Loading...
2003-11-20 SP (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH LARRY RINGER MEMBERS ABSENT ANTHONY METIVIER CHRIS HUNSINGER RICHARD SANFORD SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER PRESENTATION: PRESENTATION REGARDING FINDINGS OF THE DRAFT AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES STRATEGY. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll turn it over to you. MRS. RYBA-Good evening, everyone. My name’s Marilyn Ryba. I’m the Senior Planner for the Town of Queensbury, and tonight’s presentation is just a brief update to the Planning Board, in reference to an affordable housing strategy that we’ve been working on. Just a little bit of a recap. We started this through a grant through the Small Cities Program, Governor’s office for Small Cities, and the purpose of it was to look at what happens when we look at all the income levels, when we look at all of the population growth and to see what kind of strategies we can come up with to help people who might require affordable housing. Now what do you require, what do you mean by affordable housing? Well, by affordable housing, we mean, what’s affordable for your income level, and that covers a range of incomes. So we are going to be doing a public informational meeting which will cover a lot more information on December 3, rd and I do have some fliers here. So tonight is just a little bit of the highlights and our findings. We’ve looked at census data. We’ve looked at real estate data. We’ve talked to bankers. We’ve talked to the real estate community, different housing organizations, and, first off, the map that you see, and there’s a much better display over to my left, shows population growth, which, coincidentally, has gone right along with the Northway. The areas in red show population that’s increased by 10,000 people or more since 1950. So as you can see, it goes right up, a little bit beyond Queensbury, and things, from Albany on up, things basically stop towards Queensbury because of the Adirondack Park growth boundary line, and so we’re getting a lot of the pressures that are coming up from the south. So that’s one aspect. Actually, we expect this trend to continue. It’s been going on for 50 years, and so it’s probably going to increase, even with the Luther Forest Park, the nanotechnology that’s coming up, we expect in Saratoga County in the next few years. As I had mentioned, what is really affordable for people, and the definition that’s used commonly is 30% of, no more than 30% of your income for housing costs. For homeowners that means principal, taxes, insurance, and interest. For renters, it’s the cost of the rent plus basic utilities. It’s always good to put the summary up first. What do we think would be the strategies that would work in Queensbury, and we believe they would be neighborhood based, more or less invisible strategies. The idea of affordable housing projects 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) has gone out over the last 20 years. First up, we do have a housing rehab program, which we would like to try to continue. One of the things that we’ve done is worked with some areas in West Glens Falls, which is part of Queensbury. It’s just always been called West Glens Falls. We’d like that to continue. Scattered site housing, new construction. You’ll see there’s a map up there in the middle, and it shows areas, West Glens Falls, which is to the left, and South Queensbury, which is to the right. These are the areas where we have the lowest incomes in the community, and yet you’ll see that there’s still quite a bit of vacant land. So that there are some lots there where new construction could take place. The other is housing vouchers, but that’s a rental assistance, and what housing vouchers do, it’s not a Section Eight Certificate where you go into a specific housing project, but a housing voucher allows someone to find their own housing anywhere, and pay no more than 30% of their income with housing urban development, federal government agency making up the difference. So it’s a good program because the landlords are guaranteed that difference in income. The other is two family homes, and that’s something that bankers have programs for for first time home buyers, whereas the person who gets the mortgage can rent out the duplex, the other half of the duplex, and it’s a great program, because then there’s no absentee landlords. Young people who are just starting out can afford it, or things called mother-in-law apartments, for example, where someone in the family needs to stick close by to their other relatives. These are secondary strategies, things like rezoning, because looking maybe at density, in terms of where lots are, for sewer and water. That map to the right shows, all that yellow area is where there is currently sewer and/or water. The brown area just shows where there are some vacant lots right now. Mandating inclusions. That’s something that happens, probably wouldn’t happen unless housing got so tight that you couldn’t get employees because of lack of affordable housing. Other communities have done that, but that isn’t something we see happening at this point. This is a really interesting slide because the New York State Affordable Housing Corporation has looked at income and compared it to average sales price, and you’ll see here that Warren County ranks as the 11 th highest cost area in New York State. Now that’s including all of the counties in New York City and surrounding Putnam, Westchester, for example, which totals ten, and we’re number eleven because it does look at the cost of housing compared to income, even though Saratoga has higher, Saratoga County has higher cost housing, they also have corresponding higher incomes. Sales trends. You’ll see that Warren County has increased the most in terms of sales prices for housing, 35.6% as compared to Washington and Saratoga Counties. Rent structure. Surprisingly, the rent is really affordable to most people, and that’s one of the reasons we think the strategy is to focus more on single family or duplex homeownership opportunities. Fair market rent is something that housing urban development calculates as an acceptable rent, and most of the rents weren’t that much higher. These are really the people that probably would want to go into single family homeownership opportunities, folks who live here in these apartments. The next, unsubsidized rental complexes. These are, this is housing that’s been approved recently. We have about 400 plus units that have been approved in the last few years, more than in the last 10 years combined. So the rental market really seems to be taking care of itself. Most of this is senior housing, and once again, talking about the map, in the middle, these are census tracks, and South Queensbury and West Glens Falls. Although the incomes are lower than in the rest of the Town, there’s still a fairly high percentage of owner occupied. By having housing, continued housing, long term rehabilitation program in these areas, we’re maintaining neighborhoods, and that’s always a good thing. Keeping people, elderly for example, in their homes for a longer period of time is something that reduces costs in other areas such as health costs, and then just back to the strategies, again. Our next steps, we think, are looking at amending our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Taking this a step beyond in 2004, looking at policies such as what can we do to change the zoning or do we need to increase water and sewer for folks, and as I said, the public meeting is on December 3. Everything that rd we’ve done to date is on our website. There’s a lot of information there, and I’ll just leave you with one thing, just a little bit of a snapshot. In 2002, the median household income for four person family, $45,300, according to the New York State Affordable Housing Corporation. When we look at the median sale price and with existing home, that’s of July 2003, $149,800. A family would need an income of $57,500 in order to afford an average priced home in Queensbury. So it really does leave out the people who are starting out in the community, who we want to keep in the community because certainly the more diverse a community is the better off it is. Thank you very much. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Questions? MR. VOLLARO-I have one. I don’t mean this to be a terse remark, but will the Governor’s office provide any school tax adjustments for housing developed under this affordable housing plan? One of the things we’re looking at here is increased housing for Queensbury, but remember every one of those houses could bring students, and we’re looking at the school impact. I think we’re doing this. This is a balancing act that we’ve got to try. MRS. RYBA-That’s part of what we’re looking at. It’s a question of growth, and at this point, and this is part of information that’s available on the website, too, but our population is aging. In terms of students coming in, typically you’re going to see more students in single family housing than you will in rental. So in terms of your question, though, tax subsidies, I think the subsidy is there, for example, with seniors already. Low income housing tax credits are a part of what’s given as a subsidy, but in terms of subsidizing the school, they’re still paying their school taxes. They’re still paying all, people are still paying the taxes that they would pay anyway. So I don’t know if that’s really a concern. MR. VOLLARO-I think what’s happening, though, Marilyn, as the population increases, I mean, I see pressure on the school system that has to be looked at. I definitely see, they’ve got a finite campus there at the school, but if they have to go off that campus for a K-5 or something like that, we’re going to. MRS. RYBA-And our Department’s working with the schools, to look at those growth issues, and, you know, it’s incumbent upon the schools, too, to do their planning. So, it’s good that we’re both working together finally. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the only question I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you, Marilyn, and December 3 is when the open house is, rd right? MRS. RYBA-That’s correct. OLD BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 SEQRA TYPE I WAL-MART STORES PROPERTY OWNER: WAL-MART STORES, INC. & NAT. REALTY AGENT: NEAL MADDEN, ESQ.; JOHN SPEER ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: ROUTE 9 AND WEEKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISTING WAL-MART STORE BY CONSTRUCTING A 95,217 SQ. FT. BUILDING ADDITION FOR A TOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 216,080. PLANNING BOARD MAY ISSUE A SEQR DETERMINATION AT THIS MEETING. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 5-90, SV 49-95, UV 32- 92, SV 55-94, SV 57, 58-93, AV 11-93, SB 3-93, SP 31-93, AV 38-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-36, 37 LOT SIZE: 11.29 ACRES, 6.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MR. MAC EWAN-What we’re going to do tonight is we’re going to do it in two steps. Wal- Mart representatives have for us tonight their Good Neighbor Plan, which they want to do a short presentation on. They’re going to highlight some of the efforts that they’re going to do at the store complex, and I think what I want to do is at the time they finish their presentation, if any issues or concerns that the neighbors may have that aren’t being addressed in this Good Neighbor Plan, I’ll open up the mic and let you come up and ask a question so we can get a response to it. Then we’ll move in to the site plan review. All right. With that, I’ll turn it over to Wal-Mart. MR. HENTSCHKE-Hi. My name is Peter Hentschke, from Harter, Seacrest & Emery, here on behalf of Wal-Mart. I just want to introduce myself. We’ve got a team here from Wal-Mart, 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) and the architects and engineers that have been responsible for the site plan and putting together the application materials. I just wanted to introduce to you a couple of people that are here from Wal-Mart tonight that you haven’t seen before, probably. The first is Mia Maston, who’s sitting over here, and she’s a Community Affairs Manager for Wal-Mart, and we also have Phil Prehoda, who is the Store Manager for the Wal-Mart here, and what we’ve done with part of this application, the site plan application, is submitted a Good Neighbor Plan, and some of you may have gotten a copy of this in the mail if you’re living within a certain radius of the site, but I wanted to read a copy of the plan to you. The idea is to try to figure out how to handle problems, generally operational issues that may come up when a store, super center, is here. If there’s problems that arise, we want to figure out a way to address those. If you have any concerns or if there’s any issues that you’ve had and you need to have addressed, we want to hear about that, so we can figure out how best to resolve them. So, with that, I’m going to read the Wal-Mart store’s Good Neighbor Plan that we drafted for this store and this community, and it’s a pledge and agreement. It’s got some lines at the bottom where the store manager’s going to sign, and it’s dated. Let me just read it for you. “Wal-Mart strives to be a contributing member of this community by ensuring action that will continue to make this store prosperous, inside and out, a thriving business in Queensbury, and a safe place that will make the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods a better place. In doing so, Wal-Mart will: Take active, positive, and enduring action in the community; React to community concerns with current business practices or impacts in a timely manner; Direct a store manager to respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of any letter expressing such concerns; Maintain and file copies of all letters received and written to be made available to the public upon request to document Wal-Mart’s resolution of issues that arise; Continue to communicate with outside vendors regarding delivery procedures to minimize to the maximum practical extent any disruptions to the community associated with deliveries; Escort customers to cars upon request. Signs directing customers on how to request an escort will be placed near registers and customer service desk; and Commit to revisiting this contract with the neighborhoods and community as necessary to ensure that the needs’ of the community and Wal-Mart are still being met” in the future if other issues arise. That is the pledge that Wal-Mart wants to make, and has made as a proposed Good Neighbor Plan, and at this point, I’d like to turn it back over to the Board and maybe hear any public comments that there might be. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-It sounds pretty comprehensive. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the mic. Does anyone want to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NANCY OLSON MRS. OLSON-Hello. I’m Nancy Olson. This is my husband Dan, and I have comments to some of these. First one, “Take active, positive, and enduring action in the community”. That would be great, but I really don’t know what that means. For instance, let me go to the next one, “React to community concerns with current business practices or impacts in a timely manner”. What does “timely” mean? When I call over there, at 11, 12, 1, 2, 3 in the morning, whenever I’m awakened by the noise that goes on, 24 hours a day, I don’t mind during the daytime, but I certainly do mind being disrupted at night. What does timely mean? When I’ve called in the past, in all the years that Wal-Mart has been there, possibly 10 years, I get two responses. It’s either, oh, they’re under contract, for instance with the snow removal that goes on, two, three in the morning, under contract, I don’t know, I have nothing to do with that. This is from the Night Manager, or no manager is available, or, well, this is our policy. Those answers don’t do anything. Am I going to have to, now I’m at Number Three, respond in writing so I get awakened, say a Monday night, and then I have to write a letter that morning when I wake up and send it to them? Before they’re going to respond? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know what active, positive, and enduring action is going to really mean, once Wal-Mart has expanded, and they’re settled, again, in our neighborhood, and my fear is they’re not going to 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) respond to us again. Continue to communicate, I’m down to the fifth one, with outside vendors regarding delivery procedures to minimize, to the maximum, practical extent any disruptions to the community associated with deliveries. As you are aware, we have been here every time, just about every time that Wal-Mart has been here, and I understand the Planning Board suggested routing all of the delivery trucks, except for the mechanic part and the flower shop part, garden spot, around the other way. How do I know that that can be trusted. They haven’t been good neighbors to the residents since they moved in. Even though I do shop there sometimes, they still haven’t been good neighbors, and they don’t follow through. Now, we met tonight. We introduced ourselves to the manager, who’s there currently. Very pleasant man, but I don’t think he’s there during the nighttime. That’s when the noise is extremely disruptive. Even with the windows closed in the wintertime, we can hear the noise, say nothing about summertime. We hear the sweeper, when they’re building something, putting their barbecue grills together. We hear the pounding. We hear the clanging. We hear all of this that goes on, PA system, and it’s intermittent. It’s not a straight noise like we’re used to the Northway that’s there always in the background. It’s intermittent. You’ll hear a clang, a bang, talking, all of this still goes on and has gone on since for the last however many years Wal-Mart has been there, and one of the managers, or I think somebody here one night said, well, it’s a 24- hour business. They’re open 24-hours, and they prefer to do all of the maintenance at night, when there are fewer customers around. Well, that’s fine if they were a Home Depot, or a Lowe’s, where they’re not surrounded by residents, and that’s my concern. What’s going to enforce this Good Neighbor Policy? It’s not specific enough for me, and I do want an answer, you know, am I going to have to write a letter, be awakened at two a.m., write a letter the next, later in the morning when I get up, and then they’ll respond to that problem 30 days later? They’re not going to stop it then? Sometimes I call over there at night and there’s no answer. Nobody answers the telephone, and that’s what’s so frustrating to me. I cannot get an answer. The Town does not have a noise ordinance. So we have nothing that can be done there, and it’s just phone calls that, they just seem to brush us away, and I don’t have any great hope, even with this non-specific Good Neighbor Policy, that it’s going to change. Those are my concerns. DAN OLSON MR. OLSON-I concur with my wife, and agree with my wife on her comments. The only thing I want to add to it, that this, on the surface this looks good. This sounds good, but there’s a lot of loopholes and the language is such that I think you can take it either way. Unfortunately, in companies like this with Wal-Mart and other large companies, the management people change quite regular. There seems to be a shift in the management. We don’t know, I don’t think you people are ever going to know how much support or how much latitude that the management company of Wal-Mart gives to the local manager, where his responsibilities lay, how much support he gets from the company and what he could do. When that management changes, we go right back to Ground Zero again and we have to start the process over again. The real problem in the past has been not getting sufficient answers and information in a timely fashion which I mean is the next day or at night when you call. I would expect in 24 hours to get an answer. MRS. OLSON-And the noise continues. That’s the big. MR. OLSON-Other than that, I don’t have anything else to say. My wife covered it all, and thank you for your time in listening. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. OLSON-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Peter, care to respond? Folks, did you want to come up and speak? BRUCE LA PIERRE 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. LA PIERRE-Hi. I’m Bruce LaPierre. My wife Nancy. NANCY LA PIERRE MRS. LA PIERRE-Nancy and Dan are pretty much right on the nose. My biggest complaint is the automotive department. Because I’ve called over there a couple of times with them squealing their tires. My one concern is where the path comes in to Wal-Mart. I was wondering if they could put another one or two stop signs in there, so when they come out of the automotive department, exit and back out of Wal-Mart, so they could stop before they get to the pathway, in case bicyclers or pedestrians are crossing there, or the ones coming in from there, going to the automotive department, and since I have called it’s been much more quieter. I have called a couple of times on that, and, yes, we hear the big trucks. We get the banging when they have to go to the dock and they bang into the dock, we get the like, wow, what was that, you know, just another Wal-Mart truck. During the middle of the night, I’m up at 2:30 in the morning, we hear the sweeper, the plowing, the clanging that Nancy’s talking about, over by the garden center. They’re either banging some kind of a metal over there. I don’t know what they’re putting together, but. Wal-Mart’s also dumping, like, we found over there clay sand, dead trees, and it’s just getting a mess. I don’t know what kind of a restriction they have behind their Wal-Mart fence and the pathway, they’re dumping all kinds of garbage in there. It’s getting to be really a mess, and we’re wondering also about a buffer. Because somehow when they were planting trees in through there, where our house is by the automotive center, there’s hardly any trees or anything in there for noise at all. MR. LA PIERRE-It looks like they’ve started planting them down further, and as they came down through our street they started running out. They got fewer and fewer, and in our back yard there’s hardly anything. MRS. LA PIERRE-I’ve started hearing noises. I don’t know what time they start the automotive department up, when they start going whirr, whirr, changing wheels and tires, as early as seven o’clock in the morning, on a weekend day. I don’t think they should start that until at least eight, nine o’clock in the morning. I think that’s a little early-ish, and as late at night as ten after nine, the night that I called to complain abut the squealing of the tires, and in the summertime it’s way worse, but, and what about tooting of the horns, that’s continuously. If they’re like, I don’t know if they’re testing it, I can see if they’re testing it one or two times, but I heard like six times in a row, beep, beep, beep. So, I guess that’s it. MR. LA PIERRE-That should do it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? GEORGE GOETZ MR. GOETZ-I’m George Goetz, Ray Supply. This is Keith Fazol, Ray Supply. I’m President. He’s Vice President. My question about clarification is, is this part of it strictly about the Good Neighbor Policy? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. GOETZ-Okay. Then I will get a chance to respond later? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. At site plan? MR. GOETZ-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. GOETZ-Okay. Thank you. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? We’ll let you respond. MR. HENTSCHKE-Yes. Why don’t I, just a couple of brief remarks and then I’ll turn it over to Phil Prehoda, the manager there at the store right now. To address some of the Olson’s questions about the general nature of this pledge and this Good Neighbor Plan, it is, in a sense it is vague, and we’ve tried to make it that way. I mean, it’s difficult to address every issue that comes up. I mean, imagine that there could be lots of different types of issues. Part of the reason that we’re doing this is because it’s supposed to be sort of a general pledge, you know, this is how we’re going to try to resolve these types of problems when they come up. The 30 day, the timing on the responding is because we want it to be a documented thing, as opposed to like just telephone calls. I’m imaging that the, Phil will get more into how these things will be responded to, but as opposed to telephone calls which can, you know, after the telephone call is done, we don’t know what’s happened before, and like you had some concerns before about different management and stuff like that. Well, part of the design here is that there’s going to be a file with everything on paper documenting, so that we can figure out how things resolved and keep track of things. So we’re thinking that this is going to be a means of really addressing things and changing things over the long term. So that’s part of the 30 day time period stuck in here and with the writing documentation, that’s what that’s designed to do. Another, just another question, or another comment. A lot of the design of the super center is also made, a lot of the design and changes, modifications and so on, have been made to address some of the concerns as well. The other couple had some concerns about buffering along the automotive side. There’s going to be enhanced buffering there on the site plan. So this is going to help, I think it’s going to help cut down on the noise as well, besides, also a bigger component of that is going to be the rerouting of the truck traffic. There’s going to be a large proportion of the truck traffic that instead of going around, back around behind the store as it does right now, is going to be coming in from the northern side. It’s going to go on the north access. The groceries and the general merchandise are going to be coming in from the north access. So there’s going to be much less truck traffic coming around the back of the store, and that’s going to, we think, significantly reduce the noise disturbance. So I just wanted to highlight those couple of things. Also, we’ve got a, Phil’s going to respond to some of the questions about disturbance responding, and also we’ve got a response to the concerns about the cars coming through the pedestrian area where there’s that’s that walkway through the woods. We’re going to have a response. Did you want to say something quick about that? MIKE SEMERARO MR. SEMERARO-Yes. My name is Mike Semeraro with Langan Engineering. We will take a look at that specific area that you brought up, and stop signs in the middle of an area are not a safe issue, but if we put a caution pedestrian sign at that location I think that that would be more appropriate, and we’ll also take a look to see if it makes any sense to put any type of striping from where that goes to the sidewalk. I’m not sure if that will. We’ll go and measure the location, and if it does, that’s what we’ll do. MR. HENTSCHKE-Phil, would you like to come up? Mia? MIA MASTON MS. MASTON-Good evening. My name is Mia Maston. I’m from the home office of Wal-Mart, Community Affairs, and first, one of the reasons I’m here, I just want to let the Olsons know, and Bruce and Nancy know that your complaints have now made it to corporate and we’re aware of it, and first of all I want to apologize to you that we haven’t been a good neighbor in the past, and that’s part of this Good Neighbor Policy. It’s another reason Phil is here, because, you know, I could say these things, but Phil’s going to be here on the ground. So he can tell you how he’s going to react to any complaints you might have or concerns, and how it’s going to be addressed in a timely manner, but as Peter also mentioned, you’re going to see several changes that we’ve incorporated into the site plan, that will also address those concerns about delivery of trucks and berms and sound barriers and this type of thing, but I want to introduce Phil to 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) you all so he can, you know, introduce himself to you and talk about ways that we want to work and be a better neighbor to you. PHIL PREHODA MR. PREHODA-Good evening. My name is Phil Prehoda, and I know the one comment was made that, you know, we have new managers popping in and out. I’ve worked in this community for quite a few years. I’m from the area. I’m originally from Granville, New York. Still live there, actually, and I’ve worked in the Queensbury location for quite a few years. I started in this Queensbury location back when I worked for Grand Union company. I worked on Glen Street, just down the road here, for about 10 years of the 17 years I was with Grand Union. So I’m very familiar with the community. I understand what’s going on out here in the community. I have been out of this area for a little while. I did go to, just recently running the super center in Ticonderoga, New York, and I just want to let you know that I personally worked very well with that community. We had a great relationship with the Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis Club, Masons, a ton of different organizations in that community, and I personally get involved with that, but I do want to let you know that, you know, I consider this my home area as well. It’s not that it’s not, I’m going to be coming in and out. I’m from the area. I’ve always shopped this area even though I’ve worked in different communities. I’ve shopped this area all my life, and I certainly want to be a good neighbor in this community. I’m new to the store, as of the last two months. Hopefully you’ll find that I will work very closely with you and I’ll be willing to listen to you and talk to you at any point that you have any concerns, and I will also let you know that I’ll do my best to address these situations and to make sure that we are good neighbors and really have a great relationship in the community together. So, that’s pretty much all I have at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I ask you a question? MR. PREHODA-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems to me the majority of the complaints we’ve been hearing in the last three or four meetings we’ve been reviewing this application, comes specifically from nighttime disturbances, and it seems the frustration of the neighbors don’t get an adequate response when they’re calling at 11 p.m., 2 in the morning or whatever. What policy will the store put in effect that would be more responsive to the neighbors at those hours? MR. PREHODA-Well, I will certainly make it a point to make sure the phones are answered. I will definitely have that taken care of. I will certainly speak with any member of management that is on overnights, and will guarantee that if you don’t get the response that things get quiet, then I would certainly personally get involved with that as well, but I will make sure that that’s happening. Again, a lot of these situations I’m hearing tonight is the first time for me to hear these. So, you know, I will certainly go forward with making that a huge effort on my part to rectify these situations. MR. RINGER-What system have you set up internally so that when someone like the Olsons calls at 11 o’clock at night that a note is made or documentation is made? MR. PREHODA-I will have a log book set up in the store for this. That way there there’s a time, date log who called, and what the situation is, so I can follow up on that as well. MR. RINGER-Do you have a manager on duty whenever the store is open? MR. PREHODA-Yes, we do, and even overnights when the store is not open we have somebody, a manager on duty. MR. RINGER-You do night stocking and stuff like that? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. PREHODA-Right. We close at night so there are folks in the store, and management on board all night long. MR. RINGER-In particular reference to one comment in here, the dumping in the back, do you know anything about what they were talking about? MR. PREHODA-I am not aware of that, but I will certainly address that and take care of any situations that are out there. MR. RINGER-Perhaps they could be more specific and you could talk to them and they could tell you where this dumping is occurring. It may not be Wal-Mart people that are doing it. MR. PREHODA-Yes, but if it’s on the property, we’ll soon take care of it. No matter what, we’ll address that. MR. RINGER-Is there a way, there’s another number I mentioned at a meeting once before, you call 1-800-Wal-Mart and you get pretty good service, with a concern or a complaint. Is there a way it could be posted, there are two numbers on your store where the residents could have the store number if they don’t feel satisfactory, you know, they’ve gotten a satisfactory response, that they could have another number, perhaps, to call. I don’t think they want to call your house at midnight, and you wouldn’t want them calling you at midnight. MR. PREHODA-Right, but that would be fine. We can post that number as well, and we also have information pamphlets with letters to the manager, letters to the President that are also available at the front of the service desk as well, for that. MR. RINGER-Or you could make available to people, the more people they can talk to, you can talk to the Olsons if you feel more comfortable. MR. PREHODA-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. PREHODA-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Now, would it be helpful just to add a little teeth to the Good Neighbor Plan, that in bullet number three it says direct the store manager to respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of any letter expressing such concerns that a copy of the letter, along with the management’s response, be sent to the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer, as a matter of, just so that they’re aware? MR. RINGER-I don’t think it would be a Code Enforcement issue, and probably the Code Enforcement Officer’s got so much work to do that he wouldn’t want to take on an issue that. MR. STROUGH-It could be that would let the Town Code Officer know about it, and then if it’s not a Town issue then it’s not a Town issue, but if it is, MR. MAC EWAN-The issues that we’re hearing, the primary issues are related to noise disturbances in the early morning hours, and that’s something that isn’t under Code Enforcement’s purview. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, one of the things was the snow removal. I mean, in all fairness, the best time for clearing the parking lots is when there’s no cars, and I wake up, too, when the big Town truck goes by my house, and rumbles everything in the middle of the morning, I mean, that’s part of living in snow country. The rest of the issues I think we can, you know, address, or the store can address, etc. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. RINGER-The sweeper, they probably wouldn’t have to do that at night, but the plowing is something definitely they would have to probably do, the best time to do it, the sweeper, I understand they run a sweeper, and you hear the sweeping. That’s in the summertime. So you do have your windows open. So that doesn’t necessarily have to be done at six in the morning or five in the morning or anything like that. I mean, Wal-Mart could show some concerns there, if it’s a sweeper that has a motor on it. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Well, a letter to the automotive center. I mean, I used to work automotive when I was a kid. When we had somebody else’s car, you know, the garage floors are smooth, and make a pretty cool sound, you know. I think a letter to the manager of the automotive center might help clear that up, at least temporarily. MR. RINGER-What time does the automotive open up? Is it seven in the morning? Do they start working on cars at seven? Because that might be something, if they’re using that air gun, maybe you could change those hours of operation until eight, perhaps. It’s just a thought. We’re only throwing ideas out here, but that air gun, you know, that does make some noise when they’re taking those nuts and bolts off the cars. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move right in to site plan. George, do you want to recap Staff notes for us? MR. HILTON-Sure. As a follow-up, and as a recap or just a brief update, the applicant has submitted revised information. I’m going to go item by item, in the notes. I’m going to, first of all, touch on noise impacts. The applicant has previously presented information concerning noise, and as a result truck traffic has been relocated, primarily to the northern portion of this site. The applicant, however, in correspondence of October 13, 2003, indicated that they would be presenting findings on the sound walls for the loading docks, and I guess we’d look forward to their presentation on that this evening. In terms of landscaping, the site plan has been revised to include some additional landscaping along the street frontages within the parking lot. It’s actually quite significant compared to previous versions of the plan. The applicant continues to request a waiver from the 10% interior parking area requirements. You’ll note on the new site plan, most recent site plan, that the area where the Queen Diner, the vacant diner exists, or sits, is shown as a landscaped area, and with the note that, should the Wal-Mart require that area for parking in the future, that they would I guess reserve the right or seek to convert that to parking, and, we would suggest that that be reviewed as a future site plan modification or some type of review by the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-Wouldn’t that be automatic, George, if they expanded the parking from the, if they came with a site plan and it had landscaping there and they wanted to take that out, they’d have to come back for site plan anyway, wouldn’t they? MR. HILTON-Yes, ordinarily, unless this Board, put something in a motion this evening that said, you know, that they didn’t have to. MR. VOLLARO-It would be a site plan modification. I think they would have to come back. MR. HILTON-In terms of traffic, access management, the New York State DOT, I’m going to kind of amend my notes here. At the writing of these notes, we hadn’t received a signoff. In fact, at this point, we have received a signoff from New York State DOT. On site circulation, in response to the Planning Board, the applicant has included, or shown various locations where signs will be posted directing traffic and directing trucks on the site. Pedestrian access, as previously stated, sidewalks have been included both on Weeks Road and Route 9. That seems to be, I guess not too much concern at this point. In terms of parking, I touched on it. The area where the Queen Diner sits, which was previously shown as parking, has been converted to 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) landscaping, and again, we just, our suggestion was that the Planning Board look at any future conversion of that landscaped area back to parking as a site plan modification. Lighting is improved. The plan now proposes 30 foot poles with 400 watt fixtures, as opposed to the 20 foot poles that’s required by Town Code. It’s a significant step in coming closer to the intent of the Ordinance. At the writing of this comment, though, there seems to be some confusion with the lighting, the luminare schedule and the lighting plan, and we had not received cut sheets or any information on the flood lights shown for the front of the building. Today we received that information. I have not passed it out to you. If you’d like, I certainly can, but we did get some information on the floodlights, and we, Staff has, we haven’t really had the time to look at that information as of yet. MR. MAC EWAN-You look at it first and pass it along to us. MR. HILTON-As I mentioned in the lighting section, consideration should be given to using some type of dimming system in areas of the site which may not require lighting at all times, and the benefits would be to reduce unnecessary lighting, as well as the benefit of energy savings. Building design, I think that’s been pretty much nailed down. The Board was pretty comfortable with the way the building looks and kind of agreed with the applicant kind of what style and materials. I guess our suggestion would be to have some kind of samples on hand this evening, for your review. Stormwater management, any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed and I believe we do have a signoff in the file from C.T. Male, and just for your understanding as a follow up this evening, if you feel so inclined, or have enough information to conduct your SEQRA review and vote on a SEQRA resolution, you could certainly do that, and the follow up to that would be the Zoning Board hearing variances for parking and permeability, and then the plan would be back in front of you, at a future date, for review and action on the overall site plan. That’s really all we have at this time. MR. RINGER-I had a question for George. In regards to lighting, on some kind of a dimming program, what did you have, like in off hours having the lights dimmed down or something, or in the front of the parking lot having the lights down at certain times? I just didn’t understand your comment there. MR. HILTON-Certainly the front of the site, along Route 9, where there is potentially excess lighting from street lights and other sources, where, at off hours where you may not need it, possibly dimming, possibly in sections closer to some of the residential areas. As you get later into the evening and there’s not as much use of the site, having a system that could, you know, turn the lights down a bit. MR. RINGER-The lights in the whole parking lot, or lights in a certain area? MR. VOLLARO-I might be able to help there, if you want. MR. RINGER-Go ahead, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-There are 24 volt controllers that are available for this. They have seven sections in their lighting plan, seven separate sections listed, and a controller can be set up to either shut that system off or dim it, either automatically by computer, or having it manually done on a. MR. RINGER-By sections? MR. VOLLARO-By sections. Yes. MR. RINGER-That’s what I would be concerned, I wouldn’t want to shut the lights off in the front of the store where there’s still a lot of people. At midnight, they don’t have the traffic that they’ve got at eight at night, but it can be done that way, Bob. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. VOLLARO-It would be the manager’s discretion either to program the 24 volt controller to do it automatically or you can interject yourself into it as a manual. If you wanted to shut all the floods, let’s say, off at midnight, you just shut the floods off. MR. MAC EWAN-The downside of that is someone could bypass that and decide not to do it. MR. STROUGH-Not all fixtures are dimmable. MR. VOLLARO-Most of them are. Most of them are. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s finish up with Staff notes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see where anything else is, it’s like a (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Incandescents are, but not these commercial lights. They’re not dimmable, some. JOHN SPEER MR. SPEER-Good evening. My name is John Speer with Langan Engineering, and with the Chair’s permission, I’d like to go over a couple of points of the tabling resolution from the September 18 meeting. To begin with, Point One on the tabling resolution was a land bank th area at the Queen Diner. This has been shown on our plans. We did this in lieu of attaining the 10% interior landscaping requirement. At this point, our plan has 5.1% interior landscaping, which is an improvement over the existing condition, and an improvement over the previously submitted. Number Three on your tabling resolution was discussing the Route 9 design guidelines. George, if you would, on that CD there is a file known as, it’s on the CD itself, Route 9 elevation. We have revised the plantings, and the, well, not necessarily the plantings, the sidewalk along Route 9 we have shown clearly that we will be taking out the existing macadam sidewalk, and installing along there, in between the existing curb line of Route 9, and our proposed five foot concrete sidewalk. For the plantings along Route 9, they have not changed. Just to go over them really quick, the Route 9 design guidelines require one tree every 35 feet, which would give us 20 trees. We do provide 20 trees in this plan, however, we do not space them out on the 35 feet on center. We have clumped them in order to achieve maximum visibility for our pylon sign. Items Nine and Eleven, from your tabling resolution, discuss landscaping at the residential property lines. MR. MAC EWAN-John, is that what you’re proposing up there? MR. SPEER-That is the view from Route 9 that we are proposing. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s incorporated in your revised plans? MR. SPEER-Yes, it is. This was actually on the plans that we submitted in August. These are red maples, red maples. In here are Chinese flowering crabapples. Those Chinese flowering crabapples will grow to a height of about 15 feet, which should bring them to about the bottom of our proposed pylon sign that we’re seeking to do here. As far as the red maples go, they can get up to 40 feet, even higher. At the time of planting, those red maples will be 12 to 14 feet in height. Continuing on, as I was saying, Points Nine and Eleven discuss the landscaping at the residential property lines. Since the last submission, we’ve supplemented plantings along the westerly buffer. We were proposing 22 evergreen trees. We’re now proposing 53. We were also requested to take out the white pines, which we have done. We have put in a combination of Norway and Colorado Spruce. Along the southern buffer, we did initially propose 20 evergreens. We now have 46 evergreens. Primarily they would be the dark green arborvitae. All of these shrubs will be installed between six and eight feet in height. You can expect between one to two feet per year of growth. Point Number Ten on your tabling resolution was signage to meet Code. I won’t speak to the building signage. We’ll have our project architect BJ Phillips speak to that. Our pylon sign, since the last submission, has been brought down from 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) 30 feet to 25 feet, which will meet the Code. However, we are going to be requesting a variance for the area of the sign. We’re proposing a sign of 116 square feet. The Code allows 64 square feet for a maximum, and we also are still requesting a second pylon sign over here, be 20 feet high, 32 feet, 32 square feet, and that would just direct our customers towards the TLE, Tire and Lube Express. MR. MAC EWAN-A pylon sign in lieu of the signage that’s illustrated on the building? MR. SPEER-No, sir. No, sir. The signage on the building is proposed and our project architect will discuss that. Point Number Two on your tabling resolution, was to revise the signage to route truck traffic to the north side of our site. That has been done. I believe the Staff notes reflect that we have done it to their satisfaction. That is shown in our striping and signage plan. Item Number Three was to obtain a New York State DOT signoff. We received that letter from Mr. William Logan on November 10, in support of the conclusions of our Traffic Engineer, Bill th Lothian, with his initial traffic assessment and his subsequent letters. Item Number Six was to receive a C.T. Male signoff. We received that letter from Jim Houston dated November 18. th Item Number Four, our lighting plan, we were asked to submit a 20 foot high scheme using 400 watt bulbs. I’d like to direct the Board to my letter, my transmittal letter to George Hilton dated October 13 where I went over, where we went over what we tried to do to get lighting on this th site. That can satisfy Wal-Mart and satisfy the Boards. That is simply too bright, using 400 watt bulbs on 20 foot high. Too bright. You’d have to go down to 250 watt bulbs, at that 20 foot height, which leaves you with far too many poles. We had proposed as what we would like to do on this site, a scheme with 30 foot high, that’s the mounted height. That’s not the pole height. They’re mounted at 30 feet, 400 watt, metal halide lamps. That’ll give us 37 poles, and we achieve an average throughout the parking field of 2.7 foot candles, to be compared with 2.5 foot candles allowed by Code. We have also submitted a plan called 25.02 Exhibit. That is the plan that is 20 foot high, 250 watt metal halide bulbs. It gives us an average of 2.9 foot candles, and it yields 57 poles. We’ve vastly and strongly urge the Board to please give us your acceptance on that 30 foot scheme, 25.01, as submitted. We’re looking to remove as many obstacles from our parking field as we can. Anything we can take out of the way of an errant vehicle, as a matter of maintenance, we’re already going to have our snow plows going back and forth over these tree planting diamonds. Everything we can take out of this parking field to assist in the maintenance and the safety of the parking field, that’s what we’re looking to do here, and I think that Points Five and Seven, our project architect, BJ Phillips can handle better. They were discussing the noise reduction material inside the truck dock wells, and revised building color scheme. MR. RINGER-Before you give it up, in regards to Staff notes on dimming the lights and stuff, and the comments you heard from the Board, what are your thoughts? MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. We’ve worked very hard at this lighting scheme, and Wal-Mart feels very strongly that this lighting is the minimum lighting required for the safety of their customers. We don’t see dimming as a viable solution. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Can you dim those type of fixtures? MR. SPEER-It was put to me that we don’t see this as viable solution. I was not even told whether dimming was a possibility. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but what’s the answer to my question? Can you dim? MR. SPEER-I would imagine we can do anything. We can engineer anything, but I can’t say that, that would not be acceptable for this site. This is a safety issue from Wal-Mart’s perspective. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t necessarily buy that argument. I mean, we do a lot of commercial development in this Town. The lighting standards and the lighting codes are set up very specifically to cut down on light pollution that’s been a problem in this Town for many years, and when these Codes were adopted, every effort was put in to the Codes to design them so that safety is the Number One factor, and light pollution is not going to be a problem, trying to combine the two, and what our Codes are are what they are. MR. SPEER-Yes, sir, and our latest submission, the 25.01 lighting plan, we got it down to 2.7 foot candles, which is, statistically, as close as we’re going to get to the 2.5 foot candles that is required by Code. Also there was nowhere in the Code that seemed to direct us to try to install a dimming solution here, and, I’m sorry I lost my thought, but. MR. RINGER-The only thing the dimming would give you is when you’re not busy it would bring them down. When you wouldn’t need the safety as much, if you kept them bright near the building, where you wouldn’t have activity out towards the road. MR. SPEER-The thing about safety is we can’t say when we don’t need it or when we do. MR. RINGER-You know that after 11 o’clock at night you don’t do a hell of a lot of business in there. I mean, it really drops off. MR. SPEER-And that’s when adequate lighting on the site is going to be most important, to make sure that people can, you can see any pedestrian in that parking field, that people can come and utilize the store. Wal-Mart has no interest in light pollution either. It’s wasteful. It doesn’t do Wal-Mart any good. We’re just looking to get to get the safest lighting scheme for this parking field as we can. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess what’s particularly frustrating to me is twice we’ve asked for a lighting plan showing the 20 foot high lights. Twice we haven’t gotten it. MR. SPEER-Sir, I did attach, that’s why I attached the 25.02 Exhibit, because I wanted to show you what 20 foot high fixtures would do, and if you recall, I believe in my initial submission back in April, I submitted a 20 foot high plan also, but that had something on the order of 83 poles. We’ve since went back and we looked at that plan and tried to economize it and do the best we can with that plan. It’s more of an academic exercise on our part. We want to know if it’s possible and what the results would be, if forced to do this, but it is not, the 25.01 plan that we’ve submitted is by far the best solution that we’ve come up with thus far. MR. STROUGH-Now, are all the pole heights 30 feet? MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. No, they’re 27 foot poles, they’re on 3 foot bases. Their mounting heights will be 33. MR. STROUGH-Right. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. SPEER-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to turn it over to someone else? MR. SPEER-Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, and then what I think we’ll do is we’ll start our questions and we’ll just go by our outline. Sticking to the topics, working through them as a group, we’ll get through them much quicker. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we can go through them one by one. I haven’t set them up exactly in format. MR. STROUGH-What’s the first one? MR. MAC EWAN-Just as outlined in Staff. Just hit them by topics. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I can follow the Staff’s outline here. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. BJ PHILLIPS MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. As you know, my name is BJ Phillips, and I guess there are three issues that I really want to discuss tonight, and one is the color scheme. We did go back and look at that, and I’ve created a couple of boards here that do show these colors. We’ve gone back and changed the color from what it was. It was a tan scheme that had a little more red pigment in the paint, to more of a green pigment. So what you’re going to have is a sand backpack tan and still the same forest green, which is going to take away from of that pinkish tint that we were worried about, and I can pass those up to you so you can get a closer look at the paint colors. We think this should be a much nicer solution. As far as the front elevation is concerned, we did go back and put that peak on the center element that you talked about to try to spruce that up a little bit. We’ve also added some green around the vestibule arched window entries, and that should help a little bit articulate that area. As far as the noise control for the truck dock screen walls and around the compressors, what we’ve come up with is a paneling system called Empire Acoustical Panel systems, and I’ve got some handouts here from their website, and what that is is it’s a metal panel system with a mineral rock wool insulation inside the panel. The panels are perforated. They’re about two and a half inches thick, and we’re going to mount those on the inside of our block walls, to give you more noise absorption, and those should help deaden the sound quite a bit. The other topic was the signage. As far as the TLE sign that you mentioned, we will, if we’ve got a pylon sign, we will pull those off the building. We don’t need, on the front of the building, we don’t need it to say TLE twice. So we’ll take those off. MR. MAC EWAN-Why wouldn’t your preference be to leave them on the building and not have a pylon sign? MR. PHILLIPS-Really it goes either way. As far as the pylon sign, I was not aware we were doing that. So this is kind of getting lost between us here, but we can go with one or the other. If you’d rather have it on the building, I know that we are allowed two pylon signs on the side I believe, because of our two road accesses, I think is why we were coming up with the two pylons, but if you’d rather have it on the building, we can leave it on the building and get rid of the pylon, or we can take it off the building and leave the pylon sign. As far as the rest of the signage is concerned, we’ve taken off the “Always” signs that were over the entries, that you didn’t like, and the rest of it we would try to like. It comes along with the super center package. They’re small ancillary signs that don’t create a large obstruction in your view. They’re intended to show a person which side of the store they want to arrange themselves with, if they want to come in on the general merchandise side or if they want to come in on the grocery side, you know, the signs say bakery, deli meat, produce, they’re services provided within the store, and as far as those go, we would like to go before the Zoning Board and try to get variances for them. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Let’s just start right with the first item. Noise. Has anybody got questions, comments, concerns with noise? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. Yes. Do you want me to start right off? MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. VOLLARO-The applicant will provide an alternate material versus the cmn. This is what I’m looking at the Empire Acoustical Systems. Can you give me some idea as to what kind of dba reduction data we’re going to get out of that? In other words, what’s the noise attenuation on these? Do they say in there? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s got an absorption value of NCR 1.1. I don’t know how to convert that to. MR. PHILLIPS-Honestly, neither do I, but between the cmu walls and mounting this on the wall, we should be deadening the sound quite a bit. MR. VOLLARO-Have you had any experience with these acoustical systems before? MR. PHILLIPS-They have been used on Wal-Marts in the past, and from what I understand, they help quite a bit. I don’t have any letters or anything. MR. VOLLARO-So, there’s some corporate history involved here. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, there is. MR. VOLLARO-Is what you’re saying. The only thing, that’s the only thing I really had on noise was whether or not this alternate material would provide at least three db of attenuation is what I was looking for. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to noise? Landscaping and screening? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. John, you and I want to alternate, because I’ve got each one set up at the way he’s doing it. If you want to alternate with me, that’s fine. MR. STROUGH-I’ve just got a couple of quick ones, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STROUGH-What is the proposed landscape buffering in back of the automotive center in front of the couple that was up here earlier? MR. SPEER-We had proposed some additional arborvitae which would be on our side of the existing wood board fence. George, if you wouldn’t mind to go back to that CD I provided you. There’s a folder called digital images. MR. STROUGH-Now they were saying that they didn’t have much right now. Will these be substantially more? MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. We are going to be basically lining that southerly border with these arborvitaes, and they will be on our side of the fence, on the southerly border. If you can do just run through those please, and there’s some kind of a slideshow mode. The existing southerly border, it’s 50 feet from our property line to our curb line. In that 50 feet, starting from our curb line, you’d go south approximately eight feet to a wood board fence. Then there’ll be maybe 30, 35 feet of a mature forest. This is a winter look at the evergreen trees that are there. These guys are mature. They’re 50, 60 feet high. After, there’s a look at the evergreens. MR. STROUGH-So your proposed evergreens are going to be on this side of the fence? MR. SPEER-Will be on this side of the fence, yes, sir. We are not proposing to do any work on the south side of the building, other than a little bit of paving and some work at the garden center. We’re not proposing to do any work beyond that fence, and we’re just adding some 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) arborvitae at the Board’s request. We were not going to go past and into that buffer. I don’t think we can improve on that buffer honestly, sir. MR. STROUGH-So where the snow mounding is going is where you’re going to plant the arborvitaes? MR. SPEER-At the Board’s request, sir. MR. SEMERARO-Mike Semeraro, again, from Langan. On the landscape plan, the darker color on the colored landscape plan you’ll see the evergreen trees that are being proposed between the existing fence line and the existing curb line. MR. RINGER-There won’t be any increased activity on the south side anyway. There should be less activity with your expansion on the south side. So the noise reduction will be decreased because of less activity, and then with your paneling, your trees and the new construction, that would reduce it even more. MR. STROUGH-How tall are the arborvitaes going to be when you plant them? MR. SPEER-Planted at six to eight feet in height, and we can expect one and a half to two feet growth per year. MR. STROUGH-All right. So they’ll be almost as tall as the fence when you plant them. MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to take a beating from that plow when it comes through, too. MR. SPEER-I recognize that. I would prefer not to put them there. That existing buffer is as good as it’s going to get. It’s better than would be by Code. That’s mature forest in there. That’s a very solid, sound fence, and there’s another chain link fence behind that. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but trees themselves are not good attenuators for sound, but low-lying and dense brush is. The denser and the lower lying it is, the more of an attenuator it acts as, for sound. So you’re going to get some value out of it, but, yes, there is concern about snow plowing, but we’ll see. Now the other question I had was that one area that used to be the Queen Diner, down there in the northeast corner of the lot. MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. MR. STROUGH-Now, I see trees planted. Now, is the rest of that going to be lawn? MR. SPEER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and, yes, I, too, I’ll speak up now while we’re talking about it, in favor of, if you ever wanted to develop that as parking and bringing it back to the Planning Board as a modification. Okay. I have no problem with them showing the Zoning Board, when they show it, that that could be potential parking, but along with the understanding that that would have to be approved by the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Standard operating procedure, when they come back for a modification. MR. STROUGH-Yes. All right. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to get a quick overview from you. You’re requesting a waiver from the 10% landscaping in the interior of the parking lot. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-And just give me a quick overview of why you cannot achieve that 10%. What seems to be the problem with that? MR. SPEER-The problem with that would be additional obstructions in the parking field. They would take the form of curbed islands. We’re already down to a ratio of 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square foot, and that is far below Wal-Mart’s desired parking limits. We are hard-pressed to lose but one more parking space on this parking field, and we’re seeking relief from that section. MR. VOLLARO-How close do you come to that 10%? MR. SPEER-We’re halfway there, sir, 5.1%. MR. VOLLARO-5.1. Okay. That’s really all I have on the landscaping questions, Mr. Chairman, if you want to move to something else. MR. MAC EWAN-Traffic access management. Any questions, comments? MR. VOLLARO-I have some on that. MR. STROUGH-Yes, me, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-On traffic itself, I recognize we apparently have a DOT signoff. I understand that. I also know that, in the record, there are two letters, one from Edward & Kaley, which have probably been commissioned by Ray Supply, but there’s an Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation letter in there, too. They’re the only ones, of all of the letters that I’ve seen, except the DOT, obviously, but that’s the only letter that seems relatively independent, and I’ve seen a lot of good work come out of that crew, and I’d just like to know, have these two been ignored, or where do those two stand? Are they off the table now that DOT’s come up with a signoff? It would appear to me that that’s the case, but I’d like to know how you feel about that. MR. SPEER-What is off the table, sir? MR. VOLLARO-Well, there were two letters written on traffic, one by the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation corp. and the other one was by Edward & Kaley, that were both in conflict. They were in conflict with your engineering letter, and I’m just wondering, where do we stand on that? I still have a problem trying to understand how we’re dealing with this traffic situation when we’ve got two letters in there that seem to come from credible sources, and yet we have a DOT signoff. So I’m a little bit. MR. SPEER-Sir, you have an initial traffic impact assessment and our subsequent letters to DOT. That’s also another credible source, and the DOT has come around to seeing things the way we’re presenting them, and the basic gist of it is that the Wal-Mart super center will not, will create the same, if not less traffic than if a 70,000 square foot supermarket took over that Ames building as a by right development. That’s all we’re looking to show the Board. MR. HENTSCHKE-Can I add on just a little bit? It’s Peter Hentschke again. Just to go back a tiny bit and think about the chronology of the traffic letters that went back and forth, there was the initial assessment. There was the Edwards & Kelsey. MR. VOLLARO-July 17, 2003 was their letter. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. HENTSCHKE-And they raised some concerns about, in particular, specifically the Ray Supply, the queuing there. There was some questions raised there whether there would be safe entering and exiting from that site. The DOT responded to that letter and said, yes, there are some issues there, and Bill Lothian, from Langan, did some further studies, did some queuing analysis to respond to those concerns, and he submitted his supplemental traffic assessment to the DOT, and the result of that is that it’s going to be, there’s going to be adequate gaps in the traffic. There’s not going to be excessive blockage. Basically, it’s not going to be a traffic hazard or safety hazard coming out of Ray Supply. That’s what the analysis said from Langan, and that’s what the DOT confirmed in this most recent letter. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen the DOT letter. So I don’t know. I understand it is in file, though, George, and it’s essentially a signoff. Can that be read into the record, please. Is that okay, Mr. Chairman, if he reads that letter? I haven’t seen it. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. HILTON-A letter dated November 10, 2003, from William Logan. It says, “Dear Mr. Lothian: We have reviewed the material provided with your September 15, 2003 letter. The letter report presents sufficient data and observation to support the conclusion that there are sufficient gaps in the existing traffic on Route 9 for the traffic exiting the Ray Supply site and that the northbound left turn queues at the southerly drive do not normally block the Ray Supply drive. The study also concludes that with the additional traffic generated by the Wal- Mart expansion the Ray Supply exiting traffic will not be subject to excessive delays. Based on the information provided in your letter, this appears to be a reasonable conclusion. If you have any questions on this, please call Mark Kennedy. Sincerely, William E. Logan Regional Traffic Engineer.” MR. VOLLARO-I would like to propose that in Drawing Two, 20-01, there is a sign, a note in there for interconnection with Ray Supply by others. That’s the note in 20.01. I would like to look at a firm location and design for that interconnection with Ray Supply. I think it would alleviate, at least in my mind, some of the problems that I see in this, even though we’ve got a signoff by DOT, and I understand that, and that’s, but I also got a letter from the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council that says otherwise, and I’m very torn between the two, whether or not to just say, okay, we’ve got a signoff from DOT and that’s it, without further thinking this thing out. Is there any objections by Wal-Mart to an interconnection with Ray Supply, to providing that? MR. SPEER-We don’t have an objection to the idea of an interconnect, or to granting an easement to allow an interconnect. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t want to do it. MR. SPEER-We don’t want to construct it, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Why not? MR. SPEER-There’s no benefit provided to Wal-Mart for that construction. We don’t mind being a good neighbor. We will allow, by all means, an interconnect to utilize our drives, but we’re not interested in constructing it at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Would that be a deal killer? MR. SPEER-There’s also an issue about the safety, I mean, the location of a possible future interconnect is also a safety issue that’s been looked at by the engineer. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean a safety issue? MR. SPEER-Well, there was other proposals about changing the location of where that. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. HENTSCHKE-As shown on Site Plan 20.01, and we would propose is that we will delineate it better than just an arrow. We’ll put dashed lines as to where that interconnection would be. If you have an interconnection, you have to have it at a “T” intersection. Otherwise, you’re going to have too many options. People are going to end up getting into accidents. So the interconnection, the proper location, the interconnection would be for that bend that we have at this location would be for it to come right here to make this a “T” intersection, so that anyone that would be coming here would come here to a stop, okay, and then make the movements. Right now we just have an arrow here. So what I would propose is that we put little dashed lines so that it’s defined as to where that location would be, and as we indicated Wal-Mart has no problem in allowing the adjoining neighbor to construct that, and we will allow the connection, but we have no idea if they even desire it or so forth. So for us to put it on our drawings to allow them to do it, if they so desire is what we would prefer and recommend to the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand your position. If the Board was to grant an approval for this site plan, and contingent upon that interconnect being done as part of this re-development of this parcel, is that an issue? MR. HENTSCHKE-There’s concerns because of the DOT signoff that. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Ultimately the responsibility is falling on this Board, as the local entity reviewing this project. I’ll ask the question again. If the Board made it part of the approval, as a condition of approval, that that interconnect be developed and done, would you do it? MR. SPEER-If that is also acceptable with DOT, if they approve of the positioning of the interconnect, then. MR. MAC EWAN-DOT would be out of the loop on this, at this point. MR. SPEER-As long as it wouldn’t affect any status with the DOT, which I do not believe that it would, but as long as it doesn’t throw us into any issues with DOT, then it would be acceptable, if it was acceptable to the adjoining owner, and at that point, we would just bring it to our. MR. MAC EWAN-I realize that’s a lot of if’s, I’m asking, would you do it if it was part of a condition of approval? MR. SPEER-Yes, as long as it doesn’t affect our other approvals for the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-We couldn’t make it a condition of the approval unless we got an okay from Ray Supply. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand. I made that clear. There’s a lot of if’s here. There’s a lot of if’s. All I want to do is avoid the problem we had with the Hannaford, CVS plaza eight years ago. MR. RINGER-That’s a very good point. MR. SPEER-Okay, and that’s to our property line we’re going to construct it. MR. MAC EWAN-Obviously. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one more on traffic, Mr. Chairman, if I could, on truck traffic. Now, in looking at all the signs, signage for trucks, I’ve examined all of those and taken a look at what they say and so on. Now how will truck drivers know, by the current signage, which Route to take, i.e., the garden center, the tire lube, or the general delivery truck. Now Mr. Strough raised 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) that same question on September 18 in the minutes on Page Five, and I think on Page Five of th the minutes of the 18, I happened to read that, and it says, without getting bogged down in the th details, I looked at your truck turning exhibit, 35.01, 35.02, then took a look at the signage. I think the way you’ve presented it, keeping your trucks up north, you’re going to have the occasional delivery to automotive center, but the signage that the trucks and arrows on it, whatever it is doesn’t distinguish which trucks, and I think John brought that up on the 18, th and I have the same feeling. When a driver is, what’s going to prevent the 18-wheeler from coming in on the south side? MR. SEMERARO-he trucks that would be delivering to the garden center and to the TLE, they know which side of the store they’re going to. What we tried to do is direct any trucks that don’t know where they’re going to the north side, but it’s very difficult to come up with a sign that says no trucks except garden center trucks. It doesn’t look right. It leaves nothing but confusion. We can’t say garden center trucks only. We looked at a bunch of possibilities on how we can sign this, so that we can direct the, so we can make a separation point there at that front road, so that trucks that need to go to the south side will go to the south side. We decided that, as a default situation, everybody goes to the north. These drivers will learn within a matter of weeks that they have to access the south side of the site if they’re going to deliver to the TLE or to the garden center, and they also have the ability to go through the north, come along that western property line, and the geometry is still there to fit those trucks, if they can come around the site, and at that time we can instruct them, no, you’re supposed to come up the left hand side. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question regarding deliveries in general. When you receive deliveries at the store, are the dedicated deliveries like dedicated to the portion of the store, dedicated to the grocery, dedicated to the automotive? Or can a truck typically come in and have some goods for the groceries, some goods for the department store and some goods for the garden center? MR. SEMERARO-That’s an operations question. I’d like to have the store manager answer that. I really don’t know how they divide their trucks up. MR. PREHODA-As far as the trucks go, there’s general merchandise trucks, and that is throughout the general merchandise (lost word) store which we currently have now, but once you get into the super center side of the business, all the food and perishable trucks will be delivered on the, in the dock bays, looking at the plans, on the north side of the building, like I said, direct delivery merchandise, Pepsi, Coke, soda, beer, chips, all that type of thing, will be located on that side of the building, and the groceries are separated for that side of the building as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and you typically have a truck that makes a delivery for the department portion of the store that may have clothing on it, may have some tires on it, may have some, you know, springtime flowers on it? MR. PREHODA-No. MR. MAC EWAN-So they are definitely split up? MR. PREHODA-Right. They are separated. As far as the garden center merchandise will come separately, tires come separately on a vehicle, on a truck as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Very good. Thank you. MR. PREHODA-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, just one more thing on traffic. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, do you want to hang with one topic at a time? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we are. We’re sticking with the on-site circulation. MR. STROUGH-All right. Can I stick with the truck thing here for a minute? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure, go ahead. MR. STROUGH-On the south entrance, and I’m talking the signage, and I don’t know if B. J. did the signage, but on the south entrance there is also the Type K and Type L signage directing traffic, truck traffic into the store. MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. MR. STROUGH-I thought we were going to direct traffic just using the northern entrance? MR. SPEER-And that is for the one stray or two strays that might miss as they come down Route 9 heading southbound. There is similar signs directing them to that signalized entrance. We gave them those signs there. They’re kind of repetitive. That trucks can access that south drive and they still have the room to do that, and then when they look to their left, they’ll see that Type E sign, that no truck sign that, leading to the south, in which case they will turn to the north, they’ll pick up the remainder of the site signage and head to the docks on the northwest side of the site. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s a good explanation, because they are facing north, and you don’t have any of the signs facing south. The signs you have facing south are at the north entrance. Okay. So that makes sense. Thank you. Now, when trucks are exiting, I know that we have a no truck sign, which is a Type E, at the western entrance on Weeks Road, or the western access. MR. SPEER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-But isn’t there two other accesses accessing Weeks Road? MR. SPEER-No. MR. VOLLARO-They’re gone. MR. STROUGH-That’s the only one? MR. SPEER-In the existing condition, there are two. We’re closing those off, and we’re just making one directly in front of our docks. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Good. Then that’s it. Very good. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-One question, along the lines of the circulation stuff. I mean, that truck entrance at the north end that’s coming around the landscaped area, they can make those radiuses no problem, without turning in to the other lane? MR. SPEER-Those curb islands were designed to accept the WB-67. It’s a very large vehicle. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess, just try to explain to me the widening of the drive aisle on Weeks Road and how that reduces the landscaped area to 12 feet. I went through the previous drawings and these drawings, and I can’t reconcile. That’s on your 24.01 rev. 10/10. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. What happened was I believe up to the point where we revised it on August 13, we initially had, looking at the north side of the building, the drive aisles were 24 th feet wide. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SPEER-At that point we were directed by the Board to have all our truck traffic directed to the north side of the site. In order to accommodate vehicles of this size, we had to increase the aisle width in between the spaces from 24 to 30 feet. In doing that to the two aisles where we’re going to direct our truck traffic, we’ve lost 12 feet, where we initially had a berm and some landscaping running along Weeks Road, by reducing that 12 feet and still having the five foot wide sidewalk, we ran out of room to do the nice berming and landscaping job that we initially proposed on Weeks Road. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s all because we’re bringing the trucks up on that northern side. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I thought the plan that we had previous to this, which I just crossed out, had that landscaping and had those truck aisles on there, and there was no issue back then. MR. SPEER-No, no, sir. We had an additional 12 feet of green space to work in and to plant, and I think that we up to our revision of August. Unfortunately, I do have the original April plans with me. I don’t think we did too much landscaping on Weeks Road at that point. MR. VOLLARO-See, that’s what the Chairman’s referring to is the same thing. I took your previous plan and this plan and I couldn’t reconcile that 12 feet. MR. SPEER-There’s been no change to that north side of this site between August and now. That change happened earlier on in the process. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you, looking at the old plans. Okay. MR. SPEER-They kind of got heavy to carry around all the time. MR. MAC EWAN-Hang on to them, though. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the reason you went from 24 to 30. MR. SPEER-That’s what happened there, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m out of traffic material, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Pedestrian access. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any comments on pedestrian access. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-One. Talking about that walkway from the neighborhood over that you’re going to look at either striping. MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. We’re going to investigate. MR. MAC EWAN-And at least signage yielding pedestrian crossing. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. SPEER-Yes. There’s an existing hole in the fence. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SPEER-And we’re going to look at putting a site crosswalk and a B Type sign which say Ped-xing. It’s the yellow caution sign. We’re going to be looking to do that. MR. SEMERARO-We’ll definitely put the pedestrian crossing, and, once we go and measure that, if it makes sense to put the striping, we’ll do the striping as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Parking. John? Any issues with parking? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I think the fact that they’ve achieved a 27% reduction from the Ordinance as a result of land banking that Queen Diner area is a significant. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Everybody’s favorite topic, lighting. Mr. Strough? MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, I’m wrestling with this. I know we have a Town Code, but sometimes one size doesn’t fit all. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t like the increase in the number of poles. I mean, if we went to 20 foot poles, and 2.7 foot candles is pretty close to Town Code. Thirty-foot height, the building’s almost that, if not higher in parts. I don’t have a problem with the 25.01 plan, with the 30 foot height and the 37 poles and the 400 watt lamps. I think when all is said and done, the pushing the shoving, I just, you know, I don’t want to see more poles there. The poles are not particularly attractive. So this reduces the number of poles, so I don’t really have a problem with the plan that they ultimately ended up with. I think it’s not what they want. It’s not what we want. It’s pretty close, though, to what we want, and I can live with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to echo John’s statement, except for one thing. The floodlights in front of the building. Why do we need those floodlights there? There’s a good deal of them. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you talking about the upward floods? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEMERARO-Those are actually lights that light up the façade of the building. No one would see glare or anything from anything. The building blocks the lights, and if you go right now within your Township, Home Depot has the same type of floodlights, although our floodlights, in my opinion, are better located and are better. Lowe’s lumber also has the same type of floodlights, and so does the Super K. Actually, the Super K’s floodlights are the worst of the three. We’ve looked at them before we came here tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve learned a lot from that site plan, years ago. MR. SEMERARO-Okay, but the location of our floodlights are such that if you actually go and look at the other ones, they’re going to be at a better location with respect to lighting at the façade. They are such that the building would actually block any glare or anything. No glare is seen outside the front façade of the building, and the floodlights are there to light up the façade, and I didn’t see a Target around here, but we also do a lot of Targets, and I’m positive that Target also has those. It’s a standard lighting for this type of a project, and actually it’s standard 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) within your own Town with the Lowe’s lumber. The Home Depot, and the Super K-Mart as well. MR. STROUGH-You’re going to light up B.J’s nice looking building. MR. SEMERARO-It’s a beautiful building. MR. STROUGH-Yes. You did a good job. MR. VOLLARO-Well, how do you feel about this light dimming system? MR. SEMERARO-I have never, and I’ve been doing Wal-Mart’s for like 13 years now, and I’ve been doing this for 27 years. I’ve never seen a dimming system on a shopping center. When, there is security lighting when the store is being turned off, where they just have like one pod and so forth, but this store is open 24-hours a day. So if you were ever to dim a portion of the light, and God forbid if anyone ever got hurt in that portion of the light, the liability aspects of it, at the 30 foot we’re at 2.7 foot candles, 2.7 foot candles is, if you got much lower than 2.7 average foot candles, you would be able to go to the ISCE manuals for lighting and indicate that you did not properly light your parking lot for this type of a center, but I think it’s a safety aspect from Wal-Mart’s point of view. Because obviously it’s less electricity if you dim it, but you could also look at, and Wal-Mart goes crazy with respect to safety. If you look at all of our curbs now, Wal-Mart’s standard is that they stripe two feet from the curb when there’s a curbed island within the parking field. That’s because people have gotten out of their cars and stepped on the curb and twisted their ankle. Okay. Wal-Mart is very safety conscious, and to bring that down with the dimming system is a safety issue from Wal-Mart’s point of view, and John has had many phone calls with Wal-Mart, I know, about the lighting on here. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll go along with Mr. Strough. 2.7 is not too far from our Code, and I’d go along with the fact that the 30 foot poles reduce the number of poles. Just as a housekeeping thing, when you get to 25.01, your 25.01, you’ve got to change your date on it to 10/14/03. If you look at the bottom of it, where you’ve got your file number, your computer file. MR. SPEER-We stopped working on it as of 10/10. That was when we put the revision to bed, and we plotted them out, the day before we had to get them to George. MR. VOLLARO-No, I doesn’t read 10/10. It reads April 3. rd MR. SPEER-No. That’s the original date. That’s when we started this. MR. SEMERARO-The revision. The revision on top. MR. MAC EWAN-The drawing number doesn’t change, the file number. MR. SEMERARO-Yes, and the signature, my signature is actually 10/14/03, on there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. SEMERARO-So it is consistent, but I do go back and check the bottom of the drawings before I sign things. MR. VOLLARO-Good idea. That’s all I have, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Lighting was one of my big concerns coming here, too, and I don’t want to see anymore poles, either, and I agree with both John and Bob, that after listening to you, that I think what you proposed is probably an acceptable alternate solution. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Building design, Route 9 design standards. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got one. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-The building design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Building design/Route 9 design guidelines. We’re looking at how the building fits, what we’re looking for architecturally, I think we’re there. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, you know, it’s not my Massachusetts store, but, B.J. did good. It was a compromise. We’ve broken up the façade. The coloring scheme on the October 27 is like it th better, and I think he knew that, and so, the only question is, B.J., the dormer windows, I don’t know, you call them EFIS. I don’t know what that means. MR. PHILLIPS-The material above them, EFIS, it’s an external insulation and finish system. It’s, I’m trying to think of how to describe it. It’s like a stucco covered foam insulation. It’s a panel system that comes from a factory like that, and they just apply it. MR. STROUGH-That’ll be the semi-circular shape. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. You’re talking about the window itself? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. PHILLIPS-That’s going to be a spandrel glazing system, which is, it’ll be glass. We’re still trying to determine whether or not we can construct it so that it lets light into the vestibule area. As of right now, it’s just going to be an architectural feature that resembles glass. MR. RINGER-Like the Price Chopper does? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. RINGER-Price Chopper does it. MR. STROUGH-So it won’t be glass then? MR. PHILLIPS-No, it is a glass system, but it doesn’t let any light through. It’s an opaque system. There’ll be a wall built behind it. Because of the way the arch and the peak is constructed, it’s got beams that run through there, and they would be in the way of that window. So we’re trying to, right now we’re trying to discuss, at the firm, whether or not we can do some structural framing in there so that we can get an opening that we can put an actual transparent glazing in, but as of right now, it’s just going to be a spandrel glazing that’ll just be up there to represent. MR. STROUGH-Well, I like the spandrel glazing because then if you have a translucent pane, you’re going to be able to use some scotch tape and put that “Always” sign up in back of it. MR. PHILLIPS-No. The “Always” sign is dead. It won’t be back. MR. STROUGH-No. I think you did a good job with this, and you said you are going to submit the color samples? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. I brought a couple of boards that actually have the color on there. Do you want actual sheets submitted, or do you want like materials that are painted the actual colors? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, as long as those are representative of the colors. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-That’s fine. MR. PHILLIPS-Those are the actual Sherwin Williams paint colors that we cut and pasted to those boards. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I like that. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. Good. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one. On the building design, I don’t see any mechanicals on the top of this building at all. Am I assuming that they’re all hidden by parapets of some kind? I’m talking about HVAC systems and so on? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. They will be complete hidden from view on the front, on the right and the left. MR. VOLLARO-What about that south side? Because they can make some noise those compressors and all, concerned about that. Not the south side. I guess I’m looking at the west side of the building. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. The grocery compressors that are sitting on the ground. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m just talking about. MR. PHILLIPS-You’re talking about rooftop units? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. PHILLIPS-Other than the parapet on that west side, no, there won’t be. Now as far as, well, okay, on the west side. You’re talking about to the rear of the store. We do not have a parapet wall at the rear of the store because right now so much of that is existing. We could put a parapet on what we are building in the expansion, but as far as putting four to six feet of CMU on top of that existing wall, we’d have to do a lot of load calculations and probably some reinforcing on that wall. So it would be really difficult to do. We’d prefer to go on the rear of the stores with just a flat runoff so we can put gutters and downspouts, rather than if we have the parapet wall we’d have to go with internal roof drains and scupper system. So we’d like to. MR. VOLLARO-So those will be hidden from Route 9, though? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, from Route 9 and from both sides of the store. MR. VOLLARO-Are there any real noise makers up there, other than the compressors? MR. PHILLIPS-No. I mean, there are exhaust fan units and stuff like that, but as far as screening those, what you’re going to end up with is a screening around a box unit. So, I mean, it kind of defeats the purpose if you’re trying to hide those from view, or if you’re trying to hide 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) them from noise. As far as, as high as it is, the noise isn’t going to be a large factor, I don’t believe. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so, either. You’ve got it hidden on three sides. Particularly I was concerned about the elevation looking from Route 9, and I guess you won’t see anything behind there. MR. PHILLIPS-No. You will not see anything from Route 9. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all, Mr. Chairman, that I have on that, building design. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I think what you’ve done looks really good, and I think it does fit in well with the commercial district that we should have. MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything on stormwater. It looks good to me. MR. STROUGH-No, as long as they address C.T. Male’s concerns. MR. VOLLARO-We had a signoff on C.T. Male. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything on stormwater. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything I missed? MR. VOLLARO-There’s only one thing, I think, that we might want to correct, and it’s a minor housekeeping thing, the site development data sheet that you supply, you’re going to have to change the parking and the permeability on that. MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. Prior to any submittal before the Zoning Board of Appeals, we will revise our whole application. MR. VOLLARO-Now, the last thing is on wastewater. The utility plan, 22.01, states that, see architectural plans for the exact size and location of this grease trap. Well, I don’t have any architecturals, and I know the Wastewater Department is concerned about wanting to review the size and location of that, and I think that, George, have you checked with Wastewater on that? Talked to Mike Shaw? MR. HILTON-Issue of a grease trap that we were supposed to look into. MR. SPEER-The proposed grease trap that we show on our plans. MR. HILTON-Yes. Right. I think there were two, I guess, I was thinking about the old existing. MR. VOLLARO-No, one is, that’s going to be my next question. What’s the status of the grease trap that’s supposed to be behind the building? I don’t know what the story is, but I do know that the proposed grease trap that’s on Drawing 22.01 has a statement on that says see architectural plans for the exact size and location, and Mr. Shaw would like to see that, and would like to try to approve that before it gets into the field. MR. HILTON-Absolutely. If that’s the case, you could condition the approval on some final signoff from Wastewater. At this point I haven’t talked to him at all about that grease trap. So I can’t speak to that. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. VOLLARO-He does have a letter in, by the way, that asks for that. MR. RINGER-Does Wastewater signoff before building permits are issued? Or are they a Department that doesn’t signoff? Highway signs off and different, does Water sign off? MR. HILTON-I think they’d have to review the plans. I don’t know for certain. MR. RINGER-I was just curious if they’d signed off or not. MR. VOLLARO-See, it says this is a memorandum from Mike Shaw dated May 6, 2003, and he states that on Drawing 22.01, Utility Plan, the proposed sanitary cleanout outside the building, and then the grease trap does not show sanitary lateral connections, size and detail. Trap size needs to be approved by the Wastewater Department. MR. SEMERARO-Yes. That’s a typical Wal-Mart that they use standard, and we can get that out to you next week, no problem. Send it to George. MR. HILTON-Mike Shaw. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He’d want to see whatever that is. We don’t ever get architecturals. So it’s probably stated on the architectural drawings. MR. SPEER-And I believe Mike’s concern, also, is that we would be routing from our grease traps out to the sewer main. These are just, they’re externally located grease traps, for ease of maintenance, and they are routed back through the building and everything comes out through the one sewer pipe that leads out the front of the store, but we’ll make that all clear to Mr. Shaw. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SPEER-We can do that next week. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and would that be a condition that we would put in there? MR. RINGER-We weren’t going to be doing it tonight anyway. So that would be part of, when we approve the site plan, to make that a condition, if we don’t have it in already. MR. VOLLARO-Right, if Mike hasn’t gotten it. Right. MR. RINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I guess the last question, what is the status of this so called grease trap at the rear of the building? What is that, or does anybody know about it? MR. HILTON-Not that I can tell. MR. VOLLARO-Store manager, do you know about it? Where did that come from, anyway? MR. PREHODA-I am currently not aware of the location of that at this point. MR. SEMERARO-I believe that came from a public comment. MR. SPEER-Yes. I think that was a public comment mentioned at the last meeting, and I don’t think it was necessarily the grease trap like we are proposing an underground system to separate grease from wastewater, but more like a dumpster of some kind, and I’ll admit to being clueless as to what the exact details of the problem were or where to find them. You can rest assured that we will correct any kind of problem like that, that is brought to our attention. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going through the minutes of 9/18, and I don’t know whether I highlighted the 9/18 minutes or not, as to who asked that question and where it came from. MR. PREHODA-If I may speak, I might be able to address that external one. There is a grease trap that gets picked up on a regular basis. It’s not a grease trap. It’s actually a grease container. Currently McDonalds, when they, because of the frying they have to do, they have to discard the grease. So there’s an actual container they pour that into that a company comes around and empties that container for us. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re talking about, but there is one located behind the building with that. MR. VOLLARO-Probably that’s it, then. MR. PREHODA-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s probably it. I don’t see it in my notes here. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No. I think, Larry, you mentioned in the September 18 meeting that that th could be serious. I notice your note in here some place. Yes. It says here on Page 19 of the minutes, Larry Ringer says, “Well, that grease pit, if they are emptying into, that would be something to look into. It’s pretty serious in nature.” You think that’s what it is. MR. RINGER-Well, it must have come from the public or I wouldn’t have, because I didn’t know anything about it, so it must have, in the public hearing, whoever spoke up. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s the way restaurants container fryer grease. So they have it recycled just like you do waste oil. MR. VOLLARO-So long as it’s not something that’s just sitting there not being maintained. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a company that picks it up regularly. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-C.T. Male signoff, and I guess my last note is do we have sufficient information to conduct the SEQRA review tonight? MR. MAC EWAN-I think we do. MR. RINGER-We’ve still got the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Has Staff got anything? MR. HILTON-I guess I had just a couple of points of clarification. I’m looking at the additional lighting information I mentioned, and it shows the floodlights. MR. RINGER-Your Staff notes your in now? MR. HILTON-No. I’m actually in the information concerning floodlights, which I mentioned we have. We received today and didn’t hand out to you. If you’d like, we certainly can. Just a question for the applicant. The floodlights seem to have, or have the ability to have some kind of visor on them, as shown on the cut sheets, and I guess I’m just wondering, is your intent to include the visor on the floodlight or just have the main fixture without the visor? MR. SPEER-I think the lighting plan shown now does not have the visor on them, and it really was kind of superfluous because the light is directed at the building itself, at the building façade. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. HILTON-Okay. I guess just a couple of points of clarification. The lighting plan indicates 30 foot high poles, but what I’m understanding, there’s a three foot base that will bring that to a total height of 33? MR. SPEER-No, sir. Our lighting plan is 30 foot mounting heights for our main parking field lights. MR. HILTON-Okay. Good. Just one additional note on the lighting plan with the floodlights, lists the symbol, label, quantity, and then a catalogue number, and it seems to indicate, it gives the catalogue number, and then at the end it says at 33 feet, and I guess I don’t quite understand that if they’re ground mounted. MR. SPEER-No, they’re on the poles. The floodlights themselves. MR. HILTON-Okay. I guess I misunderstood. Okay. So they’re three feet above? MR. SPEER-They’re three feet above those fixtures, the parking light fixtures, and then they’re pointed down. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. SPEER-That keeps them out of the driver’s eyes, out of the people coming out of the store. It works very well. MR. SEMERARO-That’s where I indicated that in our opinion it’s better than what we’ve seen around the Town. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, George? MR. HILTON-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. SPEER-No, sir, not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-I would ask you 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 NANCY OLSON MRS. OLSON-I’d like to make a comment about the lighting. Previously, at a previous meeting, my husband and I were concerned about it, because it would keep us awake at night. The noise would wake us up, the bright lights and the noise would make it hard to go to sleep, but our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. LaPierre, were talking with us and talked about the safety issue, which I had not thought of before. We’ve lived at our current home for over 38 years. In fact, my husband and I were the people who circulated a petition to have the opening so we could walk through to the Zayre’s store. Sometimes I wish we hadn’t done that. The reason being, we have had cars drive up at night and park by our house because we’re right there at the dead end street, signal with their traffic, with their car lights to somebody over in the parking lot. We’ve called the Sheriff’s Department. There have been thefts, the sheriff’s had told us in the past, probably drug exchanges, and now we’re noticing, over the last two or three years, there are more objectionable looking people walking through our neighborhoods, to the point that I now lock my doors during the daytime which I didn’t used to, if my husband’s not home. So my concern is safety. I’ll go with bright lights to have a safer neighborhood, because of the walk 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) through, and we’ve found stolen items in our yards, over in the, you know, the buffer zone, before Wal-Mart opened up there, you know, when it was Zayre’s. So that is a big concern for us. We were talking about the safety issue. Give us the bright lights. Forget about dimming them because that spotlight’s our area. In fact, we had heard a few years ago that somebody had set up outdoor living, a homeless person, in that buffer zone. I never saw signs of it, but then I’m not going to walk through it either, but we’ve had, through the years, kids, last year two kids started a fire in the buffer zone. So the bright light are certainly a deterrent. So I just wanted to let you know that, that we’ve changed our position about the lighting. We’d rather be safe then have dim lights. Thank you. MR. RINGER-And you want that walkway to remain? MRS. OLSON-I’m the wrong person to answer, because if I could do it, I’d (lost words) right now. I drive to Wal-Mart. If I’m going to get a lot of things from there, I’ll drive to Wal-Mart. I’m not a regular customer, but I shop there enough. MR. RINGER-Well, I was just wondering if the people that you’re suggesting are in your neighborhood are coming up there because they’re using the walkway to get to Wal-Mart. MRS. OLSON-They are. MR. RINGER-And if you cut the walkway out, then you may eliminate some of those people, but you may alienate some of your neighbors who like the idea of having a walkway. MRS. OLSON-We would be outvoted on that. We would be outvoted because our neighbors do want to be able to walk to Wal-Mart. MR. RINGER-That’s what I thought probably. MRS. OLSON-Yes. So I wanted to make that comment, and thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Jon? JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper with Dave Valenti and Jim Valenti, two of the owners of the Whispering Pines Apartment complex, which is immediately to the west. We have numerous significant concerns about this, not that it’s being done, but how it’s being done. Essentially to begin with, there’s a real conflict between the apartment use in the back and the additional truck traffic that’s going to be generated by having a supermarket. We think that that can be mitigated with some changes to the project, but for the most part that area in the back is used for storage, and there are dozens of containers, if you’re there now, there’s a lot of outside storage of pallets. The issue came up about this grease container. There’s rodents, probably, as a result of that. So we just think that the project needs to be more sensitive, in the back, to the fact that there are 52 apartments that are right there adjacent in the back. What we’re suggesting on that issue is that the pavement doesn’t have to be as wide behind the building. At some expense to Wal-Mart, they can saw cut that and add more green space, add a raised berm with a sound attenuating fence and landscaping on both sides of that fence, both on the apartment complex side and on the Wal-Mart side of that, which would go a long way to both buffer the visual look of this thing as well as the sound. With that in mind, the same issue, we are concerned about the roof units on the existing building and on the new building, both hearing them and looking at them, and the statement that they would have to do engineering studies to see if they could support some sort of a parapet wall sounds just a simple answer, I think that there’s probably a way to put up some sort of fencing on top that would block those units. That also may have an impact if the Board is going to allow the 30 foot lights in the front, if that’s roughly the height of the building, there’d probably be some spillage. So a parapet wall in the back would go a long way there as well, and we’re concerned about the lighting in the back. We would like to know exactly what the foot candles are going to be, how bright the 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) lights are going in the back. We understand there’s security concerns, but the neighbors have to be taken into account with that as well. Another issue, just on the back of the building, for some reason the proposal still includes three curb cuts on Weeks Road, if I’m not mistaken. MR. VOLLARO-No, they took them out. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Is there still a curb cut on the west side by the? MR. MAC EWAN-Right by the loading docks, right in that yellow area where it’s shown. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the only one. MR. LAPPER-Okay. That looks to me like it’s set up for trucks to use Weeks Road, and if, the whole discussion has been that the trucks were supposed to use the signalized intersection on Route 9. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what it’s designed for. MR. LAPPER-So I don’t understand why that’s there. MR. STROUGH-They have a sign, No Trucks. MR. LAPPER-I understand, but you can have a sign and you can have trucks drive through it. Just, that position seems somewhat suspect. That that’s where the curb cut is. If you’re trying to discourage trucks from using Weeks Road, you don’t put your curb cut in front of the truck loading dock. Cars wouldn’t even want to use that if it’s right where the truck dock is. So I think that perhaps should be moved, the one curb cut on Weeks Road should be moved farther to the east, if you want to discourage trucks. In terms of the site plan itself, I guess I’ve obviously heard a lot about the height of poles over many years here, and I guess the Town has now implemented these new standards for 20 foot poles, and that’s what Home Depot did, and there wasn’t an issue with Home Depot that there were too many poles, and people haven’t said that there are too many poles. I haven’t run this by an engineer, but it sounded like they’re trying to reduce the brightness of the bulbs to make the argument that they’d need too many poles, and perhaps by, and again, this would all have to be done on paper, but perhaps by having somewhat brighter bulbs, you could have 20 or 25 foot high poles where you wouldn’t need as many as they’re saying. That, I think that’s a visual issue, in terms of looking at the height of the poles, and one of the things that the Town has done that’s really positive is to have that 20 foot standard. So roughly a year and a half after that standard was implemented, to allow them to go to 30 feet, doesn’t sound like a good move, in terms of everyone in the future looked to this as an example, and just, since I can use the example of Home Depot, which complied with the standard, I don’t understand why they can’t, just because they would rather not. They also raise the issue that the more poles, because they don’t want to have more islands, that they think that that’s an issue having more poles, but if they were made to comply with the 10% green space in the parking lot, which I think it probably the most significant thing in commercial development, and I look to Hannaford Plaza as an example, where it is really nicely laid out, because of the large area of green space in the parking lot. They could design those around the poles, so that even if there are more poles, it may work better if you have nicer green space, and I’d just encourage you to try and keep that to that 10%. That really softens the look of the building. It may be that there are, I heard that there are 3.3 parking spaces per thousand, which is a low number, because even what Aviation Mall asked for was four per thousand, and that is a complex where you have more of the shared parking concept because you have different kind of stores, restaurants and stuff where people come in and share, rather than here, where there’s just the grocery and the retail. So I’m a little concerned that 3.3 might not be enough, and it may be that the building is just a little bit too big, unless there’s more land to acquire, and I’m not expecting that you’re going to necessarily cut down the size of the building, but it may be that in order that if they took off, you know, 20 feet by the length of the 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) building, they may be able to put a whole lot more green space in and comply with the 10%, have the grass islands, protect the poles, and it may just be a lot better site plan. It seems like if they’re going to 3.3, that that’s pretty slim, in terms of parking. I think that that hits most of the issues. Do you guys want to add something? JIM VALENTI MR. VALENTI-Yes. Hi. My name’s Jim Valenti, one of the owners here at Whispering Pines. I’d like to speak about the sound on the back of the building there. At the last meeting we spoke about, you know, 80 something decibels, we’re going to call it 85 decibels, since we didn’t come up with a number on that. At 45 or 50 feet, which is on my property. That’s like a lawn mower running on my property. With 52 residents along the property line there, that’s loud. I’ve got concerns of that. They did, I like what they did with their loading docks, putting it, the material they’re doing to absorb the sound, but that’s the sound going in that direction. There’s also sound going towards my direction, and we need a sound fence there, an engineered spec’d sound fence like they did with their loading docks, to reduce that sound. I have an upper level with a second story. I’m asking for a berm to raise it up, so it wouldn’t be all fence there, okay, to reduce the sound. I have an Agway store on Route 9. I have go-karts next door to me. So I’m familiar with the sound, okay. They came in at 77 decibels, I believe, in the middle of their track. When I’m selling flowers out there in May, customers say to me, how do you stand that noise. Well, sometimes I sit down. Because it is noise. It’s irritating. It’s annoying, and, you know, I have to deal with it there. I don’t want to deal with it at my business at Whispering Pines, and we can correct it through Wal-Mart, being friendly about the noise, and correcting the problem on that side, and the only other thing I want to talk about is what I saw on the plan, is their pallets. They had their empty pallets store on the northwest end of the property. That’s a visual to the community running down Weeks Road. I think there’s another location to store empty pallets. Okay, not right there off the northwest end of their property line. The sound’s a big concern of mine because I deal with it on Route 9, and I don’t want to deal with it over here. DAVID VALENTI MR. VALENTI-Thank you, Jon & Jim. My name is David Valenti, Jimmy’s brother and property owner. What we’re talking about here at Whispering Pines is primarily quality of life issues, and further on traffic safety. We’re going to address, once again, the issues of, the issue of how many units that are represented at Whispering Pines that back up on the west side or the rear of this Wal-Mart expansion, which was estimated at around 52 units. That’s about one- third, or just short of one-third of the number of units at Whispering Pines, and our interest is to protect their interest, and the noise, being that the traffic with the trucks coming at all hours of the night, and doing their business, and as I understand it, there’s been some discussion in previous meetings as to when loading and unloading, and how these trucks are going to be situated, whether they’re going to be running their motors and not running their motors, you know, our feeling is, and what we’ve been advised on from our residents from they’re, they’re living next to this, it’s all hours of the night, and calls have been made to the Wal-Mart store, and they go on deaf ears. Our situation there at Whispering Pines is that we want to lessen that noise and make every effort to lessen that noise with the improvements that we have brought to your attention tonight. We think it’s imperative for our property that these be considered. We were the, one of our residents was responsible for the comments made on that grease pit, because they overlooked this location during the summertime, and have noticed that the way the pallets are being stored in the back and how things are being situated in the back have caused for almost a rodent infestation, which is a concern of ours, being that we have no separation between the properties, and being, with that being said, I think we need to address, you know, the situation on how things are kept in the back of the Wal-Mart, particularly in an expansion situation, and furthermore, I’m not quite sure, and I haven’t seen where the trash center is going to be located, but I would think that it would certainly not be in proximity to where people live, and, you know, the noise that becomes evident from trash compactors and disposal. The other thing that I wanted to talk about tonight was the traffic, and that being a safety issue. I have addressed, in previous meetings, of my concerns and I certainly welcome the changes that have been brought to this Board concerning the inter-loop within the 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) boundaries of the Wal-Mart expansion, and not bringing the traffic, the truck traffic, out on to Weeks Road was a major success for this project, in my view. However, I do have concerns relating to our residents residing off of Weeks Road accessing Route 9 both north and south, and like I said, we’ve talked about this over the last several months, on what the traffic is going to be like, and certainly in an expansion situation I’m sure that the traffic is going to change there, and the mere fact that we’ve had, you know, the DOT signing off on, you know, various traffic related issues, I have concerns from my residents going north off of Weeks Road, and south, for that matter, as, you know, I’ve done this myself many, many times, particularly during the summer, and haven’t been able to get off, out of Weeks Road for 10 to 15 minutes at a time. So, you know, again, the safety issues that are being addressed with this expansion, particularly at the Weeks Road access on to Route 9, I would hope would be given some careful consideration and determination before final resolution is made on that. I would like to thank the Board for their, you know, hearing the Whispering Pines’ concerns, and I appreciate your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, really quickly just to note that there is a letter in the file, as public comment, from Mr. Valenti, David Valenti, which pretty much contains everything that he just mentioned. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. KEVIN BRENNAN MR. BRENNAN-Good evening, guys. My name is Kevin Brennan. I’m a long time resident of Queensbury. First time I’ve ever been here, and I really appreciate the opportunity to voice some of my views on this project. I’ve got a few, not that the project is going through, but just, again, how it’s being done, and I think it would be worthwhile for the Board to consider some alternatives and just listen to some of the information that’s at hand, and consider some alternatives and some of the issues. First and foremost, lighting. I’m very pleased to hear that the Board has taken notice of the issues, because I think, Larry, you mentioned it earlier. It’s gotten to be quite a problem in Queensbury for many years, and it’s just getting worse and worse. One of the first points that I thought would be worthwhile making is that examples were used earlier that the lighting would be just like K-Mart, just like Lowe’s, just like Home Depot. Why use poor examples of lighting as a reason to, you know, continue the trend. Yes, it meets Code, and I appreciate the fact that we have some Codes. One of the questions I would like to raise is the Code good enough. A point was raised earlier that 2.7 foot candles is close enough to the Code. There was questions raised as to what the safety level would be if it was changed from that. I think the Board would probably be interested to know that the current level of lighting is probably about one-fifth of what is being proposed. The current average lighting in that parking lot is on the order of a half a foot candle, with a maximum of one and a half. So, if it’s unsafe at anything less than 2.7, I would maybe raise the concern maybe the store should close down right now, since it’s not safe to park there. I don’t think it’s unsafe to park in the Mall parking lot. The Mall parking lot has nowhere near that lighting level. I would profess or propose that the safety is probably not the key reason of the lighting recommendations. It’s more probably competition and a billboard, we’re here. K-Mart does it so they want to do it. I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to continue the trend that’s been done thus far. Another question is, why can’t it meet the Code? I think several different people have made that point tonight, as to why the poles can’t be 20 feet, versus 30 feet. Home Depot did it, so it can be done here as well. That’s all I have to say on lighting. I do have some concerns with traffic as well. I do a lot of shopping along that road. I shop at Ace. I shop at Ray Supply. I spend probably a lot more at Ray Supply than I do at Wal-Mart. I would probably spend more at Wal-Mart if I could get from Ray Supply to Wal-Mart, but getting in and out of that store, and many of the stores up along that road, including the sub shop across the road, has gotten to be a nightmare. I would propose that some sort of a stoplight, or some restriction on right hand turns coming out of the parking lot heading southbound would be in order, or I thought that was a very good idea, as far as a connector. I never thought of that, but that’s an excellent, 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) excellent idea, and I know the folks from Wal-Mart claimed earlier that there was nothing in it for them. I would probably shop a lot more if I could scoot from Ray Supply, which I visit on a fairly regular basis, to Wal-Mart to spend more money there. So I think it would be in their best interest to make the traffic patterns more convenient, but I don’t think I would be alone in my local neighbors and stuff like that having concerns with the traffic going up and down that neck of the woods. That’s all I had. STEVE DAVIS MR. DAVIS-My name is Steve Davis. I’ve been here before. You probably remember me. I was the guy that handed out a whole big package of International Dark Sky Association lighting pamphlets, and it’s funny we talked about the Good Neighbor Plan. Well, here’s the good neighbor outdoor lighting presented by the New England Light Pollution Advisory Group. This was an excerpt that was published in a magazine. This is an abbreviated form of the original. So I’m going to talk a little bit about lighting. I’m not going to try to cover it all. I can’t possibly do it here tonight, but I have concerns. I went over and I examined the lighting plan, and it’s always hard to relate a plan to reality, you know, what you actually get in the end. Unfortunately, you know, by the time it goes in, they all claim it is too late to change it. The money’s been spent. We don’t have anything left, but the question comes up, did you learn anything from it? What happens next time, you know, what if, it’s kind of based on the assumption that the plan is right, and you go out and inspect the site and verify that it was built according to the plan. Well, what if the plan was wrong? Does anybody ever go out and take a look at the thing and analyze it and say, this could have been done better or that could have been done better, then go back and correct the plan, or do a better job when the next applicant comes before the Board. They say the proposed average foot candles for Wal-Mart is, you know, 2.7, and it’s currently averages about .5. Burlington, Vermont, according to the author of the Vermont Lighting Book, who I talked to a couple of weeks ago on the telephone, said they use 1.0 for their ordinance, if they have an ordinance, but that’s what they’re using for all classes of parking. Pole height. I don’t have too much of a problem with going to 30 feet. It kind of depends upon the size of the lot. A smaller lot’s definitely a shorter pole. When it comes to pole height, I take a look at the building, and the surrounding area, and say, who’s it going to bother. Is it going to shine over the building, like it does down in Wilton, and bother all the people in the trailer park that live behind there. There’s hundreds of people back there. Now is this light going to shine over the roof of the building and bother the people in the apartments? Is the light going to shine in other directions? Robert Gardens North, how does it shine to the east? Who’s going to see it? What’s the visibility beyond the property bounds? I believe the shopping mall over in Rutland, Vermont there at the intersection of four and seven, I believe they have all short poles. Short poles can be done. Granted you might wind up with a forest of poles. So there’s some tradeoffs have to be made. You have to decide, you know, what’s right for the given situation. You can’t put a hard and fast number in there and say everything’s got to be 20 feet or 30 feet or whatever. You’ve got to really look at the situation. Also coming in with this is the idea of this uniformity. You go around and look at all the parking lot lights today and there’s a pretty good uniformity. Then you look at the older ones, and the uniformity is much higher. Why do we have to have like four to one, when like ten to one was okay in the past? We’re talking about outdoor activity. We’re not talking about being indoors like we are here. So you can go with a larger uniformity ratio, use fewer poles, okay. One example would be like O’Toole’s down there. You go down, they have 20 foot poles. It’s a small lot, but the uniformity there, I didn’t figure it out. It might be like ten to one as opposed to all of the others, you know, Staples or Home Depot or the proposed Wal-Mart which are four to one. You change the uniformity ratio and you can use fewer poles. You don’t have to have perfect uniformity. I wonder about turning some of the lights off when there’s less activity at night. You go into Wal-Mart at two in the morning, there’s not going to be too many people around. You really need all of those parking lot lights on. Why not put circuits in there where you can turn half the lights off, you know, in areas, or even if there’s like two lights on a pole, run a third wire so you can turn one of the two lights off on a pole. Curfewing the lights out in the back toward the apartment, that’s another possibility, another thing you can do. Dimming generally speaking is not possible. You’ve got to turn the light off. If you try to dim the light, the light’s going to go off. It’s an arc. It’s not a filament type tube like an incandescent bulb. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) It’s an all or nothing thing. I’ve kind of watched lighting in Queensbury in the area now here pretty good for about ten years, and see what’s going on, and I can say since the Code has been in place, I really don’t see the type of improvement that I had expected. I would like to see better. Queensbury is one of the few communities in the State, or anywhere in the country, that does have a code. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start. I think you can do better. One of the things, I talked to Marilyn about this, I would recommend that you all get together some time and go out on like a guided tour of the lights in the area and take a look and try to figure out what’s going on, and if you have a lighting plan, look at the plan and see where things are falling apart. So you can do better next time. I took a look at Hoffman’s Car Wash plan down there. That thing is going to be so bright you’re not going to believe it. Cumberland Farms right down here, recent one, at the corner of Quaker and Ridge, is actually brighter than Hess down there on Dix and Quaker, not much brighter, but it is brighter, even though it’s a smaller establishment. I look at Staples over here and numerous times I’ve gone in there after dark, I come out there, I forget to turn my lights on, my headlights on. That’s dangerous. You go out there, you’re on dark roads and you can’t see very well, and I wonder, you know, if I go out there, somebody doesn’t see me because I haven’t got my headlights on because I’ve been blinded by the lights. That’s happened to me a number of times, too many times, really. You’ve got to have, you know, a period of adaptation from a bright interior until you’re down the road, and one way to do it is to have dimmer parking lot lights. Give the people coming out of the store a transition zone so their eyes can dark adapt. It’s much safer for them. Some concern was raised here about, one of the residents raised a concern about security. It’s been a proven fact in two federal studies that lighting does not deter crime. It only provides a warm, fuzzy feeling. I mean, these are two federal agencies that looked at all the crime reports and studies over a number of years, and I think the first report was like ’94, then they re-did the study again in the late 90’s, and, you know, if you have a problem with security on your property and you feel like you need a light, supply your own light. Don’t have your neighbor do it for you, and keep your own, keep the light in your own yard. That’s kind of the way I feel about it. Crooks need lights, too, so a light isn’t really going to deter the crime. You’re just going to help them see where the goods are to steal or get from A to B. I think that’s kind of about all I have to say, but I think the lighting in general should be perhaps re-visited on the Queensbury thing, or I mean, on Wal- Mart, and I think the Board should get a little bit more education on outdoor lighting. It will help them make better decisions in the future and avoid some of these problems. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. LAPPER-This will be briefer. We’re here on behalf of Ray Supply, and the issue is traffic. The interconnect is a good idea. The Code calls for it for commercial development. So it’s not a DOT issue as the Wal-Mart representatives posed it. You have all the power you need to implement it, and I know you know that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is Ray Supply for it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. The flaw in the traffic report, as far as we’re concerned, is that Wal-Mart is assuming that the truck traffic is exclusively or primarily using the signalized intersection, and if that happens, that will help, because the trucks would be farther north from Ray Supply, but if that doesn’t happen, then the trucks are going to do what they’re doing now, which is to block Ray Supply. It’s really difficult on the northern drive of Ray Supply getting in and out. There’s going to be a lot more trucks with the supermarket, a lot more deliveries. The ability to access the Wal-Mart and then use that signal, if necessary, is something that could really help the Ray Supply customers, but the location that Wal-Mart picked is the location that’s perhaps best for Wal-Mart, but worst for Ray Supply in the back. MR. MAC EWAN-You mean as far as the location of where the interconnect is? MR. LAPPER-Yes. No one’s going to drive around the back of Ray Supply to find that, but then beyond that there’s a practical issue that that’s where their car stereo installation garage is. So it just would be an absolute conflict that you couldn’t have people driving through there with people pulling in and out of the garage to have the car stereos installed. What we’re going to 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) propose, let me just show you on the map, is to make a four way intersection here, which is exactly, you know, the same right/left that you have there to connect over here on the north side, and that just seems like a more practical location, and we do think that, because this is being requested to mitigate an existing problem that is certainly going to be exacerbated by the new truck traffic, and the new car traffic for that matter, Ray Supply is requesting that Wal-Mart pay for the construction of that because it’s a mitigation measure on both the Ray Supply property, and the Wal-Mart property. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you figure that? MR. LAPPER-Because they’re creating the problem. They should solve it. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think I necessarily share that view. MR. LAPPER-Okay. That’s the request. MR. RINGER-Who would maintain that area that’s on Ray Supply property? MR. LAPPER-Ray Supply would maintain it on their property. George, would you like to add anything? GEORGE GOETZ MR. GOETZ-Just I’d like to reiterate, Mr. Brennan actually stole an awful lot of my thunder when he expressed the problems with getting in and out of our establishment, which I’ve talked to you about before. If trucks are allowed to do it, if you’ve looked at our north exit and looked at the Wal-Mart south entrance, there’s only 44 feet. What would happen if an 18-wheeler kept going in there, and then they were backed up by cars trying to follow them into that entrance, and their cars and our cars are all trying to exit at the same time, there’s going to be one heck of a problem. So, yes, we do have a problem, which is getting in and out. Now I was very pleased to hear Wal-Mart say tonight that they’re concerned about safety. As you know in previous presentations, I’ve expressed the concern of the safety for our customers and for their customers, because there’s a lot of accidents now. If the traffic is increased as much as they hope it’ll increase, to bring them more business, then it’s going to bring a lot more traffic in front of our exit again. So there is a serious concern. We want to be fair, and all we’re here for is to ask for your help to come up with a solution that is fair to Wal-Mart, fair to Ray Supply, and other area businesses as well as the residents of the area, and most of all the safety of the public. That’s all I have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open here for the time being. You gentlemen want to come back up? MRS. RYBA-Mr. Chairman, Staff does have a couple of comments and questions. Some of what we’ve heard tonight, in reference to a good neighbor plan really had to do with communication agreement, but there are other items in the Code, specifically Section 179-5-180, that I think address some of the concerns that we heard, and these are topic areas that are selected by the Planning Board. One is crime prevention and awareness. The other is litter control, loitering control, the question of landscape maintenance awareness where the applicant acknowledges in writing their understanding of the standards as well as the lighting certification. So my understanding is there has been a request for some waiver for the lighting and for the landscaping, but these other areas might be addressed more thoroughly in addition to a communication agreement. The other is that, in reference to security and lighting, you can really have both without having an excessive amount of lighting. The Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Lighting Center notes that anything beyond 3.0 foot candles really doesn’t add to any 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) security. The other is that Loomex Systems, out of Canada, they do have high low systems for parking lots, and I think I did give a memo to the Planning Board a couple of weeks ago on that one, in reference to the floodlights, because of the mounting on the pole and the letter refers to 80 degrees. Without a shield or a visor on the top, that lighting’s going to go straight up. If it is mounted on a pole, the visor would direct that lighting downward, onto the sign, onto the building façade. So there are some things that can be done, that need to be clarified I believe. I think that’s all I have right now. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Where do we start? How about comments on lighting. MR. SPEER-We did take a look at that 80 degree angle. That’ll have the effect of shining a light somewhere around 12 to 13 feet below the, we took the building height for a present average to be 28 feet, and that would bring you about 12 or 13 feet below pretty much the midpoint of the building is where that’s pointing to, those floodlights, at that 80 degree angle, given the distance back they are from the façade. We can take a look at, as I said, we modeled them without the visor. We can certainly take a look at putting the visors on and what the effect that would be, because as I stated before, we have no interest in casting our light into the sky. That does not serve anybody’s purpose. So we will definitely look into that as soon as I get back to the office. MR. SEMERARO-The other aspects of the lighting I think we’ve gone through with our initial testimony, the comments that were given about the existing lighting that is out there at the Wal- Mart, I don’t know where those numbers came from. I know from my personal experience, as well as we do have some information on the original design of that, of the existing Wal-Mart, that the numbers that were repeated are incorrect. That was given earlier by that resident. The 2.7 is very appropriate. It’s very consistent with your Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-How is it more consistent with the Ordinance? MR. SEMERARO-I said it’s very consistent with your Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-I know. How is it more consistent with the Ordinance? MR. SPEER-Yes, Mr. Chairman, the thing about defining an average is that there’s an abundance of ways of deriving this average. Now I think our average, using this particular software, it’s looking at grids on I think maybe a five type of grid, and looking at the foot candle luminants at each point. As you intensify or expand the grid, you’re going to get different numbers, and another problem with average, and I think it was pointed out by one rather learned resident, discussing lighting, you can’t measure it in the field. You’ll never get to a comfort level that you can measure enough points in the existing condition to tell you you have a true average. So it’s not something you can really grasp yourself on to, and I think the resident also stated that ratio is our key, and that those are, that’s exactly true. A ten to one max to min ratio is ideal. A four to one average to min ratio, that’s ideal, and that is what we were looking to, we were looking to achieve those three things, ten to one, max to min, four to one, average to min, 2.5 foot candles. We got those two ratios precise. We had a 2.7 which is within 10% of what the Town is looking for, and we were very satisfied with that outcome. MR. STROUGH-What do you think the foot candle is now, current? MR. SPEER-We have the existing lighting drawing, and they didn’t do, they didn’t have the ability to do that (lost words) of what the average would be there, but there are values ranging. MR. SEMERARO-Yes. It gives the maximum here of 5.07, I believe is the highest right underneath the bulb, and although at the property line obviously it goes out to .3 or so forth, within the basic parking field, it’s typically above 1.3, there’s a 1.26, a 1.1, but that’s the last parking, no, actually, it’s about 1.3 within the paved area. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you saying the average is 1.3? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. SEMERARO-No. I’m saying that’s the minimum in the parking field. I’m saying the maximum was 5.07. They didn’t average this out. This is a Wal-Mart 116 Proto. I designed 116 Proto’s. I can’t recall off the top of my head if the design for Wal-Mart was an average of 2.0 foot candles or whatever at that point in time, but that was 10 years ago. So, you know, the average foot candles for shopping centers have changed with time and recommendations have changed, but we could actually get a copy of this to your consultants if they’d like. This is the actual design drawing from the original 116 Proto, and that’s where I was indicating, I mean, there, I don’t see a location on pavement that is less than, well, here this is a corner .75, okay. So to say that the average for the site was .5 is inappropriate for what was out there. It’s definitely way inappropriate with respect to Wal-Mart design standards at that time. MR. STROUGH-Is our current proposal, the one that we seem to have agreed on, is it going to be brighter than what’s there? MR. SPEER-It’s very hard to say. Once again, there’s not an average published for the existing condition. MR. SEMERARO-We don’t have an average. MR. STROUGH-Because what’s there certainly works. We wouldn’t want anything brighter. MR. SEMERARO-That’s, I don’t think that a normal person could go out there and say this is a 2.5 and t that’s a 2.7, could discern a difference, and also within a year and a half, with all the rain and the pollution, once it starts, you know, cluttering, it really reduces the illumination out of these luminairs as well, on the light shielding. I mean, the lighting that is being proposed here is the best lighting that I’ve seen and used on any shopping centers at this point in time. It’s a shoebox which all these things are shoebox. It has a flat lens. The light source itself is totally within the shoebox. Now if you go over to where Home Depot is, it has a beveled lens on it, and when I was driving through there, it looks like it has a vertical mount instead of horizontal mount. So it looks like you could, if you stand up there and look horizontally, you could see the light source from a horizontal point. This is a sharp cut off. I believe it’s an 85 degree sharp cut off. So if you’re five degrees off from the outside edge of that hood, and you look up, you’re not going to be able to see the light source. That’s what the 85 degrees indicates. It’s an excellent shoebox. It’s an excellent luminair. The ratios are more important, in my understanding and design of lighting, than if it’s a 2.5 or a 2.7, because those ratios and the hot spots that someone was talking about, it doesn’t bother him if there’s a hot spot here, and then it dissipates. Okay. What those hot spots do is as someone is driving, those hot spots effect the corneas of your eyes, and by having a uniformity, it makes it safer for the person driving within the parking lot because if you have the hot spots, that’s not as safe of parking lighting design as with a better uniformity coefficient and a better average illumination to maximum. So, I mean, the 2.5 to 2.7 is, I mean, if you had 2.55 or 2.45, I mean, to hit a number, you know, on the nose is different. MR. MAC EWAN-You were starting to say 2.5 to 2.7 is what? MR. SEMERARO-Is not significant in respect to difference. MR. MAC EWAN-Then why can’t you go 2.5? If it’s not that significant, why can’t you meet the Code? MR. SEMERARO-What we will do is we’ll go back between now and then. MR. MAC EWAN-I know you’re frustrated, I’m frustrated, too, because, if this was going to be put to a vote tonight, looking at this table, you have four members. You wouldn’t get an approval because I still won’t go with more than what the standard is. Now, what triggers me on this is your letter, and your line, this last line in your last paragraph of Page Two, it says, “This plan, known as Revision 7b, and others developed for this project and dismissed as 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) unacceptable without submittal to the Board, as summarized in the table below”. We asked, twice, for those lighting plans with 20 foot high poles. Twice we did not get them to review. MR. SPEER-Mr. Chairman, I will have those for you tomorrow. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not the point. We asked for them twice before. MR. SPEER-Yes, Mr. Chairman, but you made your intent clear. I took it upon myself that I felt I would know what would be unacceptable to the Board. I apologize for that if I was out of line in doing so. MR. MAC EWAN-If this Board goes to the exercise of tabling any application, and we give you a laundry list, as an applicant, of what we’re looking for to be resubmitted, we expect we’re going to get it, not for you to discern or make a decision based on what you think we may or may not want to see. If we ask for it, we expect to get it as part of our submittal packages. MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. I recognize that. MR. MAC EWAN-Just going beyond it a little bit more. I mean, your comments were relative to Wal-Mart’s philosophy of having safety. I’ve heard from Staff and I’ve heard a couple of comments from the public that lighting doesn’t deter crime and it’s not really relative as far as a safety factor, when we’re talking the difference in you making or not making the Code. More importantly, philosophically to go on the other side of the table here, I’m sure Home Depot’s corporate philosophy is safety as well. They were able to meet the Code. MR. SEMERARO-But were they 2.5 even? MR. MAC EWAN-They met the Code. Didn’t they not? MR. SEMERARO-I don’t think anyone could come up with a design that’s exactly 2.5. That’s what I was trying to get. MR. MAC EWAN-The point here is, I guess, is I’m trying to get at is, has it become now a financial issue, more light poles, to get down to the 2.5? MR. SEMERARO-No. It’s the spacing. The light poles are located at the intersection of the parking aisles. If, as I indicated, we will go back and we will move them the 10 foot further away, and moving them 10 foot further away. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute, this is just one person’s opinion. MR. SEMERARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m hearing three other members who are going the other direction, but I just wanted my concerns expressed because I think it’s important that this Town really take a grasp of the lighting standards and the codes we have in this Town, and I can tell you there’s a couple of other applications that are in the review process right now that were adamant about where we’re going to be on the lighting, and particularly they’re in rural areas of the Town. MR. SEMERARO-Okay, but what I was trying to say is that it’s a computer model with all the points, and the weight average and so forth. So to get exactly 2.50 is almost, you know, impossible, because if you just slid one light pole over a half a foot, you’re going to get a different number, and you have, with the light poles we have, we have 37 light poles. What I’ve indicated is that we’ve. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking to get an average. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. SEMERARO-Right, but the average also averages out with the 37 light poles. We will get closer to 2.5. I’ll get as close to 2.5 when we come back as I can. MR. MAC EWAN-You may not have to, because, you know, I’m hearing three other members who are satisfied with where you are in the lighting. I don’t know if they’re going to change their philosophy after what they’re listening to. MR. VOLLARO-What I’d be looking for, really, in this, if they met the four to one, was really a criteria that I was looking for. MR. SEMERARO-We meet the criteria, which. MR. VOLLARO-Between 2.5 and 2.7 cannot be discerned by the human eye, I don’t believe. MR. SEMERARO-I’m a member of the Luminating Society of America, okay, and that’s our opinion that it is more important to have those ratios than a 2.5 or a 2.7, and as was indicated by your professionals, I think it was Rensselaer indicated anything over 3.0 does not add to safety or security. Well, that means that if it’s less than 3.0, it does add to security or to safety, but, irregardless of that, we were trying to meet the 2.5 range, and with what we had with respect to those ratios, we can meet 2.5, and one of those other ratios may change a little bit, but in my opinion it’ll change from maybe four to 3.8 or 3.7, which really isn’t going to be that much of a difference either. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to be playing with a computer model, and you’re going to fiddle that model out until it comes out to close to 2.5 and close to 4.1. MR. SEMERARO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, you know, we’re playing on the edges here, in my opinion. We’re really out on the edges. MR. SEMERARO-Right, but the other aspect is that we also have to have the actual light poles come in at an intersection of the parking stalls. We can have it in the middle of the parking stalls because that’s a safety aspect with respect to layout. So that’s where John indicated that he went through all those iterations, but I will have them go through the iterations some more to see if we could reduce that down a little more. MR. MAC EWAN-Like I said, it may not be necessary. What I’m hearing is the other three members are content with it. I just wanted to voice my concerns where I’ve been going all along. How are you going to address the concerns of the neighboring apartment complex in the back? I know we talked that one time about not only increasing the plantings along there, but I thought maybe we talked about a berm as well. I may be wrong on that. MR. SPEER-Excuse me. George, would you mind, on the CD I have some photographs called westerly buffer. MR. SEMERARO-We did look at that, and you’ll indicate, you’ll see the reasons why a berm at that location is not possible. We did add the additional landscaping as we have discussed. MR. SPEER-That depicts the existing slope back there. There’s maybe about a two foot area that’s flat from the curb and then you’re going down an approximate three to one grade down towards the fence. The fence is still on Wal-Mart’s property. We couldn’t find a way to, three to one is the maximum grade that we’re going to put an earthen berm. So we wouldn’t be able to go up from that point, and then get back down to match existing grade without affecting that fence. We weren’t looking to, we were looking to minimize our impacts, to Robert Gardens or Whispering Pines there, and in doing so we are not proposing to move that curb, and we weren’t proposing to remove that fence. We are proposing to plant a significant number of Colorado Spruces and Norway Spruces along that property line, as close to the top of that hill as 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) possible. Now we do want to leave maybe a two foot snow shelf or so from the curb back, and that’ll get us right maybe to the crown there. There’s also some buried gas lines there, natural gas, runs along that corridor, but I think that what we’ve proposed is as good as we can do to those existing conditions to improve them for the residents behind us. MR. MAC EWAN-What about storage trailers and pallet storage out back? MR. SPEER-The pallet storage that we show that’s jammed up in that northwest corner, that’s going to be surrounded on three sides by, I believe it’s eight foot high concrete masonry unit wall, and that’s going to have a chain link fence in front of it, and all that material there, which is only going to be wooden pallets and wrapped up bales of broken down cardboard boxes, will be stacked in there until they are removed from the site. MR. MAC EWAN-What about temporary storage trailers? MR. SPEER-Yes. That’s an Operations issue. They may be needed from time to time. One of the benefits of the super center is that they have a lot more room in the back to store the layaway items, and layaway items are the principal causation of needing these storage trailers. That’s why you’ll see them proliferated at Christmas, and we know stores that have, in the spring, where they’ll have 200 patio sets on layaway, and you simply can’t put that in your store. Nor is it proper to take it off site when a customer has it on layaway, to tell them that, you know, they come back to pick up their merchandise and they can’t have it for two days until you go to an off site location and retrieve their merchandise. That’s why storage trailers are commonly used. MR. MAC EWAN-I know in this particular situation with that Wal-Mart up there it’s not a time to time situation. They’re a regular entity up there, and have been for a long time. MR. SPEER-It comes to a point where I think they’re more expensive to move than they are to rent. I think the removal fees are extensive, and that’ll be an Operational issue that’ll have to be looked at once we get there, or I can have the Store Manager possibly shed some light, if he thinks there’s anything he can add. MR. MAC EWAN-What about some sort of rooftop, I know we talked about a little bit earlier with B.J. on this, but rooftop type façade that will deter rooftop unit noise? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. As far as that goes, we are not doing any work on the existing side of the building that is to remain. We are not going to move any units and we’re not going to extend that wall higher if we don’t have to. I mean, I’m sure we could come in and mount some type of a fence to the top of that wall. I don’t know about going back in with CMU block. I don’t know how that would work with support and structural. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there some sort of lightweight product that may be available without having to do extensive architectural and structural renovations to achieve the same end result? MR. PHILLIPS-We can look into it. Off the top of my head, I don’t know. I mean, I’d have to check into that and see what kind of costs they would incur and see if they’re willing to do that. MR. RINGER-It wouldn’t be a noise factor. It would be aesthetics. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. I mean, the stuff, the acoustical panel’s right here. MR. VOLLARO-I notice on the page here it has a wall that’s constructed out of this material. MR. PHILLIPS-Sure, yes. That’s what it’s intended for. I mean, it’s used as a highway buffer. MR. VOLLARO-It looks like it’s pretty light. You wouldn’t have to do a load analysis to mount something like this. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. PHILLIPS-You might not. I mean, yes, we’d have to see if that could be fastened to the roof to the, you know, joist and girders and column system. I don’t know, technically, what that would be. We can look into it. MR. VOLLARO-I would certainly like to see that across the back, from a visual and a noise point of view. MR. STROUGH-Do you think that adding a face to the fence on this side, using the same poles and everything else, just adding another face on this side, in other words, doubling the facing on the fence, using the same vertical poles, do you think that might help with some of the sound absorption? MR. PHILLIPS-Well, part of the problem with this fence is it’s only three feet above our grade back there. The hill drops off about, you know, four, five feet, and it’s only an eight foot high fence. So the, you know, how much sound are you going to be preventing? As far as, I heard the compactors mentioned for trash and what not. Those we are putting the screen walls around with the sound panels on the inside of those. So the sound for those will be deadened, and those are not stored on site. As soon as those are full, they are hauled off. So there’s no trash storage. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I read that. It looks like it’s pretty impressive stuff. Well, some of the noise is going to be attenuated with this and the cement wall, and by changing our practices, and I’ve noticed that occasionally that Wal-Mart, the Store Manager can verify this, but I see some of the waiting trucks in a holding pattern out in the front of the store, as opposed to maybe they used to do their holding pattern in back until we started this process, but I notice they’re doing their holding pattern in, well, traditionally the RV parking area, but, you know, if that could become, I don’t know, a store policy, things like that might help. I was also thinking, too, of, what do you have like by-laws that are store policy? I don’t know. MR. PREHODA-I’m not completely sure what you’re asking, at this point. MR. STROUGH-Well, each store must have it’s own little like rules and regulations and I don’t know if you call them store by-laws or management by-laws or what you would call them. MR. PREHODA-For? I mean, we have company policies. We have things that we follow, but I mean. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but unique to each store. Right? MR. PREHODA-It depends on zoning in different areas, I guess. There’s different things that we have to abide by. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I mean, I think that we might want to see a memo to the effect of, it’s this store’s policy, the automotive center from eight to nine, that the workers in the automotive center will be conscientious of the residential area and try and avoid squealing their tires and beeping the horn more than necessary. I know they have to for the car inspection, but, you know, just things of that nature written up and submitted to us might make us feel a little bit better. MR. RINGER-It doesn’t have any teeth. It’s nice to say, and nice to hear, but it doesn’t have any teeth to it. Why put something in the file that doesn’t have teeth to it? It’s a feel good thing, is what you’re asking for. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, versus doing nothing, Larry? MR. RINGER-Well, it’s a feel good, John. I’m telling you it’s a feel good thing. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-The only purpose of you having something made as part of the motion, as part of the official record, is if it’s something that can be enforced. Feel good things can’t be enforced. MR. RINGER-We can put it there, but it won’t have any effect. It’ll just be a feel good. MR. STROUGH-Well, seeing something in writing would give the neighbors a little bit more ammunition when they go after them. I mean, on behalf of the neighbors. If they knew. MR. RINGER-I’m not against it. I’m just saying it’s just a feel good thing. There’s no teeth or no nothing to it. MR. STROUGH-Well, no, but what I’m saying there is something to it, because if it’s in writing, and it’s available to the residents, they can always use that as say, hey, this is your store policy. Please follow it, you know, I guess we wouldn’t have anything to do with it, other than to say they would submit something to us so that it would be a matter of public record, and then the residents can attain it and, I agree with you, it’s out of our hands. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine, I guess, if you wanted to go that route. MR. PREHODA-Exactly, and I guess what I would like to add is we had talked about that in our good neighbor approach that we had here earlier, as far as keeping a file at the store on any complaints or any issues that are brought into the store, at any point that could be accessed by the public to take a look at. So, you know, we could do that as well, but as far as the trucks, just to quickly touch base on the trucks staying out front, are you saying Wal-Mart trucks in a holding pattern? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Occasionally I’ve seen the trucks that are in holding, with, you know, and they leave their diesel engines running. I mean, I don’t fully understand the diesel engines, but there must be something to it. MR. PREHODA-We try to, what happens with the truck drivers, they have to log out after so many hours on the road, and if they have expired that many hours after being at our store, they do need to take that time out to sleep, or to wait, because sometimes we have more trucks delivering than we actually have bay spot for. They have to wait until the bay opens up to back a truck in. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I’m saying, if you could make it a policy to have the holding area be in what used to be the RV parking area, I mean, out in the eastern parking lot on the northern side, away from the residential areas, that would help alleviate it. MR. PREHODA-As far as my belief, that’s what they have been doing. If there’s something different, then I will certainly address that, but I know we have talked about that, and had them go out to the front of the parking lot to do that. MR. STROUGH-I’ve seen that since we started this process a year ago or so, but I didn’t see it before because maybe the policy was before, because maybe nobody was aware of it, that the noise was bothering the residential areas. So now I see you’re making the effort, because I see them in the holding area up front of the store. MR. PREHODA-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So, if that could become what’s store policy, I guess, or I don’t know if this is enforceable or not, but that would be in the right direction. MR. PREHODA-Well, we certainly will react to that as it comes up. I mean, we try to let our truck drivers know that if they are spending it, that you have to spend it out in the front of the parking lot, as opposed to in the back. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. STROUGH-And, you know, the sweeping of the parking lot policy, if that could be from eight in the morning until nine at night, some place in there. I realize the snow removal, isn’t much we can do about it. MR. PREHODA-I believe as far as the parking lot sweeping, it’s a commercial sweeper. It’s not something we do. It’s an outside service that is hired. It’s a big unit that actually has a big brush and actually goes through the whole parking lot. That basically works on the same method as snow removal. If you have a lot of cars in the parking lot, it’s not going to clean up the litter. They basically do the whole parking lot from front to back. MR. RINGER-How often does the sweeper come in? MR. PREHODA-I have that listed. It’s I believe four times a week, and by the looks of some of the summer traffic needs, it might need to be more. MR. STROUGH-How long does it take to sweep the parking lot, about? MR. PREHODA-I am going to have to check on that, as far as the sweeper. I’m just trying to look at where it is here. It’s currently at Sunday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, and they basically, they do have times listed on this, roughly between three and six, is when they arrive, because they do different commercial properties in the community. It’s not just our property that they do. It’s a company that basically does this. MR. MAC EWAN-They do it on both Saturday and Sunday? MR. PREHODA-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-Those are busy days. MR. PREHODA-Those are heavy traffic days in the store and in the parking lot. MR. STROUGH-Is it that busy in the store at seven o’clock in the morning? MR. PREHODA-You could definitely tell the days that the sweeper does not go through our parking lot, yes. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but is it that busy at seven o’clock in the morning? I mean, is there that much? MR. PREHODA-No. That’s why they try to do it at that point. MR. STROUGH-I mean, versus three o’clock in the morning. MR. PREHODA-Right. I could check with the people that sweep our parking lot, and try to work on that. MR. STROUGH-Shift that away from the sleeping time a little bit. MR. MAC EWAN-While we have you up here, what’s the status of the RV parking up there? MR. PREHODA-The RV parking we have posted signs in compliance with the Department of Health, and we haven’t had an issue since we’ve posted those signs. We’ve had pretty good response. There has been an occasional one or two R V’s that do pop in. We try to get out and talk to them as much as possible, but we have not had more than two on any given night. MR. MAC EWAN-And when they pop in and don’t pay any attention to the signs or hope that nobody will say anything, what do you do? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. PREHODA-We go out and knock on the camper doors, and we have had them removed from the parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-And ask them to move them? MR. PREHODA-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And while you’re right there, you know, we’re hearing concerns from the neighbors about the storage of pallets and boxes and etc. out back. Can we get that removed a little faster than what we’ve been doing? MR. PREHODA-I have been here, like I said, for just two months now in this particular store, and I have certainly worked on that since I’ve been here, cleaning up the back yard, trying to reduce the amount of merchandise, and not merchandise, but the amount of pallets and fixtures and so on and so forth that’s been out. I have actually utilized dumpsters to clean it all up and try to keep it neat and organized a lot better than it has been in the past. So I will continue to work on that to keep it at a minimum. MR. RINGER-When you go to grocery, will you go to shrink wrap or pallets for the groceries? MR. PREHODA-As far as the delivery system? MR. RINGER-What I’m saying, with grocery deliveries, you’re going to get five deliveries a week, maybe six. MR. PREHODA-It would be seven deliveries a week. It comes in on pallets, but we also, with grocery trucks, we have the ability to get the pallets taken care of a lot better than we do at this point, because. MR. RINGER-If the driver’s willing to pick them up, and if you’ve got the whole truck. MR. PREHODA-The driver’s right, they go directly back to, because they do drop that off, and they actually do not leave their truck. They actually, we unload those trucks, as soon as they come in, so they’re gone, they’re on pallets and pull them off, and then we’ll have the ability to pick up pallets and return them to the warehouse a lot more frequent than what we have now. MR. RINGER-That’s if you get the full truck. Sometimes you don’t get the full truck. MR. PREHODA-You do, most of the time, get the full truck. Like I said, I’ve worked in the smaller super center in Ticonderoga, and I always got the full truck, even in that store, with the amount of merchandise. So the ability to get pallets picked up is certainly a lot better because not only do we have our general merchandise warehouse out of Marcy, New York, now we have a Johnstown warehouse that we can get, you know, double the pick up on those pallets. MR. RINGER-Well, pallets are a problem for the whole industry, you know, nobody, they have little value anymore. MR. PREHODA-Well, they have pretty good value, actually, at $15 a pallet, but we’ll try to get that cleaned up. We do require, depending on any given night, because we have to unload the merchandise that comes in on our general merchandise side on to pallets, and prepare them for the stores. So on any given night we need anywhere from 60 to 75 pallets to unload trucks. Especially this time of year with the heavy freight flows out there. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else we may have missed? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes. What about the idea of, because I could see the reasoning where the Weeks Road entrance kind of, regardless of signage, encourages the trucks to enter and exit from there. Would there be a problem with moving that a bit east? MR. PREHODA-With moving all the activity here, for the trucks to come in and back up in here is, the reason it was moved to this location was to give the trucks some flexibility of our whole property line, okay. There, it is clearly signed no trucks can go out in that direction, and most of the tractor trailers are owned and operated by Wal-Mart directly. So they’re employees, and that is something that the store manager has more control about complaining and tracking the person down and correcting that if that’s the issue. So, the whole aspect is to have the correct maneuverability room for the tractor trailer to get up and to back up into the proper space, and that’s why the location was changed from these two locations to this one location. MR. STROUGH-Are the trucks going to have to nose into Weeks Road to be able to back into there? MR. SEMERARO-No, but they’ll be using the entire property that we have there. It also gives proper traffic flow for the cars that are parking here, instead of, you know, interrupting the parking layout there. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the maneuver for the truck to come back out on the north side? MR. SEMERARO-They’re going to be here, okay, and they’ll pull out, and the turning radius allows them to turn here. That’s why this radius is a large radius. They’ll come here. This is a large radius, and that’s a large radius. So they’re going to come out in this direction, back out to the light, and the other question that was about the tractor trailers coming in at this location. Right now, the truck location is to come around the back to here, and then pull out. At this point all the trucks are located here. So to come to the traffic light and to come here is a better and easier maneuver for the trucks than to come into the parking lot and deal with the parking lot, a larger distance. Right now if the trucks went to the traffic light, they would be going north, backtracking, to come to get to the way they’re going, but in the future, with the way we have our truck access to the north side of the building, it’s more prudent and it’s easier for the truck driver to use the traffic signal. So we would think that would be an improvement to that situation. MR. MAC EWAN-The interconnect to Ray Supply. MR. SEMERARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Relocating it to make that a four way intersection. MR. SEMERARO-If you recall, I don’t know if we have the existing, and I think it’s important to point that out. We have an existing topography. Okay. We don’t, and I apologize if you can’t see from there. We adjusted the island. This grassed island, we basically made a canoe here, and it was for a safety aspect because this tree of parking came down to here, and entering vehicles were able to come up here, and come through here and what this basically resulted in was a four way intersection. A four way intersection at an entrance is not a safe, is not as safe a movement as having a canoe, and that’s the reason why we’ve made a canoe here, so that vehicles coming in, the vehicles coming in have the right of way, and they’re going to be coming over here, and if they want to go they’ll go that way or they’ll come here, and then they’ll make that maneuverability. So it’s essentially a “T”. At this location where the traffic light is we have an island right in the middle. So that also gives that a “T” like intersection for maneuverability. Having another entry on the side here is going to have, you have three, and you have basically a four way movement. It’s not even a straight movement. It’s an offset movement, and it’s really not a safe intersection, and Wal-Mart and Langan Engineering with their design already went out of their way and lost some parking spaces to make this a safer movement. What we are proposing is having the interconnect here, which would make a “T” intersection, have a stop sign at their location because they’re not going to have a lot of traffic, 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) and the purpose for the interconnect, my understanding is, is to give the adjoining property the ability to utilize the traffic light, which is a safer movement in all directions. If they want to joint shop, there would be a decision to joint shop, and they would learn that there was an interconnect there and it’s not a main movement as being part of utilizing this as a main entry to their site. So, from the aspect of providing interconnection for those people that want to do joint shopping, this is a safer location, and we would recommend and request the Board accept this location, which meets the requirements and desires of the Town, and we really do have an issue with respect to safety with a jog four way intersection. We did get rid of the existing condition that we had at that location. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. STROUGH-Yes, you know, personally, I’d rather see the wall signage on a building than another pylon sign in that southeast corner. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d share that sentiment. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. MR. RINGER-You could do that on the site plan, since this is SEQRA, mainly. MR. SEMERARO-Could I address that also? The TLE, I’ve always called it a TLE directional sign, not a TLE pylon. It sounds a lot easier if you call it directional sign, but the reason being that it really is to tell people that are in the parking lot that if they know there’s a TLE, that they could change their battery in that, they don’t know where it is. If it’s just the signage on the building, okay, then they know Wal-Mart has it but they have no idea where it is, and especially it’s hidden behind the Garden Center. There’s no way that they’d have it. So what they have had, and I’ve always called it a directional sign, so that anyone that’s in the parking lot that’s looking around will be able to see it, and the reason why it’s 20 foot high is so that you can see it above the cars or trucks that might be parked there, and they would see a TLE with an arrow on it that way, so they would come over here and make that turn, but as Wal-Mart indicated, we will go with whatever direction the Board wants. MR. MAC EWAN-We’d prefer the wall sign, thank you. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, you’ve got it up high and there’s an arrow on it already. MR. SEMERARO-That’s, whatever the Board desires. MR. MAC EWAN-Just as, the tire lube center isn’t changing. It’s been there. MR. SEMERARO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Wal-Mart’s been there for almost 10 years now. People have been utilizing that service for 10 years now without having a pylon sign located on site. I’m sure they’ll be able to find it. MR. SEMERARO-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-And the only other thing that I have is that Note Number 11 on the site plan, 20.01 will be removed, because any proposal to make the former Queen Diner location into parking will be considered a site plan modification, and Note Number 11. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’re going to do that when we get to the point where we do our final approval. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying that I don’t have to do it next time, if they. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we ask them as a note on the plat, is that what you’re looking for? MR. STROUGH-To remove the note. Note Number 11. MR. VOLLARO-While he’s looking for that, just one more thing on your lighting plan, 25.01, just real quick, your Note Six and Seven, you want to remove that from the lighting plan. MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. MR. SEMERARO-We already have it crossed out on ours. MR. VOLLARO-Do you? Okay. MR. STROUGH-Just so you know, Number 11 says, the shaded area, there’s a land bank parking area for 39 cars and will initially be planted as shown on the landscaping plan if at a future date Wal-Mart identifies a need to convert this area into parking, they are to send a letter to the Town indicating a start of construction. MR. MAC EWAN-Take that out of there. MR. SEMERARO-We will change it to indicate if they find a need it they will resubmit to the Township, and we’ll change it to say that if they find a need for it, they will resubmit to the Township. MR. MAC EWAN-You said that was Note 11 on there? MR. STROUGH-Note 11, yes. MR. HILTON-Mr. Vollaro, just to answer your question, or comment on your question, Note Six and Seven on the lighting plan that we received today, those notes have been removed. MR. VOLLARO-They have been removed? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Just making it for the record, so we have it covered. That’s all. Comfortable doing a SEQRA? I think we can get through it. I think we’re at the point where we’re just filling in details that have to be completed. MR. HILTON-Just a couple of quick comments. First, the easiest one. There’s been some discussion this evening about those temporary storage trailers if you will that are behind the building, and I think at site plan we’re going to probably supply a little more comment on this, but based on some conversations I’ve had with Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, those might be something that would either have to be approved as part of the plan or identified on the plan. They’re kind of a unique kind of animal if you will. So, you know, we’ll give you more comment at the time that this comes back for final, but, you know, like I said, based on some discussions I’ve had with him, we may treat those as something that would either have to be approved by the Board or wouldn’t be necessarily allowed without some kind of Planning Board review. Secondly, in terms of the interconnect, I just want to make sure that this Board is comfortable, not only on the construction, which it sounds like you are, but the location. I guess our concern with where it’s presently shown the tentative location, that there are some grade issues back there on the Ray Supply site that you might want to consider as well. Operationally, and whether or not you want to create a four way intersection, I’m not a traffic engineer. I’m not a traffic engineer. I guess I can’t comment on that, but you kind of want to consider other factors as to where this interconnect will be built. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll tell you what. When we do site visits in December, we’ll take a run up there and take a look at that. MR. RINGER-Why couldn’t we have C.T. Male look at that, too, as other possible locations for an interconnect? They may have some more expertise than we certainly would. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we do that, defer them for comment? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We can do that. I would like to stop in over at Ray Supply and see where that building that they do the automotive work on in the back, and how that interfaces with. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MRS. RYBA-Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of comments or questions as well. We’ve heard a number of things where I think there’s still some clarification that needs to be made, for example, in the lighting and I’m wondering to what degree you want to have the applicant come back with plans before doing a SEQRA? Do you have enough information to make a SEQRA, since there’s some items that are outstanding here? MR. RINGER-I think we’ve got enough information to do the SEQRA, and they’re going to come back with another lighting plan, perhaps to get closer to the 2.5, but I think we can do the SEQRA without the lighting plan. MR. VOLLARO-My comment on that is I know what they’re going to do in the computer model. They’re going to tweak it until they get close, but when it gets on the site, you’re not going to see it. You’re really not going to see a difference, in my opinion. I don’t know whether that’s true or not. MRS. RYBA-I do want to make a comment, too, that might be helpful in reference to the lighting. I think Mr. Lapper has made some comments earlier that point to that. The 20 foot poles, the character of more green space, that can really, that needs to be accomplished in conjunction with the interior green space and landscaping. I think that that makes it a little bit easier and there are more poles involved. When there’s less interior landscaping, then having those fewer number of poles and the higher poles is, it’s, I don’t really see how you can achieve smaller poles without looking at the corresponding landscaping is what I want to say. The concern there, and I think the reason for having this information, for the green space requirements and the lower poles, is the character of the area, and we’re getting, once again, back to the Sleep Inn, what is the character of that area, and there are, there’s a design overlay, and I haven’t really heard much about that consistency with the design overlay and the area, and it’s difficult. It’s not an easy thing. These are lighting guidelines. They’re minimum, they’re standards for minimum requirements to meet safety standards, and it’s the same standard that’s Town wide, and our Town is very diverse. As you pointed out earlier, we have some rural areas and this area is definitely not so rural. However, I would urge the Board to think about how they really want the area to look overall and how is it consistent with what’s in place already. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, do the math. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that the 30 foot pole versus the 20 foot pole, frankly, based on the size of their store, I think that things are in relative harmony there. They’ve got a large store, and I think that the 30 foot poles are not objectionable with respect to that much property. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’ve got to agree with Bob. MR. RINGER-I agree with Bob, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark? 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. SCHACHNER-I guess, we’re just conferring here on the Staff side. It seems to me, as your Counsel, that you’ve made a number of reasonable requests for some relatively minor, in most instances, but a large number of pieces of additional information, or a number of them. Generally speaking the applicant’s been pretty agreeable and in some cases even volunteered to produce that additional information. I haven’t kept track, and I think between us we have only a rudimentary list, but knowing you all, one of you has kept track, or if not more than one of you. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m up to 11. MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess my concern is the not shooting at a moving target aspect of this, and we obviously have a number of neighbors that are concerned. The number of interests that have been represented in different levels of concern. I’m not necessarily sure that anyone is dramatically opposed, but I think concern is a fair statement, and my concern, as your Counsel, is only that you not do a detailed, Long Form EAF SEQRA review on a moving target, so to speak, and although I think you do have the fundamental, base information on most issues, I thought I heard a number of, I didn’t know the number was 11, but a number of points on various topics where you either wanted more information or the applicant wanted to produce more information, or both, and that’s my concern. I’m not trying to slow anything down or stop any progress, but I am concerned that what you conduct your SEQRA review on is the information that you ultimately are looking at when you look at site plan approval. MR. STROUGH-When in doubt, play it on the safe side. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s your call. It’s your call. You know that if I felt there was a black/white issue that I felt strongly about, I would say so. I don’t feel that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m inclined to probably agree with you on this. MR. SCHACHNER-I just got the sense, and I’m thinking about the way you deal with most applicants in most applications, you came up with a pretty good, I gather, 11 item laundry list of things you want additional information on, and typically you don’t conduct SEQRA review if you have that many outstanding items, recognizing that I think a number of them are quite minor, but they relate to, I think all of them relate to issues that you’re going to be answering questions about on your Environmental Assessment Form. MR. MAC EWAN-Noise and traffic are jumping out here. Lighting. MR. VOLLARO-All of those, as we go through SEQRA, have, when you get to that, and we go silent for a minute before yes there is an impact, then we go through is it moderate or is it. MR. SCHACHNER-Small to moderate, potentially large, right. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and most of these are going to be small to moderate, I feel. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but I guess my concern is, I think, at least a few minutes ago or a few seconds ago, Bob, you said that on one of the issues you feel that, because you know, I think you said you “know” what the applicant’s going to come back with. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, that’s sort of using a crystal ball. MR. VOLLARO-Well, just because I’m familiar with the kind of software they may be using. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That’s fine. Nothing against this particular applicant, but you don’t really know what they’re going to come back with tomorrow. The gentlemen says tomorrow 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) he’ll have this, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, but we don’t have it in front of us now, and that’s my concern. MR. STROUGH-Can they still go to the Zoning Board and get their variances and then come, they’re coming back to see us one more time anyway, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, they’re coming back to see you one more time anyway for site plan review, if you complete your SEQRA review. I believe procedurally the path that’s been discussed is they can’t go to the Zoning Board of Appeals until you conduct your SEQRA review, and I’m sure that’s why the applicant is very anxious for you to complete your SEQRA review, and that may be why you’re anxious to complete your SEQRA review, and if you want to try it, try it, but I am concerned about, and we have this list of 11 things that we’re getting more information on, and yet we’re conducting our Long Form EAF review. That’s my concern. MR. MAC EWAN-I would agree with Counsel, at this point. MR. HENTSCHKE-Excuse me. Could I make a comment, or should I wait until? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. HENSTCHKE-There was 11 items. We don’t want to spend all night, but it seems to us that a lot of those were relatively minor and wouldn’t be impacting the review, but I don’t know if we could just go over the items briefly, to see if there’s things that we really need that information. I mean, I completely agree with your Counsel. MR. MAC EWAN-Out of this laundry list of 11 things, I see three things that could impact, four, four things that could impact our SEQRA findings. MR. HENTSCHKE-Which ones are those? MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s my punch list that I’ve been just jotting as we’ve been talking tonight. Number One is the pedestrian crossing signage and striping which is non-significant to SEQRA, evergreen plantings along the south fence line, quantity, size and species, that could impact SEQRA because that would fall under noise. MR. RINGER-Minor. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not saying they’re minor or major. MR. RINGER-I’m tracking minor and major as you’re going down through here. MR. MAC EWAN-Three, the interconnect to Ray Supply. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. Can I interrupt for one second? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-I fear part of my comment may have been misunderstood. Larry, I’m not suggesting, necessarily, that the applicant’s response to this may change something from small to moderate to potentially large. What I’m suggesting is that what you’re reviewing is a certain body of information, and that body of information is going to be modified by the applicant’s responses to this. I don’t know if I’m making more sense or not. MR. VOLLARO-The moving target aspect makes a lot of sense. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I’m talking about. That’s what I’m talking about. In other words, let’s say, I’m making this up. Let’s say that right now the plan in front of you has four 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) six foot trees, I’m just making this up, and you, as a group, feel that the impact of that is small to moderate, and that’s fine, but if tomorrow what it turns out is six eight foot trees, even if you still feel it’s small to moderate, my concern is that you’re reviewing the information that’s ultimately part of the plan. That’s my concern. To the extent that some of the lists of 11 are things like change, I think one of them at least is change the language on, you know, a note on the plan, I couldn’t care less. If all 11 were like that, I wouldn’t have the concern I have. I have the concern I have because I think some of them are ones that are vital information for you to have in front of you when you make your SEQRA determination. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not suggesting it may change the magnitude of it from small to moderate to potentially large, or the other way around. MR. RINGER-But I guess my thought on this is this is our third meeting, I believe, on this. We’ve had to, unfortunately, keep the public here one night until after midnight. I don’t know how many other times we were dealing with so many minor changes here, that I just think we could do a SEQRA and just to save time and expense. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe to respond to that comment, there’s no guarantee that any applicant that walks through this door is going to get an approval in one meet or twenty meetings. MR. RINGER-Absolutely not, but if we’re dealing with minor, minor issues, and I think we are, in this particular case, then we can go through with it. That’s just my opinion, and obviously if you have a different opinion, it’s going to take four of us up here anyway to get a majority. MR. VOLLARO-I tend to go along with what Larry’s saying. I tend to apply his position on that. MR. MAC EWAN-I think I’m with Counsel on this one. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to see us, procedurally, do the right thing. MR. VOLLARO-John, where are you going with this? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve been through an Article 78 or two. I have to confer with Counsel. MR. MAC EWAN-Back to this punch list here. The evergreen plantings along the south fence line, quantity, size and species. The interconnect to Ray Supply to, I mean these are my thoughts. I don’t know if everybody else is agreeing with me or not. Construction to the property line. You need to revise your site data sheet, provide Staff with architectural design colors and material samples. You showed them here, I don’t know if you gave them to him already. Just one of these things that we just want to be able to have documented. Material specs for noise reduction that indicate on the plan the locations where these will be used, so it’s documented. Rooftop mechanical screening for the rear of the building. You’re going to provide information detailing how you’re going to accomplish that. Remove Note Six and Seven from Lighting Plan 25.01. MR. VOLLARO-It’s been done. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just putting it in here in the record. Remove Note 11 from Drawing 20.01. Defer the interconnect location to C.T. Male for review of optional location or alternate location. Twelve, are we looking for them to provide the lighting plan for 2.5? MR. VOLLARO-My vote would be, no. I think they’ve got a lighting plan that works. MR. MAC EWAN-John? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, to help me make up my mind, I want to see what the uniformity ratio is and the foot candle is, as to what it is currently, because I just assumed that what we’re getting is better, and what I mean by better, lower lighting level than what’s there now. Now, if that’s the case, then, you know, I’m with Bob, but I think I’d have to get a computer analysis of what’s there now, and if what you’re proposing is less, then I’m comfortable with it. MR. MAC EWAN-With or without the 20 foot poles? MR. STROUGH-I’m torn between the number of poles, because I’m not crazy about the number of poles, and between 20 and 30 foot height, in front of this store, in this area, doesn’t seem to be a big issue to me. I’m with Bob on that, but I just want to be convinced that we’re getting a better situation than what we have now. MR. MAC EWAN-Would it help us in our determination, because obviously I think we’re going to be tabling this thing tonight, is to ask Staff to provide us the information that we used for the Home Depot as a comparison relative to the lighting, just as something to look at? MR. VOLLARO-Well, John’s point is well taken. I think what he’s trying to determine in his mind, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but what he’s trying to see is what is at Wal- Mart now, is what we’re getting any lower in level? MR. MAC EWAN-How will we know that? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether you ever will. That’s part of the problem. I don’t know whether you ever will. When you go out there now and take a snapshot with your eye, and if you had the ability to freeze that frame in your brain, come back, with this lighting plan, and look at it again and say it’s brighter or it’s not as bright. You would never make that call. You couldn’t do it. These things aren’t that good. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have the original Wal-Mart approval still on file? I’m sure you do. MR. HILTON-Let me speak to that. Let me ask the applicant a question. The plan, the original plan that you were reading from, is the date on that August 23, 1994, Flynt, Allen, White, and Radley? MR. HENTSCHKE-Yes, it is. MR. HILTON-Okay. That plan is in the file. You, in fact, should have that plan, as part of your past history of all the information we’ve given you. It’s in the information they’ve submitted, in support of this application. MR. MAC EWAN-Did they supply data sheets for that original thing? I mean, I’m not asking you to look now. Maybe you could research that and find out if they gave us spillage, lumination and stuff like that, other data sheets other than that drawing? MR. HILTON-The drawing contains a cut sheet showing the fixture type, the wattage, catalogue numbers, foot candle readouts for the entire site. It’s pretty complete. It shows the mounting height and the quantities. It’s there. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I ask you to recopy it and distribute it with Staff notes next time around? MR. STROUGH-George, is that going to tell us the average foot candles there now, the existing? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think they’ve done it on that one. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. HILTON-Yes. I believe that information’s there. I mean, it’s the same plan they read from. It shows the. MR. SEMERARO-It doesn’t give the average (lost words) or anything on here. MR. HILTON-It doesn’t give the, okay, but it gives you the. MR. SEMERARO-It gives you the individual points. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. STROUGH-Can C.T. Male figure it out from there? MR. SEMERARO-I mean, we could add up numbers and divide them. If that’s what you’re looking for. I don’t know if the computers even have these old light fixtures in them anymore. I don’t know if it’s possible to get the same uniformity that’s here, but I think the one aspect that we were trying to say is that we’re trying to meet your Ordinance, which is 2.5 or 2.7. In our professional opinion we’re saying that that is not meeting the exact number that you have, but we think it’s negligible because we are meeting the max to min and the uniformity coefficient on there. MR. RINGER-Well, can we say, as a Board, that if they get down to the 2.5 with the 30 foot poles we won’t have a problem with it? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I don’t have a real problem with it now? MR. RINGER-I don’t, either. MR. SEMERARO-What I’m saying is that I could get to that, and then the other two variables will adjust a little bit, and we’ll come up with that, but if I can, Mr. Chairman, with your items here, if you could just give me a minute, your item one was add the pedestrian signs. I mean, that’s a non-issue and we will do that. I’m going to skip your item two, because I don’t understand that, and I want to get to the other items first. The second item was to have the interconnect to Ray Supply and have us construct it to our property line, and we’ve agreed that we will do that. Okay. The fourth item was to revise the site data sheet, and that’s just an administrative thing because things have changed, as we’re talking. The fifth item is the architectural samples which we’ll leave with the Board, which we have right here. Okay. The sixth item was the material specs for the noise reduction on the plan, and that’s what we handed out. MR. MAC EWAN-I skipped one, too. Sorry. Item Number Six actually was get the Water Department signoff. Wastewater Department signoff from Mike Shaw. MR. SEMERARO-Okay. That’s for the grease trap. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Number Six. Number Seven is the material specs for noise reduction, indicate on plan and locations. MR. SEMERARO-All right. We’ve indicated the plans are going to be the screen walls, CMU screen walls for the loading docks, and we’ve handed you the specs, and we will add that note to the drawing, and that specification on to the drawing. MR. STROUGH-Well, you might be using that same material up on the roof as well. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I was going to ask him that question. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. SEMERARO-Okay. The next item is the rooftop mechanical screening, and talking to the architect, we will commit to screening the back of the new construction, because that’s under our control, and, structurally, there’s no issue with that. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by the new construction? MR. SEMERARO-The building addition here? What the architect had indicated is he’s not changing any of the mechanical equipment on here, and this is an existing condition. What we can commit to is we will continue the screening as we have on the other sides, on the back here, and that he will investigate and he will screen this to the extent that’s possible, structurally, with respect to that wall. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll put this as tactfully as I can, and Mr. Lapper will attest to this with the Northway Plaza and the Home Depot, is that when you come in with a site plan, because you may be renovating a portion of the site to expand a store, everything’s on the table. So to say that, well, the old part’s not part of what we’re doing and we’re not going to do anything with it, that whole site plan’s open for review and comment and whatever modification changes or design changes we have to make to it. So, if we’re looking for you to help appease a problem we have with the neighbors behind the parcel who have problems with noise, and we’re looking for something to be done to screen the existing rooftop units on the back portion of the store you’re not going to plan on renovating, that’s on the table. We want to see some options on that. MR. SEMERARO-Yes. We will bring options. Basically what I was saying is that with the CMU wall that we are building anew on that expansion, we can run that CMU up higher because we’ll be able to insert rebar and reinforce it. What we can’t do is add CMU to that existing. I mean, we can’t, there’s no way to reinforce that. So we’ll have to come up with another solution. MR. MAC EWAN-What we stated earlier was come up with something to do to screen those rooftop units. MR. SEMERARO-Yes, and we will. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think anyone up here is looking for you to spend a million dollars to figure out, you know, restructuring, reengineering the building to hold up a wall or something, but there has to be something out there that’s a cost effective material that you can use to do that. MR. SEMERARO-Okay. So we will screen that. The material is what we have to research for the existing portion. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and then that particular one falls directly under noise in SEQRA review. MR. SEMERARO-Yes. The next item was to remove Note Six and Seven, which have been done. MR. MAC EWAN-From the lighting plan, which have been done. MR. SEMERARO-And the other one was the Note Eleven, and we’re going, as we indicated before, we’re going to revise that. If it was going to be used, it would come back to the Board, and we’ve agreed that we would revise that. The next item that you had was to defer the location of that interconnect to C.T. Male, and we will work with C.T. Male to come up with the correct location. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that something Staff wants to do, or do you want the applicant to do it? What we had talked about was to make that another “T” intersection. They talked to safety 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) traffic issue. Maybe we want C.T. Male to take a look at it and see if maybe they can come up with, to say that it is or isn’t a problem or they could come up with an alternate location to make the interconnect a little bit more feasible. MR. HILTON-We can do it either way. I think if we get a plan that shows the location and the width, and we can forward it to C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-All you have to do is pretty much show a section of that drawing, that site plan drawing and send it to them. So we’ll let Staff motor that down to them. MR. SPEER-I had made an informal request a while ago of Staff, if there was anything in the files, survey data related to the Ray Supply property, we didn’t want to see it in the course of investigating this interconnect. This was back a few months ago. I, once again, just want to reiterate that. If there’s anything in the files, if you can pass those along. We did not do our survey beyond our property line, only for a limited distance, just to give some overlap, but we would need some type of topographic and location information on what is on the property itself, before we can properly analyze what kind of interconnect would be appropriate. MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense. MR. HILTON-I can tell you that we don’t have any survey data for Ray Supply. I mean, my comments on grades are visual observations and just kind of looking at the area and doing that kind of assessment. We have no survey data for topo or anything on Ray Supply. I can tell you that. MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t had any application in front of us in recent years that we would have something in the file. MR. SEMERARO-Okay. We’ll ask them if they have any at the end of the meeting. The next item that you had was revising the lighting plan down to 2.5, was the discussion, and we need that direction from the Board, and then the other one was the Water Department sewer signoff for the grease trap, and I just see that as an administrative issue. It’s just a grease trap. They just want to verify the size, which we will do. MR. MAC EWAN-I have two more. MR. SEMERARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And you also never went back to number two. MR. SEMERARO-Yes. I will go back to number two. MR. MAC EWAN-And Item Number Twelve, and this is directed toward the Staff, is a copy of the original lighting plan for us in our next Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Okay. That’s not a problem. I just have a question. You mentioned doing some, adding up figures and dividing. Are you going to provide us with an average of the original plan for our review? MR. SEMERARO-If that’s what the Board wants. I would assume that, 10 years ago, that the lighting, the average lighting is probably less than 2.5. That’s why I indicated I thought it was probably around two or something, if I recall right, just because that’s the way standards were 10 years ago, with any retailer, and all codes have increased lighting for the safety aspect of the lighting, but I will come up with the average that we have here. MR. VOLLARO-Use the mark two pencil, get all those points and divide them. That’s what you’ve got to do. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. SEMERARO-Yes. That’s what we’ll do. Okay, and if we actually still have an old computer program that we could actually get the right numbers from, we’ll do that as well. Then you said there was another one as well. MR. MAC EWAN-And this was for Staff, provide the Board with a copy of the approved lighting plan for Home Depot. Just so we have something to compare to. That’s what I have. MR. SEMERARO-All right. Now, if we could jump back to your item two, I didn’t understand what, verify evergreens at south property line? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Earlier, John, in conversation, and I don’t know if it came up at the end of the good neighbor section of it or when we first started doing site plan, talked about all the evergreens you’re going to plant, six to eight feet tall. I just want to be sure that they’re specified, quantity sizes and species along that property line, over by that tire, oil and lube. MR. SPEER-Yes, sir. They’re on the 24.01 landscape plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I just want to be sure that we have that covered. MR. SEMERARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t know whether we were talking about something different than what you had proposed or? MR. STROUGH-I went back and checked it. MR. MAC EWAN-We can actually tick that right off, then. We don’t even need to leave that on. We can delete that right out. MR. SEMERARO-All right. So from what that list was the items that are of any issue would be the rooftop mechanical systems, differing the interconnect to C.T. Male. The Water Department signoff on the grease trap is an issue, but that’s just totally administrative. MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re trying to tie these items into doing a SEQRA determination, I can easily tell you that the issues will be the rooftop mechanical screening, which will be relative to noise under SEQRA. The interconnect, as far as safety traffic under SEQRA, and lighting could fall under SEQRA as well. MR. SCHACHNER-And for what it’s worth, those are the only three I had. I would agree that the rest were not germane, or not material enough to warrant any further discussion under SEQRA. MR. SPEER-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to note, I don’t know if, necessarily, a Wal-Mart, a general merchandise and grocery store that would be open 24 hours could rightfully be compared, as far as safety and parking lot lighting, to a Home Depot, which is not open 24 hours. I just don’t think that you necessarily can make that connection. MR. MAC EWAN-Your argument’s on safety, but I’m hearing difference of opinion that lighting doesn’t necessarily deter safety, deter crime. So, I mean, that’s why I’m looking, focusing, my perspective, more toward being in line with the Town Code standards. You’re not convincing me that having lights on as bright as you’re proposing or as many lights are conducive to deterring crime, or for safety. I’m not hearing a compelling. MR. SEMERARO-That’s fine, and we will have a plan that we will come back with. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s just me. I’m one. There’s four of us up here. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. SEMERARO-We want to please all. Okay. Would the Board be able to also send us a copy of that Home Depot plan? Would that be possible? Because this was we’ll know what you’re looking at. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, the $64,000 question, I can see the end here in sight. I honestly can. So close I can taste it. How much time do you need to put something together, and maybe we can accommodate you next month? Is it beyond the realm or, or would you be more comfortable with January? MR. SEMERARO-We would prefer December. I mean, we’re already behind, the worst schedule that we gave Wal-Mart. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that. I’ll tell you this has been a very complicated review. MR. SEMERARO-The whole aspect is for us to talk to C.T. Male to talk about the interconnect with C.T. Male, and I think that we can call C.T. Male and have a site visit and solve it right there by walking the site with C.T. Male, and I think we could solve that I think we could solve that, and that’s what we will do. With respect to the lighting, that’s, a couple of days in our office, and today is Thursday. So we could have a plan by next Tuesday or, next week is Thanksgiving, right. You’ll have it right after, the Monday after Thanksgiving. So we will have everything in your consultant’s offices by the Monday after Thanksgiving. So, and it’s only three items we’re talking about. So I don’t know how much time they need to review. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not guaranteed that we can get you on December. I’m trying to look at logistics for Staff to review this stuff. What our calendar is. I know we’ve got three meetings already in December. MR. HILTON-Just to let the Board know, there’s only one ZBA meeting in December, and it’s the 17. So keep that in mind. th MR. MAC EWAN-If they had all the information to you guys on Monday December 1, can we st schedule them for, what did you say, the 17? th MR. HILTON-Well, that’s the ZBA. MR. SCHACHNER-The Planning Board meeting is on the 16. th MR. HILTON-The 16, right. th MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the ZBA date that’s open? MR. SCHACHNER-The 24. th MR. MAC EWAN-I thought you were saying they only had one meeting in December? MR. SCHACHNER-They do, on the 17. th MR. HILTON-Right. Because the second meeting would be like Christmas Eve. So, you know, just planning, this would have to be reviewed for SEQRA on, potentially, the 16 or earlier. The th ZBA reviews it on the 17, and then this item comes back on the 23 for whatever action. thrd MR. MAC EWAN-What dates do we have available the week before the ZBA meeting? MRS. RYBA-We’d have to check with Kathleen Kathe at the Activities Center to find out if there are other conflicts in meetings. MR. HILTON-Tuesday is the 9, Wednesday is the 10, you know. thth 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Then let’s not table it to a date. Let’s check with the facilities and see what we have available. MR. STROUGH-What about a tentative December 11, that’s a Thursday night? th MR. MAC EWAN-If they get it to you the 1, would that give you enough time? st MR. HILTON-Yes. I mean, I think we could work with that. A lot of this is either going to be reviewed by C.T. Male or it’s administrative. MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re looking at December 11, you said? Is that the date, Thursday th night? MR. SCHACHNER-Thursday, December 11. th MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Anything else on the laundry list? MR. LAPPER-Just something that just dawned on me. Whispering Pines, obviously our issue is the noise and disturbance in the back. How come they’re not being asked to get an Area Variance from the buffer requirements on the new part of the building between the commercial and the residential? MR. HILTON-You mean the landscape buffer requirements? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HILTON-Those are listed in the Zoning Code as being able to be, how should I put this, applied as the Board sees fit. It’s not something that necessarily needs an Area Variance. It’s a buffer requirement that the Planning Board, and I’ll read it to you. MR. LAPPER-But you’re talking about the buffer design guidelines, but isn’t there also a mandated buffer, in addition to, the design guidelines are what type of species of plants and how thick, but isn’t there also a buffer between the uses? MR. VOLLARO-I think we’re talking a commercial area. MR. LAPPER-In between commercial and residential. MR. VOLLARO-I think we’re talking abutting a two commercial area, though. MR. STROUGH-No, apartments are residential. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-What is that buffer, 50? MR. HILTON-Okay. Article Eight, Landscaping and Buffering Standards, applicability, this shall be applied by the Planning Board as part of any site plan review, site plan review affecting only a portion. I’ll skip to the last sentence. “The Planning Board may waive some or all of the requirements of this Article at its discretion”. MR. LAPPER-That’s the buffering requirements, but isn’t there also another requirement between zones? MR. HILTON-That identifies like a 50 foot buffer? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) MR. HILTON-It’s the same, within Article Eight. Those buffer zones are still there. MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, if you want to research it and find something that’s different, send a letter. MR. LAPPER-I will. Okay, but you’re saying it’s waivable by the Planning Board? MR. HILTON-That’s my impression. That’s my reading. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Did they request a waiver of that? MR. HILTON-I’d have to go back and research, but I believe they’ve identified on their plan that the 23 foot buffer does not conform to the 50, and they are seeking a waiver. MR. LAPPER-Okay, because we see that as the main SEQRA issue, in terms of the impact on the residents in the back. So that might be something to consider next time. Thank you. MR. SPEER-Can I address that for a moment? My reading of your Ordinance, at that, between a multifamily residential and a retail use would be an A Type buffer, minimum landscape yard 10 feet, one tree per 100 linear feet, and the trees don’t have a maximum height, or, at worst case scenario, if you term the proposed Wal-Mart a commercial or a recreation use, a Type B buffer, 20 foot wide, three trees per 100 linear feet of buffer and minimum height of six feet. I don’t see how we necessarily had, we were well above and exceeding those buffer requirements, as far as my reading of the Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to do the motion to table, then? MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a date? MR. STROUGH-I think it was the 11. th MR. MAC EWAN-They’re going to do their submittals by the close of business on the 1, and st we’re going to do the meeting on the 11. th MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the record, I’m leaving the public hearing left open. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by John Strough: The tabling motion will require submission of information which I’ll say in just a minute and that the meeting for providing that information is to be provided by 12/1/03 the meeting will take place on 12/11/03. The things that the tabling motion is based on: 1. Pedestrian crossing in signs and striping. 2. Interconnection of Ray Supply. That will require a meeting with CT Male by the applicant. 3. Revise the data sheet to show the change in parking and the permeability. 4. The architectural designs, colors and materials to staff. 5. The Water Dept. sign-off from Mike Shaw on the size of the grease trap. 6. Material specs for noise reduction, indicate on the plans and location of those. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/03) 7. The roof top mechanical screen for the rear of the building. 8. Remove Note 6 & 7 from the Lighting Plan, 25.01. 9. Remove Note 11 from plan 20.01. 10. Defer for comment to CT Male on the interconnect option location. 11. Copy of original 1994 lighting plan to be submitted to Planning Board. Current lighting plan to be revised to meet the commercial parking lot lighting standard of 2.5 foot candles versus the 2.7 presently proposed. 12. Staff to provide for Home Depot lighting plan. 13. Revise Note 11 on 20.01 to read that if a change is made the location of the diner you would have to come back to the Planning Board for a modification to the site plan. 14. Clarify that to say that if the proposed green area wants to be converted to a parking area it requires a modification and approval by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a point of order, I can see, potentially, one more meeting on this. If we do a SEQRA determination and Neg Dec it on the 11 meeting, is there any reason why we th can’t entertain doing the approval on the site plan? MR. HILTON-The variance. MR. MAC EWAN-But the variance will be going, never mind. MR. RINGER-That’s one of the things I was trying to get at. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thanks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 63