It is part of SPDES? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. So I agree with Bob. I’d like to review that, but I realize it’s new, and this, you know, the only real thing that bothers me is that stormwater situation. Now the bathroom facilities, I’m assuming, we’ve got two different lots here, because that’s the way I’ve got to look at it. I mean, you know, some people are looking at both lots as one site, and I don’t think you can look at it that way. I think you have to look at this as two separate lots. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done it with several other applications. It’s not something that’s new. It’s not something that’s surprising. It’s a common practice that’s been occurring in front of this Board for as long as I’ve been on it. That’s a long time. MR. STROUGH-Now the existing septic field, not the one for the house, because I’m assuming the house is going to get sold, go to a new owner, we’re not going to use that bathroom. So the bathroom that might be available to workers and to Coby and to the public is what’s labeled as office and existing building. Is there a bathroom in that building? MR. MILLER-There’s a bathroom in there, but I think the plan is that the retail sales building that’s the existing barn now as the business expands, there’d probably be a public bathroom added in there. MR. STROUGH-Nursery sales? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So there might be a bathroom proposed? MR. MILLER-When they get to that level. Right. MR. STROUGH-Where will the infiltration bed be? MR. MILLER-It’s the same system. They’re both connected to the same field. MR. O'CONNOR-There is a bathroom in that building right now. MR. STROUGH-There is a bathroom in that building. How old is this infiltration field now? MR. O'CONNOR-I think our information is that it’s like a 10,000 gallon system. MR. STROUGH-I mean, has it be assessed for adequacy? I mean, how many remaining years does it have? Has this been assessed? MR. NACE-Okay. What we did is took a look at how it’s been used in the past, okay, from what we know of the previous business, and compared that to the way we expect it to be used in the future, and the two are very, very similar, as far as the number of employees, and the use of the facilities, that was in the response to C.T. Male. The soils are good. We know the soils are not what we would consider marginal for septic systems, and there have been no reported problems with the system in the past. Based on the soils, I don’t see, unless a problem does occur down the road in the future, in which case the Building Department would deal with it, that there’s a need to try to asses the system itself. There’s really, and Jim can speak to this also, it’s very difficult, without going in and digging things up and half destroying what’s there, it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to assess the condition of a septic system. About all you can 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) do is dig up the tank and see if the tank’s doing it’s job, but that’s only a very small fraction of the total story. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, since I’m thinking of this as two separate lots, what I’m hoping is that we don’t have a water supply line going to the house, that might be sold, and then to these other buildings. Because I’m sure that this lot should have it’s independent source, but we can’t confirm that. MR. NACE-Well, they have been separate lots in the past, okay. It’s very doubtful that the Water Department would have put in a single tap to serve two separate lots. MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-If you would be considering approving this application as a condition of approval, we can get it verified from the Town Water Department whether there’s two taps on those parcels or not. If it’s not, we can make it a condition of approval that separate water service needs to be supplied to the commercial side of the application. Easy enough to do. MR. MILLER-That would be fine. Mr. Chairman, the applicant said he plans on extending another water line to the rear of the property anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s also a well on the property. MR. VOLLARO-That’s just for water. MR. STROUGH-Well, there’s a well on the residential property that might not be part of this? MR. MILLER-No, it’s in the back. The residential property has municipal service. MR. O'CONNOR-The intention of the applicant is to get a separate service for the commercial side of it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. A few other more minor questions. Down below, towards the Luzerne Road, on the east side of the property, we have nursery stock sales, mulch surface, we have construction plant material, mulch surface. Now, will that be accessed by trucks or cars or anything like that, or is that just going to be, it’s going to be trees with the bulbs and the canvas on the bottom of it? MR. MILLER-Yes. I mean, they may bring a small truck in there to unload or something. A lot of it will be handled with just hand trucks, as necessary. When all the material is stored in there, they won’t go in there with trucks, but. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m just wondering, the construction plant material around the back, how will that be accessed, just someone, is there going to be a road going around the back of that area? MR. MILLER-Well, the intent there is that’s going to be, no, that would be trucked out. The intent there is that that would be material that’s either stored, one area it will be retail sales, it will be open to the public. So there may be some material back there that’s not open to the public that’s stored for construction jobs or that’s sold. The concern there is that if it’s all retail sales, you know, we end up needing 150 parking spaces, we’re trying to reduce the amount of retail sales area, and then have some other area that’s more like warehousing. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, what I’m concerned about is I don’t want them driving over the existing septic field to get to that spot. MR. MILLER-No. He won’t do that. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. STROUGH-I mean, how do we prevent that? MR. MILLER-Well, Coby’s a smart guy and he doesn’t want to replace a septic system. So he’ll probably stay off of it. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know how old it is now. MR. MILLER-I mean, it’s fairly clear. I mean, you can see it there, in the slope, you can see where the system is, and that’s why, you know, the walkway and the entrance is put up there, and the trucks won’t come in from there. If the trucks access it, they would come in, you know, from the driveway down by the sign and that way, but the intent is that’s going to be more just warehousing, you know, stockpiling of material that’s going to be moved over into the retail area as it’s sold. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and do we heat these units with natural gas? MR. MILLER-The greenhouses? MR. STROUGH-Anything? Any of the buildings. MR. MILLER-He hasn’t planned that far ahead. MR. STROUGH-Because I don’t, how is it currently heated? MR. MILLER-Which one? MR. STROUGH-Any of the buildings in back, other than that residence. MR. MILLER-Oil. MR. STROUGH-Oil. All right. So at least I know there’s not a natural gas line coming from the house to these other properties, because, you know, my grandfather, in the old days, and you refer to the old days here, and I know how they did things. They just kind of wrapped the hose from one building to the next and next and next and next as they grew, and if this is going to be two separate parcels, as I’m trying to look at it, I just want utilities and everything else to be separated, ahead of time, and the electricity as well. Do these have an independent electric run? MR. MILLER-Yes. The power poles you see down the driveway, the power is actually overhead, and comes down those poles to the rear buildings. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. So, if you do sell off the property where the house is, then can I call that Lot One? Okay, and the landscaping site will be Lot Two, and, George, if that lot where the house and the pool is gets sold, then does the area in front of the nursery sales, does that, in effect, become the front of the lot? MR. HILTON-You’d still have the frontage on Luzerne Road. MR. STROUGH-All right, but would that be considered the front? MR. HILTON-Well, for purposes of determining lot width? MR. STROUGH-Yes, for setbacks. MR. HILTON-Well, you’d take an average of the lot width, and that would be your lot. MR. MILLER-For setback, George, we asked that question when we met with you and Craig, and we were informed at that meeting that the front setback is only from the frontage on Luzerne Road on the Town road, and that that other setback, which is the rear of the residence, 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) Lot One, that would be a side lot, because we asked that question, and that’s what we were told, that that would be a side. It’s only the frontage on the road that’s the front part. MR. STROUGH-Well, because all these questions come to me because I’m thinking of these as two separate lots, as I think you really should. MR. MILLER-Well, they are. We have them as two. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. HILTON-I think we do, you know, we have the frontage on Luzerne Road, and that’s the front yard as it sits now, and I think Jim’s right, we, you know, the setbacks. MR. STROUGH-I’m thinking of this if that were to be treated as the front, that’s why I asked you, then those setbacks would have to be 50 feet, and if it’s not, then it’s only 30. Okay, and we have the C.T. Male signoff, and as far as the lighting, you’re going to provide us with the cut sheets. The wall mounted lighting’s going to be shielded. MR. MILLER-Yes. The plan shows the lighting, actually shows the photometric diagram, and it’s basically going to be just a cutoff. I’ll leave this with George, and the facility is not open to the public at night. So the only need there would be for any lighting would be some of the lights be left on for security, or if they come back from a construction job or something, they have some lights around the back. That’s all. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, what’s the definition of night? MR. MILLER-Dark. MR. STROUGH-Well, darkness comes at 4:30. MR. MILLER-Yes, well not too many people go in the nursery and buy plants this time of the year anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what’s the problem, John? MR. STROUGH-Well, nothing, I’m just, you know, if they say they’re making. MR. MAC EWAN-Coby does snowplowing in the winter. Right? He may have to go over and get his plow trucks at 4 o’clock in the morning and go do snowplowing. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I just didn’t know what the definition of night was. I mean, is there a time? MR. MAC EWAN-Night time is usually some time between sundown and sunrise. MR. STROUGH-When there’s no light? Is that the definition? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got it covered. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’m done. Coby, I’m tough on everybody, and the one problem that I have with this is the stormwater flowing onto potentially another site. Now you could either change the property line and keep it on this development’s site so that the new owner, it’s not an issue to the new owner, or you could move the swale. So, one way or the other, I think that stormwater should be kept on this property because you’ve admitted, you might sell the other property and I guess maybe I’m the only Planning Board member that has an issue with that, but I think it’s an important issue. Thank you. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MILLER-I think if we ever sold that to, you know, if that was a concern, we would just put an easement on that property, because it only drains along the edge and then comes back onto our property. It doesn’t drain across their site, across that back lot. It comes to the east, naturally, and the only thing we were doing is just, as some added protection to the existing septic field. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. MILLER-As a matter of fact, I didn’t have anything there. Mr. Houston asked that we did that. MR. STROUGH-Well, Jim, you’ve been here long enough to know that there’d be people coming to the Planning Board saying, the property, I’m being inundated by this developer’s property next to me. How could you let this happen to me. I mean, we hear it all the time. MR. MILLER-Yes, but the law reads, though, if it currently drains off a site, it could continue to do that. We just can’t increase it. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know. I see that a little differently. MR. MILLER-Because there’s no way to contain all the water on every piece of property like a bunch of swimming pools. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think that’s what we’re going to try and do, but thank you. MR. NACE-I’m in trouble. MR. MILLER-You’re in trouble. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I just don’t think it’s possible to ask another question. MR. RINGER-Or to want to ask another question. MR. METIVIER-I wish you the very best with this. I really do. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-How can I ask one more? Actually, I did have a question, and the question I had is on the greenhouses. How would those greenhouses be constructed? Would there be a foundation? Would they be a permanent type structure, or would they be, you know, oftentimes you see the greenhouses now that are almost like temporary tents. They’re just poles with plastic. MR. MC DONALD-Yes. It would just be the poles and the polyethylene. Maybe at most there’d be like a cement walkway down the aisle. MR. HUNSINGER-Would they be heated? MR. MC DONALD-Probably. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jim, you told me they’d be on a foundation. MR. MC DONALD-Yes, well, maybe crushed stone. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MILLER-Some of them are. Apparently I was wrong. I mean, usually, sometimes there’s an issue with insulation underneath. I’ve seen them with frost walls and some insulation, which reduces the heating cost, and if Coby doesn’t do that, it’ll cost him more to heat it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Anything to add? Jim, did you want to make any comments? MR. HOUSTON-Just a point of clarification about the runoff, not to belabor that issue. The plans indicate a conversion from a crushed stone surface to basically a crushed slate or a very similar type surface as far as runoff, and therefore I think it’s the rate would stay the same, and I think it addresses that issue. When Jim had talked about it, he had mentioned that there would be a pavement of that surface, and I think it was a little bit misleading whether it was going to be paved and asphalt, which would definitely be an increase in the rate of runoff at that case, but the way the plans read, it does show a stone surface being replaced with a stone surface. So as far as the runoff computation, it would be similar. MR. STROUGH-But, Jim, you bring out the very point, if this were to get paved in the future, that could be a real problem for the person in the other property, the new owner maybe. I mean, we have not assessed that if this were paved if that drainage swale would work. That hasn’t been assessed. We’ve only assessed crushed stone. So what I’m saying is, if that were on their site, then that’s not a problem, but that’s on somebody else’s, potentially, somebody else’s property. MR. MAC EWAN-Mike, talk to me about the easement you were talking about earlier. MR. O'CONNOR-Coby said how about a five year term. If you’re concerned about this, let’s do the same thing on the phasing. If he doesn’t sell it within five years, you don’t have a problem. If he sells it within five years, you’d give an easement, reserve an easement to himself for the drainage, and I’m not trying to be cute. We have approved how many different stormwater plans, and we do them on the condition that you were shown on the plan. You’re presuming some other condition that’s not on the plan, but I’ll say this, that you may be looking in an area that you want to look, because I don’t think there’s any restriction, if you have an area that’s considered impervious, from you paving it in the future. Typically you don’t come back and do a new site plan simply because you pave your parking lot. Do you? MR. HILTON-No, typically. MR. STROUGH-As a Planning Board member, Mike, I’m supposed to look at worst case scenario. MR. O'CONNOR-How many square feet are we talking about? What’s the runoff in total? How many buckets would you gather in this area, truthfully? MR. STROUGH-Well, you’re probably looking at, what, 1,000 square feet there, a couple thousand maybe. MR. O'CONNOR-In that watershed? MR. STROUGH-I don’t know, what’s it say for the? MR. O'CONNOR-Tom? MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, are you satisfied with the fact that they’re going to put a berm there to control the runoff and redirect it? Are you comfortable with that? MR. HOUSTON-I don’t think there’s mention of a berm. Is there? MR. STROUGH-No, there’s no berm there. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-A swale. A swale. MR. HOUSTON-Yes, a swale. Yes, that’s fine. What they’re showing on this plan is a stone surface to a stone surface, and no net increase in runoff. As far as what’s shown here, I don’t take exception to that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m guessing the rest of the Board’s comfortable with that. MR. RINGER-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I have no problem with what we’re dealing with right now, but you’re saying, though, if you blacktop it, it’s going to be different. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t know it’s going to be blacktopped. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I’m saying, right. MR. MAC EWAN-You deal with the application as it is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And if that house is sold in the future, you’re going to have to live next door, you’re going to be running your business next door to those people. You’re certainly not going to stick it to them, you know, really bad. MR. O'CONNOR-And the likelihood of him selling it and creating his own problem is not great. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, Queensbury resident. I don’t have any questions at all about the project here. I have a question for the Town, as to the time period allotted for site plan. My experience as a builder and doing several projects in the Town, site plans expired after a certain period of time and they weren’t left open ended. I recently had a project where we were unable to start the project and get a permit for a building within a certain period of time. I went to get the permit. Time had expired. I had to go through the whole process all over again. I’m just questioning whether this has been changed in the rules or whether it’s the same. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s one year. Which we’re going to address that. MR. MATTHEWS-Okay. Well, I just had that question and I wanted it answered. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask a point of clarification here? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought you had a year to start the project. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-You have to start within one year of your approvals, and if you don’t, then the approval expires and you have to come back through the process. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And I think you’re referring to the house up on the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-My response on that is, it’s my understanding that we will complete all site improvements except for the construction above ground within the one year period. So I think we would be in compliance with even that regulation or that provision of your regulations. MR. MAC EWAN-I believe the Ordinance is written in such a way you have to start the project. I don’t think the Ordinance says you have to complete the project in a one year span. You have to start it. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked for clarification, because that was my understanding. MR. NACE-It’s my understanding you have to pull a building permit within one year, and then within one year of the building permit, you’ve got to complete the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. It’s the Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: COBY MC DONALD/COBY SCAPES, 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. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) Duly adopted this 28 day of January, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Any discussions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a discussion. I just want to make sure that the revised set of plans, could we get a date from the applicant of what the revised set of plans are? MR. MILLER-January 22. nd MR. VOLLARO-January 22. nd MR. MAC EWAN-I believe Mr. Hunsinger’s got a motion he’s worked up down there. Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I know some of the members are sticklers on the dates of some of the plans, but my opinion has always been that the resolution addresses that saying inclusive of all newly received information. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but my only point there is that I haven’t had a chance to look at it. That’s my only point. I have not seen these plans dated 1/22/03. It’s as simple as that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Do you want to take a moment to review the plans while they’re up on the board? MR. VOLLARO-Well, we did that the last time, the last applicant did it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m asking if you want to do that. MR. VOLLARO-We ought to do that just to make sure the record shows that these Planning Board members have had a chance to look at the latest plans. I’d defer to the counsel on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t need to defer to counsel. If you feel comfortable doing it, do it. MS. RADNER-If you think that you need to look at it and that the changes are substantial, you need to get up there and verify that you’re comfortable and that you’ve seen the plans before you. MR. MAC EWAN-It should also be noted on the record that our Town Engineer has also reviewed the plans and they’ve signed off on those most recently revised plans. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. So that’s fine with me. What I’m trying to do is make sure we don’t start getting a precedent set here as to how this Planning Board reviews plans. MR. MAC EWAN-And I don’t think that we are. I don’t think our review has changed at all, but given the fact that the changes have been minor on this, you know, I don’t have any issues concerning this with approval. If there were a lot of changes on it, I certainly would table this 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) thing and give everybody ample time to review it, but the changes were just basic small housekeeping changes that needed to be made, and our Town Engineer feels very comfortable with them and they signed off on them. MR. VOLLARO-Craig, I agree with that. I’m just trying to set the pace here, that’s all, for the future. That’s what I’m trying to do. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, Chris, make the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2003 COBY MC DONALD/COBY SCAPES, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 5-2003 Applicant/Owner: Coby McDonald/Coby Scapes Property Owner: John Mahar Agent: Michael O’Connor, James Miller Zone: LI Location: Luzerne Road Applicant proposes to convert the existing site and building for Nursery Sales and Landscape Construction. Construction Company and Retail Use allowed in LI zone with Site Plan Review. Cross Reference: Notice of Appeal 4-2002 Tax Map No. 93-2-14, 15/308.12-1-4, 5 Lot size: 2.98 acres/Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: January 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/16/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/24/03, and 1/24 Staff Notes 1/23 CR from James Miller, response to CT Male engineering comments 1/21 Notice of Public Hearing 1/15 CT Male engineering comments 1/15 GH from C. McDonald: Deed information 12/30 Meeting Notice 12/18 GH from J. Miller: requesting waiver from submission of architectural elevations 9/25 ZBA Notice of Appeal resolution WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on January 28, 2003; 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 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That there will be separate utilities for each of the two lots. 2. That the site plan shall be completed within five years of approval, and, if not, the applicant would come in for a site plan modification. 3. Waiver request granted: submission of architectural elevations. 4. Final Plans shall indicate a phase line(s) identifying areas to be developed at separate times. 5. All future phases of the proposed plan will apply for and receive Site Plan Review from the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 2003 by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I raise an issue? My understanding is that if not completed within five years, the applicant is at risk for any subsequent Ordinance changes that would affect the approval. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we agreed that was going to be five years. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but that’s different than saying automatically you have to come in at the end of five years. I’m saying that we’d be subject to any Ordinance modifications that would require us to come in. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d be inclined, honestly Mike, to go with the five year thing, and if it is not completed within five years, it’s a very simple thing to come in and ask for an extension. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was thinking, is that they would come in and, if it’s not completed, ask for an extension. MR. MAC EWAN-Which we have done numerous times in the past. It’s not a big deal, and that way it gives us an opportunity to make sure that we’re keeping on hands on it. MR. O'CONNOR-No problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, do we want the cut sheets of the shielded wall pack lighting? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s already been submitted. I just asked the applicant. The Town has it already. MR. STROUGH-Okay. How about the waiver for the architectural elevations? Is that going to be granted? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-The three that. MR. MAC EWAN-In reference to what letter? MR. STROUGH-Well, yes, just a request for a waiver of the architectural elevations. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you amend your motion to include that, Chris, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’ll amend the motion to include the waiver request. MR. RINGER-I’ll second it. MR. STROUGH-Coby, I just want you to know I wish you luck, good luck, but the stormwater thing bothers me. I have to say no on that, but otherwise, good luck. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Strough MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you for your patience. MR. MC DONALD-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 6-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED PROVIDENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: MICHAEL WOODBURY AGENT: TOM PRACTICO, BAST HATFIELD ZONE: HC-INT. & MR-5 LOCATION: WEST SIDE BAY RD., BETWEEN 369 & 379 BAY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY, 29, 952 SF PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, RE-PAVEMENT OF DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREAS, AND INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT TO MEET CURRENT REQUIREMENT. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ARE ALLOWED IN BOTH ZONES WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 87-89, SB 11-97, AV 76-95, SP 2-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-32/61-1-37.3 LOT SIZE: 4.08 ACRES SECTION: 179-9-080 JEFFREY MC CARTHY & TOM PRATICO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing is tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-2003, Provident Development Group, LLC, Meeting Date: January 28, 2003 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct an approximately 30,000 sq. ft. professional office building along with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping. 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? Professional offices, such as the one proposed, are listed as Site Plan Review uses in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed building will meet setback and permeability requirements for the MR-5 zone. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) 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? No increased burden on public services and facilities is anticipated. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? No adverse traffic impacts are anticipated with this proposal. 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 application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The location and arrangement of proposed buildings will provide for an overall compatible site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular access will be provided from an existing driveway off of Bay Rd. Vehicular access and site circulation should not be an issue with this proposal. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The number of parking spaces provided more than meets the number required by the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian access is proposed that will connect the parking area to the proposed building. This access appears to be adequate and arranged appropriately. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which has been forwarded to CT Male for their review. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. This property will be connected to the municipal water and sanitary sewer system. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan with the application. The landscaping plan shows a row of Austrian Pines to be planted along the western property line to serve as screening from the adjacent Westwood Townhomes. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The Site Plan provides for adequate emergency vehicular access. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan, Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 30,000 sq. ft. building with associated landscaping, lighting, and stormwater facilities. The applicant has submitted building elevations, which indicate that the building will appear residential in nature. As mentioned in the initial CT Male comments for this application, the amount of parking proposed is more than the amount allowed in the Zoning Ordinance plus 20% by six (6) parking spaces. A variance will be required to exceed more than 20% of the required parking for the proposed use. One solution could be to remove the five (5) parking places to the north of the proposed dumpster enclosure and provide green space and possible additional screening for the properties immediately to the west. The lighting proposed with this application is shown as freestanding poles. All heights and cut-offs appear to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Is any building mounted lighting proposed? If so, cut-offs must be provided indicating that the lights are down facing. Comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application. SEQR Status: Unlisted, short form EAF has been submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The application as proposed would create a 30,000 square foot building, associated parking, landscaping and stormwater facilities. The setbacks for the HC-Intensive zone have been met with this proposal. C.T. Male’s comments, as you’ll see with this application and the one following this, refer to a section in our Parking Regulations that say that parking cannot exceed more than 20% of that required for a particular use. That puts this six parking spaces over, and one just suggestion, rather than going for a variance or anything like that, would be to eliminate five or six spaces along the rear property line, possibly near the dumpster enclosure, maybe some additional screening for the properties to the west. Just a suggestion. Lighting that’s proposed is shown as freestanding poles, and all height and cut offs meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during this review. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. HILTON-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MC CARTHY-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are. MR. MC CARTHY-Jeffrey McCarthy of Ivan Zhdrahal Associates. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Mr. McCarthy. MR. MC CARTHY-Good evening. This project is located on Bay Road, the west side, north of Glenwood, east of the Westwood townhouses. The project has some history in that approximately 15 years ago a site plan was approved by the Queensbury Planning Board for a project called the Offices at Westwood. That project, a lot of the infrastructure was built, the sanitary sewer lateral was built. The water service was extended from the Westwood town homes to the project. Driveway was built, parking was paved. The site was landscaped. Curbing was installed. The only thing that wasn’t done was the building wasn’t built. The proposal is to essentially rehab the site to that 15 year old proposal, a building of the exact same footprint. We have taken steps, in recent submittal to C.T. Male, eliminating 10 parking spaces, five on the east end and five on the west end of the site. We have reconfigured the storm sewer system that was installed 15 years ago to reflect current day standards and meet the latest DEC requirements. We have proposed a cross connect easement to the adjoining property to the north, as recommended by the Planning Department, re-landscaping the site providing additional screening to the west, along the Westwood townhouse projects. Statistics are on the plan. Again, there is an existing water service. There is an existing sewer service, and the storm sewer system is going to be, some sections of it removed and it improved to meet current day standards. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just had made a note here about the parking spots, but you’re all, you’ve resolved that. As I’ve looked at this, I really like the idea that you left the front of the property nice and green and you did the parking in the back. So that really looks nice from the look that we’re trying to get on Bay Road, and you do have a nice buffer on the south and the west ends. I thought your, right now, I thought your, the looks of the design of the building was very nice. I just want to hear, I think we have some issues here as far as what the engineer has talked about here, and I’ve also outlined a couple of things. I wish, Chris, I wish Craig had asked me last, because I’m not really exactly ready to speak, but. MR. MAC EWAN-We can come back to you, if you want. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, but I did have something here, no, maybe you better come back to me in a minute, but right now, everything, I want to hear what the public has to say, and I want to hear what the rest of my Board members have to say, but from just looking at it right now, it looks really nice, but I know there’s some issues that we have to address here, and I’m concerned as to what the public hearing is going to bring, too. Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll start, just from reading my notes and going to Drawing E-2. I think, along Bay Road, for example, there is a 75 foot setback on Bay Road. Isn’t that correct, Staff? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MC CARTHY-Not in this area. It’s based on the zone. This doesn’t fall in that zone, the 75 foot setback. MR. HILTON-I believe it’s a building setback, and 75 feet is required. The plan shows it as green space either way. So I don’t think it would. MR. VOLLARO-No, it doesn’t affect it. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-But I think if you get to our Zoning Ordinance, I think it talks, when you talk to Bay Road, they talk about a 75 foot setback on Bay Road, and they don’t define it by Code. MR. MC CARTHY-Bay Road, it specifies a specific zone that that’s enforced in, and it’s not the Highway Intensive, Commercial Intensive. MR. MAC EWAN-The entire Bay Road corridor has a 75 foot setback, doesn’t it? MR. HILTON-I believe it is the entire corridor. I’ll look into it. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a detail that needs to be noted on the plat. What else have you got? MR. VOLLARO-That’s just number one. Taking a look at the portion of the plot that borders on the Westwood Homeowners Association, there’s supposed to be a 20 foot buffer separating uses, and I think you’ve met the 20 foot buffer there by putting those trees in. I think that is exactly 20 feet, at least I scaled that off to approximately 20 feet. I’d like to talk about removing that dumpster from the back. It could be a little unsightly for the homeowners on the other side, and also, trying to get some sort of a fence up there. This is a parking lot in the back. Putting a line of trees up along the property line isn’t going to prevent light shining through. People turn their lights on, come out of that parking lot, you’ll see, that light spillage will go right into the Homeowners Association. I think we had the same problem when we did the school on Aviation Road there. So I would be looking for some sort of fencing, and so that they don’t have to look at the fence itself, you put the fence in back of the trees so that what the Homeowners Association gets to look at is a set of buffering foliage. Now, this is the first opportunity I’ve seen in an application on the Bay Road where I would like to see a boulevard entrance, as opposed to what you have here. I just picked 40 feet off the drawing as a shot, but it would be an opportunity for us to put a boulevard entrance in here that would be in keeping with what our plan is for the Bay Road, that would open that up a little. You’ve got a lot of green space to the north that’s just plain green space now that we could put a nice straight 40 foot boulevard entrance in there with lighting and a landscaped center. MR. STROUGH-Well, while we’re on the boulevard entrance, can I reinforce that? MR. VOLLARO-Sure, be my guest. MR. STROUGH-For one thing, we’ve got, how many people might be in this building at one time? We have 100 and some odd parking spaces, 100? MR. MC CARTHY-There’s 116 on the current plan. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So to go along with what Bob said, the one driveway access, and there is no other way of accessing this site, just that one single lane road getting in there. Should that be blocked by snow, by a tree, by another car, it would be impossible for an emergency vehicle to get in there. Absolutely impossible. You reduce your risk of providing a boulevard entrance. It’s less likely that both lanes would be encumbered. So I’m agreeing with Bob on the boulevard entrance, and those are my reasons, so I’ll just throw them in now while the topic’s at hand, so I don’t have to bring it up again. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, John. On Drawing E-4, on the landscaping plan, the fence and extended tree row all the way back across. Right now there’s, at least on my drawing, and I don’t see it on the one that was just presently given to me here, but go to the drawing that I’m looking at, at E-4. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Now on E-4 along the western end of the property, I guess you’ve kind of given up that little parking space in there. Is that correct? MR. MC CARTHY-Yes. Being pro-active, in response to the consultant’s recommendation, we have eliminated those five spaces in addition to the five spaces on the eastern end, to reduce it down to a level within your 120% of your recommended number. MR. VOLLARO-Of the requirement. Okay. I’ve got you. What I see there, you have a tree row sitting there right behind the right, just to the west of the parking area. You could extend that tree row, get rid of that dumpster there, put it in another spot, and we could talk about that, and get a tree row all the way across the back. What I’m really trying to drive at here is as much isolation between this property and the Westwood Homeowners Association as we can possibly get, in between the two. MR. PRATICO-Would the tree row be better, or the fence? MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking for both. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I get you to. MR. PRATICO-Tom Pratico, I represent the owners here. I don’t see how both would be, you wouldn’t see the fence if you had the tree row. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the fence, in my mind, the fence is there for blocking light coming, parking lights, car lights from shining, you know how when people turn, those lights will go right through the trees, and they’ll see that all the time. MR. PRATICO-I understand, but if we put the fence, Bob, in front of the Austrian Pines, the trees that are to the rear of the property, it probably. MR. VOLLARO-What was your idea with the tree row to begin with, then? MR. MC CARTHY-There is a Town requirement that because you have this mixed use that you provide a buffer. I think we’ve gone much farther beyond that requirement with the tree row we’ve proposed. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I’m just looking to get as much buffering as I can for the individuals that live in that Homeowners Association. MR. MAC EWAN-But your comment earlier was to have the trees buffered on the Westwood side of the project, and the fence would be on the applicant’s side of the property. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. MC CARTHY-Right. They don’t have a problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Okay. Looking at the elevation, when I looked at the elevation drawings of your building, I noticed that there’s all single doors. I think a building of this type, a medical arts building or a medical building really ought to have double doors. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. PRATICO-There are double doors at the front entrance and the rear entrance. MR. VOLLARO-You wouldn’t know it from looking at the architectural renderings. MR. PRATICO-The are. The floor plan illustrates that. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it does. I looked at the floor plan, and I don’t think it does illustrate that. I’ve only got a floor plan for floor number one. I don’t see the floor plan for number two, but the floor plan for number one looks like a single door. MR. STROUGH-Yes. We’ve got two first floor plans, but no second floor plan. MR. PRATICO-Okay. You don’t have the, you need the, we’re going to have a double door on the front entrance with side links. MR. VOLLARO-The plan that I’m looking at is labeled A-1, and it’s plans of the first floor, and it shows a single door. MR. PRATICO-Right. It’s been corrected. The plans that we’ll be submitting for building permits will have double doors, on that end and on the back. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re not looking at the right drawings here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Here we go again. MR. PRATICO-Well, we’re not submitting a floor plan this evening. MR. VOLLARO-No, but the renderings and the plans are all part of the submission that I like to look at when I review an application, and I guess just to, not to beat a dead horse, but I didn’t receive a stormwater management and a pollution plan on this one either. MR. STROUGH-Did anybody get a stormwater report on this plan? Anybody on the Planning Board? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess not. MR. PRATICO-The required number were submitted. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t get one. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, did you get one to look at? MR. HOUSTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, if that’s it, I know I don’t have it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move along. MR. VOLLARO-As fast as I can, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all right. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I’d just like to get on to the ownership and maintenance of the water line across the Westwood Homeowners Association. What’s the status of that today? What is the status of that line? MR. MC CARTHY-The line is a private service through Westwood Homes. It was extended into this project. Discussions with Mr. VanDusen, because the service to this project is off of a 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) private service, it can only be a private service. It cannot be public water. I have correspondence and discussion with Mr. VanDusen today. His request is that we provide an easement that encompasses the gate valve at the western end, eastern end of Westwood property that regulates the water flow to our project for our project’s benefit, that we have access to maintain the supply of water at that gate valve. MR. VOLLARO-Who’s responsibility is it to maintain that line, so that it flows? MR. MC CARTHY-The line that services this project, that’s the responsibility of the Westwood Homeowners Association to maintain that line. MR. VOLLARO-So if there’s a break in the line, it’s their responsibility to fix it? MR. MC CARTHY-That line services their, it’s potable water to their residence and firefighting to their residence, yes. Our service extends at the termination of their line. There’s a hydrant there, and the gate valve was installed initially. We extended that. Water was extended 15 years ago to serve this project in that manner. MR. MAC EWAN-Did Mr. VanDusen issue a memo or a letter to that effect to you? MR. MC CARTHY-He did not. He said he started one, but he thought it would be easily handled today with a telephone conversation. I spoke with him this afternoon. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d prefer that in writing. Okay. MR. HOUSTON-Just to add something to this point here. My letter of today responds to this issue particularly, and I expressed an interest or a consideration should be given to having not only access to maybe that valve or whatever, but also that line across the Homeowners Association property. So if there’s any problem with any of that water line delivering water to this site, they have control to fix it and whatever’s necessary to have control over that water line. So that’s something that I’ve indicated in my letter of today. MR. VOLLARO-That means that the Homeowners Association would give them a maintenance easement over the top of that line? Is that what you’re driving at, Jim? MR. HOUSTON-Yes, precisely, until it got back out to a public right of way. MR. HUNSINGER-How could we require that? What if the Homeowners Association wouldn’t grant an easement? How can we require that because we can’t control whether or not the Homeowners Association grants an easement. MR. VOLLARO-That’s exactly correct. I mean, I don’t know, when they have an opportunity to speak, and I suspect, I see some of them here, that they may, but (lost words) that issue raised. MR. STROUGH-Well, while we’re on the topic, why didn’t you pull your water from Bay Road? MR. MC CARTHY-It was existing. It was built 15 years ago. MR. STROUGH-Built 15 years ago. Okay. Never mind. MR. MAC EWAN-Didn’t you also just make the comment about it couldn’t be used for public use? MR. MC CARTHY-It cannot be, public water, it cannot be dedicated. The water line on our property, because it taps into a private service, cannot be a public, cannot be maintained by the Town of Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s what he meant by public. Okay. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MC CARTHY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. VOLLARO-So really the maintenance of this line, if they don’t grant the maintenance easement, as our engineering consultant has said, if they don’t grant you an engineering, a maintenance easement, it means that they, then, retain the responsibility for that line providing the water and keeping it, if there’s a water main break there, that it’s their responsibility to fix it. MR. MC CARTHY-Correct. That water line serves them, up to our property line basically. If they don’t maintain it, they don’t have potable water to the residence. They don’t have fire protection. We tap in to the end of their line. MR. VOLLARO-It seems to me that I think Mr. Strough has a point here. I don’t know, we can discuss this, but I know there’s a water line on the Bay Road that can service this property without this complication. I would like to see that explored, but we’ll look at that a little bit after we get some public comment, Mr. Chairman, and that’s about all I have, I believe, on this, for now. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished on this. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, luckily I’ve got a couple of the big issues out of the way, see, Bob, maybe we ought to work together. Well, my first thought was, when I first looked at the project, was, you know, it’s appropriate where it’s located, professional office, medical office. It’s great. My concern was some of the impacts on the Westwood residential area, just to your west. So I took a look, and what you’re proposing there are to plant Austrian Pines, about 10 foot apart. Is that accurate? It’s on E-4. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, that’s reasonable. Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So, I did my homework, and Austrian Pine, which is a pine, that when it matures, and I’ll pass this down for the benefit of the other Planning Board members, gets about 14 feet high, and appears that it gets as wide, half as wide, as it gets tall, and it appears that it’s vegetated from top to ground, which is all good. So it appears that you’re planting a tree that’s six to eight feet in height, that shortly, as it matures to 12 to 14 feet, they will grow together and form a fairly dense, vegetative wall there. So, you know, on appearances, it appears to be fairly good, you know, vegetative cover. It appears that way. So, I’m not sure, you know, the Austrian Pine seems to look pretty fine, but I’ll pass these pictures down. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re right across the street. Schermerhorn planted them for his development. MR. STROUGH-It seems to be, I was worried about headlight wash, and I think, within a short amount of time, I don’t like these projects where they plant little bushes and then 30 years later we’ve got something that that’s finally effective. It looks like the Austrian Pines that you’re proposing could be effective, surprisingly, I’m agreeing with you. Okay, and the question of the building mounted lighting, has that come up? If it did, I’m sorry to bring it up again. MR. MC CARTHY-I have a cut sheet to submit. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that will be submitted, and it’ll be downcast and shielded? MR. PRATICO-Yes. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the other question that I had, too, and I’ll need the attention of my other Planning Board members, I’m just wondering that we have made efforts on Main Street and on Bay and elsewhere to interconnect properties. Should we not show, I don’t know how the north side of this property is going to get developed. I’m not even sure how the south side of this property gets developed. Should we show potential interconnects? MR. VOLLARO-It is shown. MR. MC CARTHY-We do. MR. STROUGH-You do? MR. MC CARTHY-E-2, upper left hand corner, the detail. MR. VOLLARO-It’s on here, John. MR. MAC EWAN-Not on the site plan. In the upper left hand corner of the drawing itself, E-2, the detail in the upper left hand corner. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Good. Is there a need for one on the south side? Or is the south side just not developable? MR. MC CARTHY-The south side is residential use right now. MR. STROUGH-Is residential use. MR. MAC EWAN-And the only other parcel is the land of Matthews, and you’ve got a retention basin there. I don’t know how you’d do it. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, we do have one on the north side, and that’s good. Okay. That seems to be it for now. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add, but curiosity is killing me. What is the snout? MR. MC CARTHY-It’s a sediment control device we installed in catch basins. It allows water to seep through and the sediment to be collected at the bottom of structure. MR. METIVIER-Do they have to be cleaned out? MR. MC CARTHY-Yes. Well, the catch basin. This is private property. The project owner cleans it out. MR. METIVIER-But somebody would obviously monitor that on a regular basis. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, facilities maintenance people. MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing else to add at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. RINGER-I like the idea of the fence on the west side there, and also that dumpster, if you could relocate that, away from that west. It may not be possible, but if possible. I don’t know where to relocate it. If you could just get it out of there, it would be nice. If you can’t, you can’t. MR. MC CARTHY-I guess you’d have to consider the maneuverability of the truck. It could get in there anywhere, I guess. MR. PRATICO-I mean, it could be turned 90 degrees and could come here. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s still butting up against the homeowner’s property anyway. MR. RINGER-I just wanted to get it away from that west, if you could, but if you can’t, you can’t. It was just a thought. It bothered me a little bit when I was looking at it. MR. MC CARTHY-Mr. Pratico’s suggestion is to rotate it 90 degrees, which would face the lands of Howe. MR. MAC EWAN-I think our intent here is to try to try to get it away from the residential properties period. If you reoriented it and put it up in the northeast corner of the parcel, adjacent to the land of the Hughes parcel. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, outside of the cross connect easements. So it would have to be inline, somewhat, with the traffic flow, so the truck can get in and back up. MR. RINGER-It was just a thought that I had. I had a little concern with it there. MR. MC CARTHY-We can do that. MR. RINGER-And the fence was the other thing that Bob brought up, but I think it would be nice to have a fence around there, and I think that would do the lighting, that would block off the lighting from the parking lot and stuff. I don’t have anything other than that, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can you touch on architectural design for a minute, please, the color scheme, shingles, boards, brick, whatever. MR. PRATICO-Yes. The color schemes will be a brick veneer at the lower levels, and some of it’s going to carry up to the second floor, up to the gables, with like a buffed colored vinyl siding, a freeze board, and architectural shingles. The windows will be double hung, vinyl clad windows. MR. MAC EWAN-I see on this cover sheet, it tells me that it shows the cupola being up there. MR. PRATICO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-The second sheet shows the cupola as an option up there. Is it part of the architecture or not part of the architecture? MR. PRATICO-We can go either way. I mean, if you like it, we’ll put it on. It’s just an idea. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, are the colors somewhat representative of where you’re going with this? MR. PRATICO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What color is the roof shingles? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. PRATICO-The roof shingles, it’s a blended gray. It’s got a little brownish tint to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Staff got anything to add? MR. HILTON-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM WALTON MR. WALTON-I’m Tom Walton. I live at Westwood. A question of John. You did the research on the trees, and I wondered, when the trees are mature, how high are the lowest limbs? MR. STROUGH-Well, from the pictures, and if you want to share those pictures with Tom, it appears that even the mature Austrian Pines are top to bottom. I was worried about that, like the white pines, as they mature, they lose the branches at the bottom and then you don’t have any coverage. So, that’s why I did my homework, because I don’t want that to happen to you. See, it appears to me that the Austrian Pines remain limbed from the tip of the tree to the ground. The pictures are there, and the reading that I read is they do go to a height of 12 to 15 feet, and it appears by the pictures that they’re almost half as wide as they are tall. In other words, I’d say it appears that, if they’re 14 feet, it appears that they’re almost seven foot wide, and these trees are, and I scaled it out, to be about 10 foot apart. So they’re starting off planting them at six to eight foot in height. So I’m assuming that they’re going to be three, four foot in width, and if each one is three, four foot in width, that only leaves a couple of feet, two or three feet, between each tree. As they mature, that should fill in fairly rapidly, it seems to me, and the other type of tree that grows well in this zone, which is zoned for this zone, so they do well in this type of climate. So, that’s as far, I did do the research, but that’s what I found out, and you’re welcome to look at the pictures. MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, I just read where they grow 65 feet tall, on the literature. MR. MAC EWAN-If memory serves us well, across the street here, down Blind Rock Road right here, next to the Schermerhorn properties, those are Austrian Pines that are planted there. They’ve been there about four and a half, five years, and they were put in at about six foot in height. MR. WALTON-Yes. I was more curious about what the height is of the lowest limb. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and you see these trees here, the fill is on the bottom of the tree as well. MR. WALTON-Thanks. I’ll look at them. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. MR. VOLLARO-What we tried to do with the installation of the fence is to correct the problem with the foliation of the lower limbs. The fence will really give you protection against what I call light glare from headlights and so on, which has got to be your biggest concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? BERNARD MC CANN MR. MC CANN-My name’s Bernard McCann. I represent the Westwood Homeowners Association. As you can see, there’s a number of members here tonight. In reviewing the plans, 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) we thought that the developer has done a very good job. We had concerns about the parking, which has already been taken care of by your Staff. We’ve been discussing the water problem, which was. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, can you shed a little light on that for us? MR. MC CANN-Our concern is the liability of the Association. We have a responsibility to maintain our own water source, and of course we would do that for our own fire protection, for our own use. Having a medical facility using the offshoot of our system leaves a little bit of a liability question, and we’ve been discussing an alternative of possibly having them use their Bay Road, having their own source, so that liability question would never arise. The property that was being developed 15 years ago had the same developer for Westwood as the developer of that property, and I assume that that’s why such a plan was allowed to go through. We don’t have that situation today. MR. MAC EWAN-You are serviced by municipal water, though, off Glenwood. Right? MR. MC CANN-It is municipal water, yes. It’s just the system, the pipes going through our, is the Association’s responsibility. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-How big a pipe is that, Bernie? MR. MC CANN-I don’t know, Larry. I don’t know. MR. RINGER-I mean, if it’s going to serve a hydrant. MR. MC CANN-It’s got to be a good sized line. MR. MAC EWAN-I imagine eight inch. MR. MAC EWAN-Eight inch is the sewer line. Wasn’t eight inch the sewer line? MR. VOLLARO-Six inch sewer line. MR. HOUSTON-I think the plan shows eight inch. MR. STROUGH-For the water supply? MR. HOUSTON-It is true a typical sewer line is eight inch in diameter, but I think the water line is shown as eight inch. It’s eight inch duct liner. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add, Mr. McCann? MR. MC CANN-No. That was our only objection, and actually having this type of facility, we know there’s going to be some use given to that land eventually, and this type of facility would be more preferable to some others, and that’s sort of the feeling of the Association, Board of Directors. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else? JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews. I’m owner of the property south of a portion of the parcel, and I’m concerned with the high water table in the area, and I heard reference to a drainage retention bin on my property line or near there. What has happened, since they’ve filled that whole Lowe’s area across the street, the water table on the western side of the road has risen 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) considerably. I just recently had to do an extensive B-Drive project in the basement of the front building, which we never had any problems with before, and the back building has a four foot crawl space in it, and over the last few years, even though we’ve had dry seasons, there’s been water, and the sump pumps have had to run quite a bit, and what I found, when I built the building, I dug a big pit, and made a drywell, which I use for my sprinkler system, and back when I did it, there’s a clay layer down about six feet, and then underneath that, the water just runs like a river from west to east, towards what used to be the brook or what was the swamp or what not, and as of recent years, I’ve got a cover on that and I measure the level in there periodically, and it’s like up to, the water table in there is up to like two or three feet below the pavement of the ground, the ground level. So my concern is the location of the swale or where all the water’s going to run from, how they’re going to do the drainage on large parking area around this building, if it’s all going to go into one corner or if it’s going to be spread out into different areas. Other than that, I think it’s great that the property’s getting developed. MR. MAC EWAN-You can see the retention basin there on that site plan that’s up on the easel, which would be in the lower east corner, southeast corner of the parcel. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. Right there there’s also a telephone distribution box or something. Is that going to stay there? Right in this corner some place. It’s accessed right behind what the florist. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at his drawing. He’s got it labeled as, it’s a small scale here. There’s a catch basin there, but there’s also something next to that on this drawing. MR. MATTHEWS-So in other words all the drainage from all the blacktop area is going to go into this pond? MR. MC CARTHY-Eventually, yes. MR. MATTHEWS-Why couldn’t it go over here in this big wooded area, here, open area? MR. MC CARTHY-We’re trying to use what was there done before, though. All this is piped already. MR. MATTHEWS-This is in here now? MR. MC CARTHY-No, but these pipes are. This catch basin, there’s a storm sewer, actually there’s a collection. This storm sewer system is built in right now. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, where does it go? MR. MC CARTHY-It goes directly out to Bay Road with the proviso. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask that questions be directed to the Board here, and then we can ask you afterwards, instead of getting into these little, engage in conversations. MR. MATTHEWS-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. MATTHEWS-No. That’s my major concern. I thought that, originally when this was developed, back, I went to the plans, I thought that their culverts and what not were hooked up to the storm sewer on the street. MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, there was a plan in front of us maybe about three years ago, three and a half years ago, and his plan that was to be actually, if I remember, it was a pond. He was actually going to have it a pond. Wasn’t he? 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, but that’s three, four years ago. I mean when Mike Woodbury was doing it 10 or 15 years ago, all those pipes are in there, I think, and they all go, they were hooked up to that new system that was put in on the west side of the Bay Road. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re suggesting that the infrastructure is already in place, then, to run it out? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, I mean, that’s where it should go. It should go into the creek down there and disappear, not be ponded. That’s my opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, just as a point, before the gal gets up there, on C.T. Male’s letter, he talks specifically to the shallow depths of groundwater in that area and how that should be handled in his Number Six comment on our Utility Plan, E-3. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MICHELLE KANE MRS. KANE-Hi. My name’s Michelle Kane and I live at Sunnyside North, and I guess I’m just here to question, I apologize to you guys in advance, but there seems to be a lot of development on Bay Road, and a lot of traffic, and it sounds like back, you know, 10 years ago with Aviation, but hearing, you know, it seems to be a very large building. I’ve heard it referred to as a couple of different things, professional office, medical office. I didn’t know what exactly is going in there. With 100 parking spaces, what kind of traffic is going to be coming in and out of there. Because I know, I travel it 20 times a day it seems like, but between Cronin Road, with the Stewarts right there, and then the Lowe’s and Glenwood has the light, it’s a very congested area, and God help you if you’re there at 12:15 when ACC kids get out, because it’s like a nightmare, but I mean, last night I was with my seven month old at Hughes’ office. It took my husband and I 20 minutes to get out of Hughes’ office to go north on Bay. It was awful. So I just, you know, how big of a building. I mean, I guess I can see the square footage, but what kind of traffic are we looking at? Are we looking at a great deal of? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask the applicant to respond to that. MRS. KANE-I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t apologize about it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Don’t apologize. That’s what we’re here for. MRS. KANE-It’s only because I almost got hit a couple of weeks ago with my two kids in the car. No, it’s a beautiful building, though. So the wider part is this way, and Bay is here, and then Mr. Strough had made the comment about, I’m assuming like a divided entrance way is what you guys are calling a boulevard? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. KANE-So you have the two accesses. So I guess that’s my only question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I just have a couple of questions for clarification. It sounds like this parcel of land at one time was put in dedication as part of whatever this is. It’s a subdivision, a PUD? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MS. RADNER-It’s not part of a PUD. A PUD is a separate classification under our Zoning Ordinance. This isn’t a PUD. MR. SALVADOR-This Homeowners Association we speak of is organized under, what, a subdivision, a condominium, a PUD? What type of? MR. MAC EWAN-The Homeowners Association has nothing to do with this application. MR. SALVADOR-But this parcel of land sounds like it was at one time part of this development here. MR. VOLLARO-I think it was built by the same. MR. MAC EWAN-Woodbury was going to develop both parcels. He owned them both. He developed Westwood and was going to develop this one, and he never finished this one. MR. SALVADOR-Well, because the utilities seem to be tied, the water system particularly, seems to have been planned to pass from one through to the other. It sounds like there was a marriage somehow between the parcel of land being developed now, and what is already there, and somehow this marriage had to be separated. I mean, a developer puts land in dedication to form a homeowners association, and the homeowners association becomes the owner of the so called common facilities, water and sewer being one of them. It’s awful confusion here with the municipal utility. Is it a private water system, is it a public? Where is the, how is the water metered in? MR. VOLLARO-I think what we’re going to be driving at, John, and I don’t want to speak for the rest of the Board members, but I’m certainly going to be pushing to try to get this site sewered from Bay Road, as opposed to this private line. That’s going to be my thrust. MR. STROUGH-You mean water supply. MR. VOLLARO-The water supply, yes. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I think there was a severing at one time of this parcel from the other, and I think at the time you severe, you severe everything, water, sewer, the whole thing, and this has to stand alone now. It can’t rely on the Homeowners Association to be encumbered. MR. MAC EWAN-Honestly, John, I don’t think that the Board is supporting that theory at this point. I really don’t. Did you want to come up, sir? WALTER LAPE MR. LAPE-My name is Walter Lape. I’ve been living at Westwood since 1989. Just perhaps to clear up a couple of facts. When I moved there, we did not have Town water. We did not have Town sewer. We had our own system. Then when Woodbury’s, we joined the Town water system, they put in what we have now, and when they were planning to develop the parcel we’re talking about. That’s why this situation exists as it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Do you gentlemen want to come back up. We’ll leave the public hearing open. Discussion amongst the Board members? Let’s talk about the water issue first, the water service. MR. PRATICO-Let’s save some conversation. We’re going to cut the water line. We’ve discussed this. We’re going to take the water line away from the back. We’ll need permission to go on Westwood’s property to do that, to get to the valve that’s there, cut it off, blank it, and we’ll go out to Bay Road and bring it in from Bay Road. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Good move. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about your retention basins for a minute. Did you review their stormwater management plan? MR. HOUSTON-Yes, I did. Just speaking of what was said earlier, what is proposed, all the drainage does come off, or flows easterly towards Bay Road, and what’s proposed is to put in some detention basins, essentially, on either side of the entrance drive, that are interconnected, and we’re trying to do that to remove pollutants in there, and be in conformance with the upcoming requirements under this Phase II regulations of the stormwater regulations. In creating that basin out in the front there, it’ll be normally dry, and it’ll be low enough that it will probably tap into the seasonal high groundwater level and be able to drain out to Bay Road. So I would envision this plan to have, if anything, a depression in water levels in that area which would be in assistance to Mr. Matthews’ concern about groundwater levels in the area. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that something the applicant needs to revise his plans to indicate for you? MR. HOUSTON-No. He’s added the test pit information indicating that seasonally high groundwater levels, and the design of the basin, basically has been revised basically at my request to what it is here, and I think it satisfies and is an improvement in the drainage for the site. MR. MAC EWAN-When were those plans revised? MR. HOUSTON-Since the original submittal to me probably last Thursday or Friday. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve had revisions since this December 6 drawings we’re looking at. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then that basin, the detention basin on the southeast corner is not really there, that is contiguous with Mr. Matthews’ property? MR. HOUSTON-That is there, but there’s an additional basin on the other side of the entrance drive that’s interconnected with that basin. The original plans just had that one basin on the south side of the entrance. MR. MAC EWAN-The site plan you gave us tonight shows that new basin, with the connection. MR. STROUGH-And it appears that they have enough property that should the Planning Board go along with a boulevard concept, that they have enough property to just rearrange that northern basin to accommodate a boulevard approach. It appears that they have enough property, to me. Do you agree? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. Well, there appears to be green space or not slated for any building per this plan. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t think that was part of the boulevard concept. MR. STROUGH-So if they came through, they’d be able to just elongate it this way. MR. VOLLARO-Reset it in this fashion, you mean. I noticed in the previous drawing that I tried to look at, which was E-3 under the old, you have a, there was a perforated pipe that came down through there, and your recommendation was to get rid of that perforated pipe, I think your Number Six, eliminating the perforated sections and creating an open basin, and that’s what they did, really, on the north side of that. Is that correct? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. HOUSTON-Usually the intention of perforated piping is to perc that water back into the ground and that gives you your water quality treatment and it’s one of the recommended or acceptable approach to doing that. With the groundwater being so close, that would probably not occur. MR. VOLLARO-Not work. MR. HOUSTON-If anything, that perforation would probably take water back out, but it’s probably just as well, and just your bedding and what not around the pipe would transfer that water down into the open basin. So the open basin would suffice for that. MR. VOLLARO-On the latest drawing that they supplied, between the two proposed retention basins, there’s a dotted line. What is that? Is that an interconnect? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Between the two, okay. MR. STROUGH-And the new stormwater provisions, although it wouldn’t be held accountable now, but when they do come into effect, communities will be held liable for their stormwater. Is that correct? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. HOUSTON-That’s why there’s an incentive to take a close look or make sure that there’s little chance of pollution coming off of this. If you look at a design of this basin, the water that enters into this basin has to migrate through a rock riprap, essentially, to a perforated pipe that drains out to Bay Road. So it’s not a direct pipe discharge. So any pollutants that flowed on the surface of the water cannot go directly out into the system which goes into Halfway creek, and that is something that is talked about in the guidance manual for designs of that type of basin. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you’re saying that this design is superior to connecting with whatever infrastructure is already there to channel the water underground out into the sewer system that’s already set up on Bay Road? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. It utilizes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, not the sewer system, but the storm system. Excuse me. MR. HOUSTON-The storm system. Yes, it utilizes the desirable aspects of it and then it improves on it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Matthews, are you satisfied with that? MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, no, no, no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just, I think that, you know, the Westwood people came in. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. Just don’t engage in that kind of conversation, that’s all. MR. STROUGH-And there’s no stormwater going on somebody else’s property. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MR. STROUGH-Just that, when are we going to be able to see a stormwater report? 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a list of, I’m inclined to want to table this application tonight, pending these revisions that we’d like to see. I’ve got a list of six that I’ve been jotting down here. The water issue, which you’re going to revise and obviously pull your water off Bay Road now; boulevard design, which seems, I think has the support of everyone here. It makes good sense. MR. VOLLARO-The fence. MR. RINGER-The fence. MR. MAC EWAN-The fence. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about the dumpster? MR. VOLLARO-Move the dumpster to the northwest corner of the property? Is that what you have proposed? MR. RINGER-Well, to an alternate location. They can decide on an alternate location. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the applicant has made his decision to do the northwest corner. MR. MAC EWAN-East, the northeast corner. MR. VOLLARO-The northeast corner is fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do this one at a time. MR. STROUGH-All right. You’re done with the dumpster? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Can we go back to the fence? I’m not so sure a fence is going to be as aesthetically pleasing as, if you don’t think the Austrian Pines are going to do the job, then a hedge of Yews or small spruces or something like that would be more aesthetically pleasing than a fence. I think the neighbors would agree. If you don’t think the Austrian Pines are going to suffice. MR. VOLLARO-The neighbors aren’t going to see the fence. The fence is going to be to the east of those pines. MR. STROUGH-Well, why do you want to put the fence in? MR. VOLLARO-To absolutely stop light spill from headlights. MR. RINGER-I like the fence idea. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. RINGER-I think that’ll work on the cars and stuff. MR. VOLLARO-We did that on the school. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know. I’m not going to fight you on it. MR. VOLLARO-One of the other ones we want to look at, just incidentally, Mr. Chairman, is that 75 foot setback (lost words) show that as a setback on that corridor. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That’s a matter of Staff reaffirming that. MS. RADNER-That is the correct setback. It’s Section 179-4-060B(6). MR. MAC EWAN-Got that? MR. RINGER-The other thing that they had comments from the public on traffic. If you can give us some idea as to what kind of traffic you’re talking about in and out of this building. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you been jotting these down, because we’ve been jumping all over. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got them all. MR. PRATICO-Well, regarding the traffic and the boulevard, what does the County’s review, when they approve the entrance, or the whole project. How does that bear on those issues? I have a problem with the boulevard, and the widening of the entrance and having to recreate the curb cuts. Everything else we’ve discussed here. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think that’s a public safety issue. MR. PRATICO-But the County reviewed this application on January 8 and approved it. th MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we can override the County. MR. PRATICO-Is that how it works? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’re more powerful. MR. PRATICO-You’ve got the big guns. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re the big guns. We prefer a boulevard. MR. PRATICO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. PRATICO-I’m listening. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing that the boulevard does is two things. One, is what John talks about is the possibility of a blockage of one entrance, but the other thing is to try to get this aesthetic approach to the Bay Road. We’re trying to get the Bay Road to look. MR. MAC EWAN-Farther up Bay Road, just down here near the College, we approved that senior citizens development there, and we had them go with the boulevard. Theirs is 1300 feet long. So they got a better part of the deal. MR. VOLLARO-With respect to the traffic, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, if you take an end to end look at Bay Road now, from Quaker all the way up to Haviland, and even past that, that traffic situation has to be looked at on an overall basis now. I don’t think we can look at it any longer as each individual project and what does it contribute. MR. RINGER-Well, they can give us an idea of what they expect the traffic is going to be in and out of there. I don’t know what we can do with it, but at least we’ll have that as an idea, and then when we do do a concept up there, we’ll have an idea what this particular building may generate. That’s what we’ve asked all the applicants up and down there. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s pretty easy that they could offer some numbers based on the kind of offices they plan on running there. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that, but when we put that into perspective, and add whatever they come up with, Larry, to the pot we’re already looking at, we’ve really got to take a hard look at how this Bay Road is developing with respect to traffic. Last time I talked about a light, the County said there’s no warrant for a light. So we couldn’t get a light. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris and I drafted a letter to Bill Remington about four weeks ago, on that very topic. So we’re waiting for a response on that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. I didn’t know that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We also want to see a stormwater management plan. Board members, no one got copies. So if you have copies or copies didn’t get submitted to Staff. MR. MC CARTHY-They were submitted. MR. PRATICO-They were submitted. I have correspondence to that effect. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they were. We just didn’t get them in our packets, but we would like the opportunity to review those. The basin issue I think we got pretty well covered, because that’s going to be shown on the new set of drawings we’re going to get. One member asked to see a building layout, actual floor plan showing your, I guess they’re interested in the second floor and also double door entries, and you handed in a cut sheet tonight for your lighting, right? MR. MC CARTHY-Building mounted lights, yes. MR. HILTON-As far as that goes, I just have a couple of comments on it. First of all, the plans still don’t reflect the location, or don’t seem to reflect the locations of those wall mounted lights. How that impacts the overall lighting contours, I’m not sure, of the wattage. I mean, I know it’s a light amount. MR. MC CARTHY-Two 26 watt bulbs, per light. MR. HILTON-It seems pretty minimal, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems minimal at best. MR. MC CARTHY-It’s not going to be any increase to the perimeter of the project. MR. HILTON-The only other thing is it doesn’t appear to be down facing. It seems to have a dispersal that goes out. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-six watts isn’t going to carry much, though. MR. HILTON-Just comparing it to the requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we can take a look at the cut sheets. Put them in our packets for next month and if any member has an issue with it, we can discuss it at that point, and if we need to make a change to it, we’ll make it at that point. MR. HILTON-I think at least the location should be noted on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got a laundry list going there, Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Long one. MR. MAC EWAN-About seven, eight items. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have 11. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s take a five minute recess and we’ll come up with our motion. Okay. reconvene. Do we have a motion to table, Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2003 PROVIDENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: The tabling will require that the applicant provide the following: 1. The updated drawing package that we will receive will show the 75 foot setback on Bay Road. 2. The design will incorporate a boulevard approach, approximately 40 foot wide boulevard entrance, the applicant will make that determination based on the drive lines. 3. Move the dumpster to the northeast corner of the property. 4. Set a stockade type fence just to the east of the Austrian Pines. Height will be per Code, six feet max. 5. The water will now be supplied from a main from Bay Road, as opposed to the private water line from the Homeowner’s Association. 6. We need an updated drawing package and tied to that drawing package would be a stormwater report. 7. We’d like to see cut sheets for the lights, and then the lights to be located on the drawings. 8. To have a plan for both the first and second floors, since we only saw the plans for the first floor. 9. The applicant has agreed that he will supply all this additional information by close of business January 31, 2003. Provided that they do, and it’s adequately received by the Town and it’s complete, they can be tabled to our first regular meeting of February, February 18, 2003. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 2003, by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-Add to the end of your list that the applicant has agreed that he will supply all this additional information by close of business this coming Friday, which is January 31. st Provided that they do and it’s adequately received by the Town and it’s complete, they can be tabled to our first regular meeting of February, February 18, 2003. MR. VOLLARO-That can be so noted, as stated by the Chairman. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-So noted for the public, too, that I did leave the public hearing open until that meeting. So if you want to provide additional comments, you’re certainly welcome to. Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: FRANK PARILLO AGENT: ABD ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS ZONE: HC-INT LOCATION: 92 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE TO BE CONVERTED TO A SATURN AUTO DEALERSHIP INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF 44,000 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE AND CONSTRUCTION OF AUTO DISPLAY AREAS. AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-14/104-1-4.32 LOT SIZE: 5.76 ACRES/SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & TOM ANDRESS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-2002, Northeast American Realty, LLC, Meeting Date: January 28, 2003 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish a portion of an existing building and operate a Saturn automobile Dealership in the remaining portion. The proposed Site Plan also proposes associated landscaping, lighting and stormwater management facilities. 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? Automobile Dealerships require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board in the HC-Int zone. The proposal meets required setbacks for the HC-Int zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? No increased burden on public services and facilities is anticipated. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Overall, the proposed use will not result in hazardous traffic or parking conditions. 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 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) 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 application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The location and arrangement of proposed buildings will provide for an overall compatible site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular access will be provided from two driveways off of Lafayette Street. Two access points will provide for adequate vehicular movement, however, the drive on the southerly part of the site should be relocated to be aligned with Bank Street to the west. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The number of parking spaces provided more than meets the number required by the Zoning Ordinance. A Variance is required in order to exceed the parking requirement by more than 20%. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The Site Plan proposes sidewalks along the building, which will provide pedestrian access to the building from the parking area. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which has been forwarded to CT Male for their review. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. This property will be connected to the municipal water and sanitary sewer system. 7. 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 submitted a landscaping plan with the application. Further comment on the proposed landscaping plan will be provided in the Staff Comments section of this note. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The Site Plan provides for adequate emergency vehicular access. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan, Staff comments: As stated in prior CT Male comments, the amount of parking proposed more than exceeds 20% of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. As a result, the applicant must either remove the excess parking or seek a variance from the ZBA. Staff recommends that the southerly drive proposed on Lafayette Street should be aligned with Bank Street to the west. As proposed, this would place an access point for this site too close to Bank Street and would impact vehicles traveling on Bank and Lafayette Street. Alignment of the drive with Bank Street would most likely result in safer movement of traffic on-site as well as on Bank and Lafayette Street. The site currently contains a larger area of green space and trees along Quaker Rd. than what is proposed with this Site Plan. Staff believes that as much of the existing green area and mature vegetation should be retained. The area of green space located at the front of the site is one of a limited number of sites containing a wide landscaped street area and mature vegetation along Quaker Rd. and in the Lower Route 9 Design Area. The proposed lighting plan indicates light levels that appear to conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements with minimal light spill off the property. Lighting foot-candle (fc) levels at drive access points should not exceed 2.0 fc to avoid bright to dark extremes when entering or exiting into street traffic. The lighting fc at the northern access drive may need to be reduced through a reduction in watts or by placing the pole further away from the drive entry/egress. Catalog cut sheets for the luminaire schedule should be provided. Are wall packs proposed with this development? If so, cutoffs for the wall packs need to be submitted. The lighting plan does not clearly show which fixtures will be located throughout the site. Any comments from the Town Water and Sewer departments should be addressed during the review of this application. Comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application. SEQR Status: Unlisted, short form EAF has been submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-As stated in previous C.T. Male comments, the modified proposal more than exceeds the 20% over the parking requirement that a use is allowed to have without a variance. The Zoning Administrator, tonight, issued a letter that the Board and the applicant has, concerning that issue, and we can go into more discussion of that. Staff recommends, again, that the southerly drive that’s proposed on Lafayette be aligned with Bank Street for better traffic circulation on and off the site and just creating a safer situation. As it exists now, this would create some conflicts, and the situation would be better served, I believe, or Staff believes, with a four way there at Bank Street. The amount of green space on this site, on the northern portion of the site, is very generous as it exists and has some mature vegetation. One of the few remaining areas in the lower Route 9 design area, Staff recommends that more than what is proposed of this area be retained and left as is. The lighting plan indicates light levels that appear to conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements, and light foot candle levels at drive access points should not exceed two foot candles to avoid bright and dark extremes. Cut sheets for the luminaries should be provided. Also the question from Staff to the applicant is, are wall 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) packs being proposed. If so, the cut offs should be submitted as part of the application. Any comments from Town Water and Sewer Department should be addressed, and any comments from C.T. Male should also be addressed during the review of this application. That’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ve got a couple of questions I’ll direct toward you, and I guess it’s more procedurally for me, to try to understand things. When we tabled this thing last month, I think we were all on kind of a mindset and in agreement where we seem to be going with this thing. Why the change and wanting to add more green space down in front? It didn’t seem to be an issue last month. MR. HILTON-The Planning Board may be of that opinion, but this, from a planning perspective I think, is a general comment that we have green space out there. Staff continues to believe that it would be beneficial to retain as much as possible. If the Board feels differently, that’s, you vote. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s talk about Craig Brown’s letter for a minute. Just comment. MR. HILTON-Well, I think it’s pretty obvious. If they’re going to exceed more than the 20%, either their plans have to come into compliance with what Craig has outlined in his letter or else go for a variance before the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. MAC EWAN-Is he referring to parking spaces as being every space that’s an entire parcel that’s allotted for a car? MR. HILTON-His note takes into account inventory as well as the parking that’s required. The parking requirement, if you look at it, says one per two hundred, in the entire floor area, and then on top of that one per six hundred square feet for, I believe, service area. I think his note says that you can go 20% over that. It takes into account inventory and other needs for an automobile lot or sales use, and anything beyond that, they have to go for a variance. MR. MAC EWAN-But he’s not, how shall I phrase this. MR. LAPPER-I have a lengthy explanation, Mr. Chairman, when it’s our turn. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just finish here for a second, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s not discerning the difference between a parking space and a display space, as far as he goes. Parking and display in his mind is all one in the same? MR. HILTON-Parking and display are both accounted for in the parking requirement that’s listed in our Zoning Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m asking. I’m trying to understand his letter. His position is that parking could mean parking for customers coming in. It could also mean parking of cars for display for sale purposes. MR. HILTON-Exactly. It’s all included. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m just trying to get a handle on some history here, that’s all. I mean, I know that this wasn’t an issue when we did the Garvey expansion on Dix Avenue. This wasn’t an issue when we just recently did the A-2000 on Upper Glen Street, and why is it now an issue? MR. HILTON-There is an abundant amount of parking proposed, 282 spaces. We did some research with other dealerships in Queensbury, for instance Della on Quaker Road with a 68 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) 14,000, roughly 14,000 square foot building, has 175 spaces, Nemer, with roughly 30,000 square foot building has 175 spaces. Again, you have the interpretation in front of you from the Zoning Administrator. That’s really all I can say. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. I’m just trying to get some insight, that’s all, as to where he’s coming from. All right. The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Andress from ABD Engineering, and Rich Perrella from Saturn Dealership is with us as well to answer any questions. I’ve got to tell you, when this issue surfaced last Wednesday, we were all in shock. I submitted, I spoke to Craig, had a very pleasant conversation with him and George, submitted a letter explaining the difference between customer and employee parking and inventory display and storage. He seemed very amenable. He asked me to submit a letter, which I did on Friday. I don’t believe that that’s part of your packet, package. MR. HUNSINGER-No, we got it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The 24? th MR. LAPPER-Yes, and since that time, and he also asked us to do this, Tom revised the plan to demark which spaces were for display and which were for storage, but I guess just to back up a little bit and tell you the story, we came in, when we first, when Saturn decided to go to the Frank Parillo site, we went in and had a detailed meeting with Planning Staff to go over all the issues. We then submitted, so that we would be on last month to discuss this conceptually with the Planning Board. We were very pleased that the Board was very receptive to this plan, said a lot of nice things about how we were cleaning up the site. I mean, just by way of aside, we completely discussed and nailed down the issue that because of the location of the building, and that the car carriers enter in the back, we certainly couldn’t have a four way intersection because you’d be driving right into the side of the building. The Board agreed with that, acknowledged that. So I’m sort of surprised to see that in the Staff notes again. I don’t understand that. That just wasn’t a possibility because we have to get the car carriers in the back rather than in the front, where the customers would be, and that’s just by way of example. So just in terms of the process, and as you know, I spend a lot of time working with Planning Staff and have a lot of respect for Planning Staff, but on this application, I just don’t understand the procedure, how after all of these meetings and all these discussions, the week before the meeting this could come up that they’re going to consider all of these areas for display as parking spaces. As the Chairman mentioned, I certainly don’t think that any car dealership’s been treated this way. We’ve researched also. The Albany Saturn has 500 cars in storage and display. So they think that this is a pretty tight site, in terms of displaying new cars, taking used cars in trade and displaying those, and storing cars in the back when they’re being repaired during the day. So this certainly is not excess, as far as the dealer is concerned, but beyond that, we’ve more than met the 30% green space requirement. Right now, as we discussed last time, the stormwater flows untreated directly into Hovey Pond, and now it’s being completely treated. So we’re maintaining the green space. We’re providing larger caliper trees than are required under Town Code, which virtually nobody does, a sprinkler system, granite curbs. I mean, they’re spending the money to really do this right, and the Planning Board acknowledged it, but, you know, in terms of the legal issue, their inventory, they’re selling automobiles, and this is very different than a K-Mart or a Lowe’s or a Home Depot, where the spaces are for customers or employees to drive to the site, to park there, to go in and shop at the facility and to leave. It’s just sort of coincidental that their inventory happens to be cars, and it’s much like the boat dealerships. When we did the display area for the Mooring Post up at 149, they didn’t need a variance because they had this outdoor parking area for boats. So I don’t think it should be distinguished. We comply, in terms of the parking that we are showing for customers and employees, and the rest of this is a display area, and the idea of asking them to now, after this whole process, to go to the Zoning Board and ask for a variance just to me not 69 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) only is wrong because these aren’t parking spaces, but it’s not the way any applicant in Town has ever been treated. So we’re really surprised. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Jon? MR. LAPPER-I have a lot of other comments. We think that we’ve responded to all of the C.T. Male questions. We added the Dusty Millers that Mr. Strough asked for. So we thought that we were more than ready for this, and it was just sort of surprising and shocking that this comes up last week, and I thought that the Zoning Administrator was all set with us, and to be handed this memo when we walk in tonight is not the way I’m used to being treated in this Town. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Well, if you want to talk about that issue, that sort of threshold issue first we can. Otherwise, I would ask Tom to go through the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s go through the site plan and we can kind of get a handle at that point. Before you do that, Tom, let me just informally ask the Board their thoughts on this. Where does everybody seem to stand on this issue? MR. VOLLARO-As far as parking? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that what the Staff came up with was representative parking in other dealerships along the Quaker Road. You tied that to square footage of their buildings, essentially, and so we could come up with some sort of a ratio of their square footage to other square footages, and see if we could come to an agreement that we could get past this 118 in that fashion. MR. HILTON-Well, no, that’s for general reference, just to give you some illustration as to what’s out there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it’s a basis for us to make some judgment. MR. HILTON-Except that the way I understand it, and Cathi can correct me if I’m wrong, the Section of our Code that deals with parking has the statement that says you cannot exceed over 20%. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I read that. MR. HILTON-It’s a flat statement. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. HILTON-So therefore you have also a determination in front of you, I believe. MR. LAPPER-It’s parking, though. MR. HILTON-Well, I’m just saying procedurally, you have that statement in the Zoning Code and you have a determination from the Zoning Administrator. So this Board, I believe, can approve a plan that’s shows up to 20%. Anything beyond that, as it’s stated in Craig Brown’s letter, would require a variance. So I’m not so sure that you can amend their plan to go over that 118 as it’s stated in the letter. I still believe that, I mean, you can either get them, the plan revised down to the 118. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-Well, the applicant has a, trying to make a differentiation, here, between a parking space and utilization of a space for storage and display. So there is certainly some basis here for differentiating parking from that, or not. I think we have to make a determination whether that’s a valid. MS. RADNER-Well, your Zoning Administrator is the person charged with interpreting your Town Code. You’ve got a Town Code Section that specifically refers to automotive sales and services, and you’ve got a letter from your Zoning Administrator saying, based on this, you’ve got too many parking spaces, and if you want to go more than 20% above, you’re going to need a variance, and I don’t see how you, as a Board, can get past that, unless you eliminate parking and substitute it, perhaps, with unpaved areas for displays of vehicles or something of that nature. With the plan showing parking, despite the fact that some of them are labeled now as display storage parking, and a Zoning Administrator determination, I don’t see where this Board has the authority to override your Zoning Administrator. MR. VOLLARO-You just said something about the plan now shows it has, what, Cathi? MS. RADNER-Well, what I’m looking at is Jim’s plan here which does still show the parking spaces, but certain ones are now labeled display/storage. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the date of that plan? MR. LAPPER-We could cross out the lines. MR. VOLLARO-Is that, I have November 2002 as the date of my plan. MR. HOUSTON-January 20. th MR. VOLLARO-So we’re not looking at the same plans, Mr. Chairman. MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Administrator asked us to submit on Thursday or Friday the plans that labeled them as storage/display. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, these plans dated November 2002, the plans that Mr. Houston is looking at is January 2003. We’re looking at a different set of plans here. MR. RINGER-The only change is the designation of. MR. LAPPER-That set was submitted with that change, but then usually it would be done as a conditional approval, but what tonight Tom just, we made all the changes that Jim asked for in the C.T. Male, that we did the letter saying that we would do it, and Tom actually went as far as to make the changes and hand them in tonight. MR. HILTON-Yes, just for the record, the plans that were handed to me, these are the. MR. MAC EWAN-When did you get them? MR. HILTON-Fifteen minutes ago. MR. LAPPER-But that’s different than the ones that went in last week with the storage/display. That has all the C.T. Male changes on it, which usually you wouldn’t see. MR. VOLLARO-When you say the C.T. Male changes, you’re talking about his letter of January 14? th MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Is that correct? 71 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-See, I had a little note on there, this letter has a major impact, and response must be followed by some sign off. It’s a fairly extensive. So what you’ve done is table this and converted this into a drawing. MR. LAPPER-We have a new letter from Jim, today, signing off on it. A couple of things to discuss. MR. RINGER-You got a letter beyond January 28? th MR. LAPPER-No. MR. RINGER-You’ve still got Item Three to do, then. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that’s just the SPDES for construction. MR. MAC EWAN-I think Cathi’s kind of touched on maybe where we can find a way to fix this problem. If we remove paved parking display areas. MR. LAPPER-We don’t want to not pave it, but we would take off the lines. I mean, you want it to be paved so it looks nice. MR. MAC EWAN-Now we’re heading into a real gray area here. I mean, my suggestion at this point, if that’s what the Zoning Administrator has determined, and Counsel is suggesting that as an alternative way for you to keep your display area is to have it as unpaved display area, work out your issues with the Zoning Administrator, and if you get down the road, you want to pave it, and you can work it out by getting a variance or whatever, go that route. MR. LAPPER-Well, let’s just talk about that for a minute if we could. Honestly, if I went to a judge and asked him to interpret this, which is absolutely not the way I like to get land use approvals, I think that this would be laughable when you look at everything in Queensbury, all the dealerships, to say that if you sell cars it’s a parking lot, it’s under the definition of parking lot. It’s a display area, storage area. You have to have a place for your inventory, it’s not a parking lot. So, I completely disagree with that, and I think that that would be obvious if we had to go to court, but beyond that, what we would be willing to do, I mean, to take the site, to make it a dirt, muddy site, look at the weather we get here, would really be a shame when they’re trying to do granite curbs and sprinkler systems and serious plantings to make this look beautiful. I mean, beyond the fact that most of the site is grandfathered, because the paving is already there, but they want to re-pave it. So what I would offer as a compromise, and to let the Zoning Administrator save face, would be to eliminate the lines, the areas that are not for parking, that are for display, with the striping. Of course we would still maintain all the planting beds, but just to take off the lines. I would be asking this Board to determine that that’s not a parking lot, that it’s a display area and a storage area. MR. MAC EWAN-Comment, Cathi? MS. RADNER-George was just pointing out to me the definitions of parking space and parking area, under our Ordinance, which don’t even go as far as to distinguish between paved and unpaved, but only, you know, placement of motor vehicles, and I’m having a real hard time getting past that. The fact that you’ve got a Zoning Administrator determination, I think that what you’re going to need to do is go the variance route or work it out with Craig. MR. RINGER-Jon, why couldn’t you, for now, eliminate the parking spots in the back, get approval, then go to the ZBA and ask for a variance to put those parking spaces in the back back in. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. LAPPER-Well, I will immediately discuss that with Rich, but the simple answer is that right now, that is a paved area. So we would be ripping something up and replacing it, but perhaps that’s what we were going to do anyway? Was that all going to be new surface, or are we going to just overlay what’s there? MR. ANDRESS-Here it was going to be rebuilt, but I believe, and you’ll have to speak with Mr. Parillo, but I believe that, I mean, these spaces are all needed. So we can’t be going in and getting approval for something that doesn’t meet our needs. MR. MAC EWAN-No, but were you going to tear up the old macadam and put down a new subsurface and re-blacktop over that? MR. ANDRESS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So, any way you looked at it, that macadam was coming out. MR. ANDRESS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The existing. MR. ANDRESS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Then give me just a second. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going on record. I get frustrated when something like this comes out at this late stage of the game in the review process. I mean, how many meetings we’ve had on this thing, how many opportunities have we had to have input on this, and for something like this to come up at this late hour, I don’t think it’s right. MR. STROUGH-I don’t think it’s anything compared to the stormwater issue. MR. RINGER-I think our Board’s in agreement to give them the parking spaces, but we don’t have the authority to do it from legal. So if we can approve a plan with some of the, let’s say the rear parking out, then that gives them time to go to the ZBA, get the 25 or whatever they need back in, and hopefully it wouldn’t interfere with your construction and your plans to start. It would be a solution. You’d get the parking that you wanted eventually. You’d get your plan approved now, and you’d just have to be a month delayed on the rear portion, or the portion that you’re going to do last. The last portion to be touched. MR. MAC EWAN-I would add one more comment to that, along those lines, is that maybe this is an opportunity to take a look at that Section of the Ordinance and maybe fine tune it, to determine between parking display areas for instances like this. MR. LAPPER-I guess I still, I disagree with the reading because this is inventory, because you’re selling cars, and it’s not the same as coming to the site and parking cars. So regardless of language in the definition, the use is totally different. It just happens to be that what they sell here are automobiles, and secondly, no one in the Town has ever been treated that way, and I’m thinking of what the Chairman said about the Garvey site. I mean that was under the new Ordinance within the last two years on Dix Ave. MR. RINGER-That’s different, Jon, because that was a Light Industrial zone, and it’s storage of vehicles. It’s not the same thing. It wasn’t a parking lot. MR. LAPPER-No, but ours is storage of vehicles, too. They come off the car carrier just like they do at Garvey. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. RINGER-It was a different thing. Garvey is supposed to come back for a change, but they haven’t done it. MR. LAPPER-I understand, and I don’t want to raise that, because there were some issues with that site, but just in terms of the definitional issue, you can’t say that they’ve, we need a variance for a larger lot, when they didn’t need a variance for a larger lot. MR. RINGER-I think the Board agreed, though, Counsel was telling us that our hands our tied. MR. MAC EWAN-Along those lines as well, I would ask Staff to review that application, that Garvey application, to the conditions of approval, because I’m pretty sure there’s several violations down there, including, and I’ll go on the record, including taking customers into that facility and taking them out for test drives. Which I’ve personally witnessed on several occasions. Moving right along back to this one. MR. LAPPER-I guess what I would ask the Board to consider would be to give us a special meeting in a week, because this is going to have to get settled with Staff, probably with Chris Round’s input. I’m very disappointed that I would get this memo the night of the meeting on a multi-million dollar project that we’ve gone out of our way to meet with Staff and work this out and come for an extra with the Planning Board, and for this to happen tonight is not the way things usually happen in Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m kind of actually disappointed by it as well. Well, so you want a little bit of time to try to iron this out? MR. LAPPER-Yes. I guess that would be, because what Rich Perrella just told me is that, in terms of committing to the project and the financing, he can’t do the deal without the parking in the back because he’s got to have a place to put the cars, and, you know, he’s got 550 cars at his Albany site. So, in terms of whatever they were saying, I mean, I drive by Nemer all the time, and you know, I mean, that site is loaded. I think I’m just surprised to hear the 170. They’ve got a huge parking lot in the back, and in the front they park on the grass all the way up to Quaker, which is certainly not the way this site is going to look, and I’m just surprised to hear that number 170. I think there’s 170 cars in the front yard, but regardless, I would ask, yes, if we could get a special meeting and try and get this settled, because we really expected to come here, after what happened last week, last month, and to be done and to get this thing under construction. MR. MAC EWAN-Do other Board members have other outstanding issues, non-related to the parking issue? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got, basically. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s go through the rest of it and we’ll take it from there. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just make a comment, since you asked. I feel this is a good location for this application. It’s really good, and I have no comment on the elevation drawings, and I’ve visited the Central Avenue site, and it’s a big positive. I think it’s a great site. I think it’s good. Now, getting into my little pet peeve, however, and I think, taking a hiatus on this, for me, to get a look at that package of drawings, what I see is a fairly extensive letter from Mr. Houston here dated January 14, which you’ve converted into a new set of drawings. th MR. LAPPER-That’s right. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. VOLLARO-Which I, as a Planning Board member, want to see. This whole night has been based on drawings that we haven’t seen. MR. LAPPER-You’ve got the new letter, Bob, from today, from C.T. Male? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but. MR. LAPPER-You need to see the packet. Fortunately, we’ve got it for you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If C.T. Male signs off on the drawing, I’ve still got to look at that drawing. There may be other drawing issues besides the those that Jim is concerned with. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-And I want to see those. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where I am. MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s a problem we need to fix, and how we fix it, I don’t know. We’ve tried several different things, and we still seem to be in the same old problem. MR. VOLLARO-I think, I looked at the lighting plan. It also seems reasonable. I checked 178-6- 020, where we have 20 foot candles in all the lots, and I think that you are just a hair over that as your average. I think that’s also good. Very little light spillage. I do have a question along the northern side of the proposed lot about these display pads that site right in within the sewer easement. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and I actually have a, I think I read that in. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a letter from Mike Shaw, or an intimation, I think, from the last time Mr. Hilton wrote a letter concerning Mike Shaw’s concern with development within the sewer easement. MR. STROUGH-Well, in addition Staff had asked that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, then there’s a note on here that’s the sewer note which tends to say, well, if anything is wrong there we’ll fix it. MR. LAPPER-I have the sewer easement that I’d like to read into the record. We’re covered. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we talked about this at the last meeting. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The sewer easement specifically says that only a building can’t be there, and these are paver pads that are only six inches, approximately, off the ground. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ANDRESS-Yes. The original letter that was sent from the sewer department, we had called them elevated display pads, and they believed, at that time, that they were probably concrete and elevated high. These are actually just the height of a curb, and they’re actually made out of asphalt. So our discussions from that standpoint were really that they weren’t really any different than the asphalt, and then we added the additional note, when we spoke with the sewer department, to protect them for, if, in fact, there had to be excavation. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. LAPPER-But I guess the formal legal answer to that, Bob, I just want to read a sentence. This is from the right of way and easement, Counties of Warren and Washington Industrial Development Agency, because they owned the property at the time. This the pertinent sentence. The grantor may improve his or her property in the area of the easement including driveways, pavements, parking areas, shrubs, signs and/or other construction to the extent permissible by law, ordinance, regulation or restrictions, then in existence, as long as the improvement does not conflict with the pipeline or restrict the sewer district or town’s ability to maintain and/or repair the pipeline. So pavement is specifically permitted. MR. STROUGH-Well, talking about that same area, while we’re on the same area, Staff notes, and I don’t know if you responded to this or not, they say, they refer to the amount of green space and trees along Quaker Road. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And they say specifically, Staff believes that as much of the existing green area and mature vegetation should be retained. The area of green space located in front of the site is one of the limited number of sites containing a wide landscaped street area and mature vegetation along Quaker Rd. and in the Lower Route 9 Design Area. Any response to that? MR. LAPPER-Yes, absolutely. Our response is that, under the Code, we have to have 30% green area. We exceed that. Under the Code, there has to be 10 feet of green space between the property line and the pavement, and what do we have specifically, Tom? MR. ANDRESS-Twenty something. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we have over 20%, but more important than that, I mean, right now, there is a lot more green space, granted. There’s also a lot of building, about 30,000 square feet, which is coming down. So here our argument is the quality of the green space, that we’re doing these mature trees that we discussed last time, sprinkler systems. There’s planting beds in front of those raised display areas. I mean, for Saturn to come in and renovate this site, that’s real important that they have that display area in front, but unlike, you know, just to use an example, the Ford Dealership on Quaker Road where they’ve got cars parked literally on the grass and it’s not real attractive, this is, you know, granite curbs, this is a very high quality display area. So while, yes, you lose some of the green space that’s there now, we more than comply with the Code, and we’re making it up by doing quality landscaping and quality development of the site. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Sorry, Bob, but I wanted to address the same issue, and I don’t know how the rest of the Board, but I thought it was an issue, and Staff brought it up. MR. LAPPER-And you’ve got the picture of Albany. MR. MAC EWAN-But we talked about it last meeting and the Board was comfortable with the design they had. MR. STROUGH-Well, these are new Staff notes, dated January 28. th MR. MAC EWAN-It was discussed at the last meeting as well, and it was also in Staff notes last meeting. MR. LAPPER-And we’ve got the Albany photos that Bob saw, and the Chairman said he drove by, too, to see what, you know, in terms of their track record for how well they keep their place and the flowers and the whole thing. MR. VOLLARO-The site in Albany has always looked good to me. Always, and I’ve seen it several times. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-Again, just for clarification, that comment was added, from a Planning perspective, to indicate that the area is in the design area, the Lower Route 9 Design Guideline area. There are existing mature trees. Just to make you aware, I understand it was the Board’s position last time that they didn’t have a problem with it, but for your information, in making your decision, we decided to put that comment in. Again, whatever action you choose, you’re the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I guess just from the standpoint of Planning Staff, if that comment was in the last meeting and you kind of got a handle on what the Board’s position was, why put it back in again? MR. HILTON-Because Planning Staff, we make recommendations based on planning practices along with the Zoning Ordinance. We have a Design Guideline area that calls for specific things like retention of mature vegetation, preserving the amenities that exist, sidewalks, all those kind of items that exist in the Lower Route 9 Design Guideline area. MR. VOLLARO-Just to make my position clear, along Quaker Road, I think it’s a good idea. It aesthetically looks good. The cars look good there. I’m just concerned about Mike Shaw’s position. If he’s happy with this I’m happy with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-But I just want to make sure that it’s clear with Mike. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I agree with you. MR. VOLLARO-That he doesn’t have a problem with this. If he doesn’t, I don’t. I think it’s great, because there’s no entrance on Quaker Road. That’s a big plus for me. Now the other thing is, that I’m looking at, since you asked the questions, are the alignment of the southern drive with Bank Street. That’s something that I think should be done. MR. LAPPER-Were you here last time? I don’t recall. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I was. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because we discussed that, and the Board did a poll on that issue. I mean, let me just explain. The area in the back, is not where the customers would come in. That’s where the car carriers would off load and where, after a car is serviced, it would be left there. I mean, new inventory would be there until it’s needed elsewhere, and after cars are serviced they would be left there until somebody came to pick them up, but if you look at where Bank Street is, so my point there is that it’s a very, it’s very low traffic in the back, because the customers are going to come in the front. If you look at where Bank Street is, and remember last time the owner of the Meineke shop came and stood up and said how pleased he was that this would get cleaned up and also acknowledged, at the Zoning Board variance hearing two months ago for him, we agreed that where it says asphalt drive is going to be completely closed. So right now there’s a driveway across the street from Meineke which is only going to be serviced now from Bank Street. So that conflict is to be eliminated, but if you look where Lafayette Street comes out, if you were to have an entrance there, you would come right smack up against the side of the dealership building. So you can’t have a car carrier come in and do an S-curve to get to the back to offload the cars, and you certainly don’ts want the car carrier, not that there’s room, but to offload in the front where you’re going to have customer conflicts. So, in general, a four way intersection is a good thing, but it doesn’t work on this site because of the location of a pre- existing building, and the Board felt that was a compelling reason last time when we discussed it. MR. VOLLARO-I can understand that, based on your description now. 77 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-We didn’t have issue with it. The majority didn’t have issue with it because we considered the turning radius that the carrier would need to bring in the cars. MR. VOLLARO-It slipped right by me, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t worry about it. MR. HOUSTON-And just as a point of clarification. I wasn’t at the last meeting, and I did have that as an additional comment, just something to be considered, to align that, and I’ve had discussion with Mr. Andress about that, and due to the nature of the use of that, we concur that it’s probably acceptable to leave it the way it is. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, based on what Mr. Lapper just had to say, I agree with that. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman, as far as I’m concerned, on this thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Strough. You’ve got one or two questions. MR. STROUGH-Well, I got out the old plans, Jon. I don’t have the new plans. MR. MAC EWAN-You will, though. You will have them. MR. STROUGH-And I was pleased to hear you say that, around the base of the trees it’s going to be my (lost words) and my Dusty Millers and the Sylvias. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we listened. MR. STROUGH-Good, but, you know, that’s what part of the problem is, not dealing with updated plans. If I saw them on there, I’d say thank you. So, I’m hearing they are on there, and that’s around the base of the trees, I assume, roadside. MR. LAPPER-If I could just interrupt for a second, and just because I know that you’re dealing with the process. We used to submit by the last Wednesday of the month, which would often be the 29, 30, 31, what have you, however it fell, and in order to give the Staff and C.T. Male, ththst and I mean, I’m not knocking C.T. Male, because I’m very pleased with the substance of how this goes with their review. I’m glad they’re the Town Engineers. They know what they’re doing, but we still only hear, you know, because we come in, the applicants come in an extra week and a half early, but it doesn’t help us. It gives the Staff and C.T. Male more time, but we don’t get the review letters any earlier. If they’re, in terms of the process, what would be nice would be not only to respond in writing and get a sign off from C.T. Male, and I’m very pleased that we do get a sign off, even if it’s the night of the meeting, so that they acknowledge that we’ve agreed and cut our deals and made the changes that they wanted. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s one of the discussions I’m going to be having within the next couple of weeks with Staff and how we can smooth this out to be a little bit better running. MR. LAPPER-If we could just get it so that we had a week and we could submit revised plans. I mean, it’s not like those revised plans take a month to look at because all we’re doing, like Bob going through the checklist, all we’re doing is saying, we’ve made these 10 changes, but this is what was asked for, and here they are so you can see it in writing. I mean, we’d be happy to do that extra work, just so that there was a plan in front of you at the meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Just take that one step farther. The idea by redoing our submission dates and our deadline dates for submitting information was to eliminate us getting material put on our table the night of a meeting, and it hasn’t worked. We continually get stuff put on our table the night of a meeting, and it’s frustrating for us. MR. STROUGH-Yes. 78 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s something that’s got to be fixed. It’s something that’s got to be addressed, and I don’t know how we’re going to do it. We’re working on it. MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry to interrupt, John. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things I’ve mentioned, I think that maybe we’re trying to cut this cycle too close. Things are happening in Queensbury, and maybe we’ve got to spread this cycle out just a little bit. Because I would like to feel comfortable, when I get a package from Staff, that I’m reviewing a final package before I sit in this chair. I make all my notes. I read it and do it, and to come in here and find that, you’re not looking at the right drawings. MR. LAPPER-There’s probably a way to tweak this, in terms of the date, so that you get it enough in advance. Because all of the consultants are happy to turn things around and put it in writing, you know, if we can get it to you, if there was some standard that you had to have it by a certain date or revised plan. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a topic for another time. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s move on. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, again, this could be an issue of looking at the wrong plans, but I didn’t see any cut sheets for lighting on this application. So I save stuff. So I went back to your old application, and I got the cut sheets from the old application, and it talks, this light will be the architecture and the color scheme of the Saturn Dealership, and everything you and I talked about last time. MR. ANDRESS-Exactly. That’s the same cut sheet, we got Staff comments yesterday. That was one of the items to give the cut sheets. They’re in the submission of 15 more sets there. MR. STROUGH-Because when I try and match up my. MR. ANDRESS-So we did utilize those same sheets, in fact, yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. ANDRESS-Yes, but you do have a full set of those. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s a good. So two goods. Hopefully for three goods. Now, the stormwater, I don’t know how it’s been revised, but there were issues about it going directly into Halfway Brook. MR. ANDRESS-Yes, and if you look at the letter from Jim, there was about a half a page of stormwater issues. If you look at the letter of January 28, all of those issues have been th addressed except for Number Three. Everything was fully addressed. So we’ve revised all the plans to provide all the stormwater retention that’s required by the Town. We made a statement in reference to regulations that are not in effect now. Jim basically went through that, and reiterated that in Comment Three of his January 28 letter. I’ve had conversations with th him, and we’ve agreed to provide these additional measures that he has in this Comment Three on the plan. MR. STROUGH-So it’s going to remain on site? Or it’s going to be treated before it’s? MR. ANDRESS-It’s all going to be treated. Eventually there is a discharge, but it is all treated, as opposed to currently it’s all running directly from the pavement into catch basins and directly out into the pond. 79 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. STROUGH-See, the reason why, let me share a little history with you. This whole area, this whole basin, and George knows I’m looking at this, and I brought it to Warren County Soil and Water Conservation Department, Dave Wicks, and Halfway Brook, 34 years ago, these stormwater drains were put in that drained directly into Halfway Brook, over near Hovey Pond, and we’re talking about everything from Dunkin Donuts to Northway Plaza, Quaker Plaza, this whole area is a big drainage basin that goes into these 30 inch and 24 inch pipes, and what gave me alarm to this fact is we had an application, it was the Warren Tire application, and there were storm sewers that they utilized that went directly into Halfway Brook, and I mentioned that to Dave Wick, and he said, your Planning Board didn’t approve that, and I said, yes, they did. He said, they didn’t allow on site, you know, treatment of the water? I said, no, they allowed the stormwater to go right into these drains and go directly into Halfway Brook. So he’s very upset about that. So, they’re looking at a plan to try and eliminate or treat the water going through this basin area, and I talked to Craig about this, and Bob last week. So, to see C.T. Male and Jim address this problem, that stormwater was going directly into Halfway Brook, over near Hovey Pond, and it doesn’t go into Hovey Pond. It goes into a drainage basin. A lot of these come into the drainage basin, which ties into the stream at the outlet of Hovey Pond, but doesn’t go directly into Hovey Pond, and then goes across Lafayette and then across Quaker and then reconnects to its main part of the stream. So anyhow, that was a concern of mine. So I’m glad to hear that you’ll be coming up with a better stormwater plan, and that was a concern of mine. That was a big one, and I’m glad that we’re working that out. Okay, and the coloring of the building is going to be your Saturn gray and red striped coloring of the building? MR. ANDRESS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Now you’re going to have to change the siding, too, or are you just going to paint that, or you don’t know yet until you get into it. MR. ANDRESS-Yes. We did submit plans that do show that there’ll be extensive building work for most of the building. There’s all kinds of cornus work and work to the siding itself. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that seems to address my concerns. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Number Three on Jim Houston’s letter of January 14, will that be, is that th included in the current, or is that something you’ve got to respond to, his Comment Number Three? 80 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. ANDRESS-No, Comment Number Three is not included in the plans because what happened is we got the review from C.T. Male. We respond to it with these plans, and a letter response, and then that’s C.T. Male’s final review. So that was not, we’ve agreed to do it. It hasn’t been put into the plans that are coming before you. The only thing that’s actually adding in is something you actually won’t see on the plan, other than in the detail. There’s a hood type of a structure. In fact, I believe at the last meeting one of the members asked about the hood that was, I guess it was the snout, right. So we spoke about that. We’ll be putting that onto the detail sheet. So we will make a modification for that to the plan, but that’s the only modification, at this point, that we see, other than whatever issue comes out of the parking. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have any additional comments, things that need to be addressed? MR. HILTON-No, nothing new. I guess I would just point out that the parking issue was raised on January 14 in the C.T. Male letter that the applicant was copied with. I’m sorry that the th applicant feels disappointed in the Staff receiving the information tonight, but the issue was out there as early as the 14. th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but it goes back to the determination from Craig Brown. I think that’s the bone of contention here, and the fact that this thing just came out. Why wasn’t this resolved back on the 14? th MR. LAPPER-I thought it was resolved last Thursday when I sent in my letter that it wasn’t parking, and I thought that he was in agreement. So I’m surprised to see this letter tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, do you have anything? Okay. So you’re just waiting for that one detail to be put on the sheets regarding the basin, right? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. When are you going to try to get a hold, meet with? MR. LAPPER-I expect that, one way or another, I’ll be able to get a meeting with Chris and Craig in the next two days, you know, Town Counsel as necessary, in the hope to work this out, that this is to distinguish between parking and storage and display. So I guess what our request would be, if we could get a meeting in the next week or two, and if it turns out we have to go to the ZBA, which I am hopeful and expect that won’t happen, then we wouldn’t need that meeting, but at least this would be a way that we could get this thing done and close the deal and get in the ground. MR. MAC EWAN-I want to table this to a specific date. That’s the whole point of it. I guess maybe we can just say we can table this pending the meeting that you’re going to have with the Planning Staff and Counsel to try to resolve this issue and pending the outcome of that meeting is when we’ll reschedule this meeting. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So they’ll get in touch with you, and we’ll try and get a special meeting, if that’s appropriate. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. Thank you for your consideration. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to leave the public hearing open, because we haven’t done a SEQRA yet. MS. RADNER-If there’s any members of the public here who want to know (lost words) Planning Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. 81 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/28/03) MR. RINGER-We can close the public hearing without SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Typically I don’t do that. MR. LAPPER-But if you leave it open, there’s going to be a notice issue for trying to get a meeting, because public hearing’s require more notice than meetings. MR. RINGER-You might not have time to get the notice in the paper. I mean, why not close the public hearing. MR. LAPPER-No one’s come, none of the public. MR. MAC EWAN-How does the Board feel about that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Close it. MR. VOLLARO-I think you can close it. MR. LAPPER-You know what, you didn’t open it to a public hearing tonight. MR. RINGER-We had it open from the last time. MR. LAPPER-No, the last time we were here as a discussion item. We did an extra meeting to get your input. So it hasn’t been opened. MR. MAC EWAN-Irregardless, it’s closed now. MR. LAPPER-But you have to, there’s no one here. Never mind. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Is that it? All right. Meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 82