Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1990-06-26
'-' -..J QUEENSBDRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26TH, 1990 INDEX Subdivision No. 4-1990 FINAL STAGE Sherman Acres, Section II 3. Site Plan No. 49-89 Anthony Russo 4. Site Plan No. 42-90 Hallmark Nursing Centre, Inc. 14. Site Plan No. 43-90 Le 0 Lombardo Leo's Lobster-House 26. Site Plan No. 44-90 Abraham Rudnick Queensbury Gardens, Inc. 31. Site Plan No. 45-90 Dr. Robert L. Evans 35. Site Plan No. 46-90 Astro Valcour, Inc. 38. Site Plan No. 47-90 Robert E. Waters 40. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUfES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUfES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUfES. '-../ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26TH, 1990 7:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES HAGAN PETER CARTIER NICHOLAS CAlMANO CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-TOM YARMOWICH PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CAlMANO- Dick, I have two things, one 0 f which is a reques t to the Board, to see how the Board thinks. Last week we took up an issue regarding Ricciardelli and a piece of property and in the course of the discussion we entered into the minutes a letter from the Queensbury Advisory Committee of which you are a member, Dick. My concern with it is this, the Queensbury Advisory Committee is a non-voting type of..authorized to advise the Town Boards on issues and I think, as I understand it, that I s what the Queensbury Citizens Advisory Committee is supposed to do, is that correct? MR. ROBERTS-Well, we had a discussion last night, at one of those meetings, wondering just what we were supposed to do now, what are charter was, and we were going to suggest some things to the Town Board that maybe we thought we could work on, but it IS not clearly spelled out. MR. HAGAN-I think the key word, Mr. Chairman, you used is suggest and I think that's their limitation. MR. CAIMANO-Not only that, Jim, but my suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that it' s an Advisory Committee to the Town Board, as such, has no real standing, other than as a regular citizen, before this Board and I guess Ilm going to request that the letter that we submitted in the minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee be taken out of the minutes and the reason for that is because, as I brought up that last week, two of the members of this Board are on that Committee which has not been asked to advise this Board and I just feel uncomfortable with that and I wonder how the rest of the Board feels. MRS. PULVER-I agree. MR. HAGAN-I agree, Nick. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. CAlMANO-We11, Dick, what do you think? MR. ROBERTS-I don't know, why are you uncomfortable with having all the facts? MR. CAIMANO-Because we have a situation where a non- judicial body, if you will, meaning the Citizens Advisory Committee, whose charter it is to report to the Town Board, has entered into a situation where they are officially for or against, whatever it happens to be, something that's before the Planning Board. Two of those members on that Board are voting members of this Planning Board, therefore, some discussion has occurred on this topic, extra of this meeting and I think, just to avoid any kind of problem down the road, I think it would be smart, on our part, just to take that letter out of those minutes. There's no reason why the Citizens Advisory Committee canlt be a voice heard in the discussion regarding the Ricciardelli and all of the projects known as affordable housing, it I s just that I find it difficult to have those read into the minutes as if they were something that was official to this Board, that I s my problem with it. Right or wrong, thatls my problem with it. So I guess, what 11m going to do, then, is that I move that the letter from the Citizens Advisory Committee be removed as an official part of the minutes of last meeting. 1 '-- ..-' MOTION TO REMOVE THE LETTER FROM THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS AN OFFICIAL PART OF THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano NOES: Mr. Roberts MR. CAIMANO-My second problem is one in which we found ourselves last week and the reason I asked you, Dick,.. so we don't run into the same situation we had last week. We had a discussion and, by name, the Dunhamls Bay Project, in which we went on for an hour and forty-five minutes and I suggest to you much of the time was spent repeating and repeating, by the people who were against the project, their reasons for being against the project. Number One, the same reasons were stated every time. Number two, in the text and in the context of being against the project, they also vilified and pilloried the person before the Board who was asking for our determination on something and I think that if you read the minutes you 111 find some worries in there that just shouldn't have been allowed. I'm going to ask if there's a possibility, and I know that this is a published agenda, is there a possibility that you could make a request to the public that they limit their comments to five minutes or whatever your judgement is, so that everyone can be heard and that we don't have to stay here until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. The problem with that is, t hat if one of these gentleman is the last one on the agenda and we're trying to discuss something at 1 o'clock in the morning, none of us is getting the full value of whatever brain power we have. I'm asking for a time limit. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's certainly a valid point. In that particular discussion, one of the complications was the last person, alnost last person, to speak was the attorney for the applicant and he was a very elderly gentleman who took a great deal of time and it would seem awkward to get... MR. PULVER-Well, he was not an attorney. MR. CAIMANO-Who? MRS. PULVER-I went through all the minutes because some cne said, he was not an attorney. He was on the Troy Planning Board for 17 years. MR. CAlMANO-Thatls what he said, but he also said at one time he was an attorney. MRS. PULVER-Itls not in the minutes. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, well he did say he was an attorney. MS. CORPUS-He is. We have his card. He is an attorney. MRS. PULVER-I think maybe he gave his card, but he never put it in the minutes. MS. CORPUS-Probably not, but he's not the attorney for the applicant. MR. CAlMANO-I guess my suggestion to you, Mr. Chairman, is that, before the meeting, starts, even this meeting, if you agreed and if the rest of the members agree, t hat we set a limit. I don't think we're going against any rules if we set a limit for people to respond to the applicant and even set a limit to the applicant. It might say, look, t he applicant has no more than 10 minutes or 15 minutes, whatever your judgement is, and in response, please limit your response to those topics which have not been heard and to some time limits. I think that's reasonable. MR. ROBERTS-We usually do try to get people to limit it to new subjects. MR. HAGAN-I think you've got to make it clear, Nick, t hat you I re not going to limit the applicantls presentation. MR. CAIMANO-Not at all. I don't want to limit anything. I want to see if we can set a time limit, especially on the public forum of each individual hearing, that's really what I want to do. 2 "- -..-/ MR. CARTIER-Is it a time limit so much as it is limiting it to the topic at hand? MR. CAlMANO-We11, it's two cases because, in the case of that gentleman who was the lawyer, obviously time is of the factor and also Mr. Salvador from the Dunham's Bay Lodge went on like an out house lawyer and he was talking about things that were of no consequence to the topic at hand and those are the things MR. ROBERTS-I don't know that everybody would agree with that. MR. CAlMANO-Well, maybe they don't. All I'm saying is that he spoke about a lot of things, including castigating the Town, which had no bearing whatsoever on what was going on. I mean, you can castigate the Town. We can all do that, but I just didn't think it was right and I just want a time limit and/or a topic being set, if we can. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I know that I've been criticized. .for trying to get everything on the table and get a consensus of t he Board before we bring things to a vote and sometimes that does take time. Maybe that's not such a great policy. If you start putting time limits on things, haw do you do it and still get everything out. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, if I could just maybe move things along, here, since it is 7:30. Maybe we could, I know I spoke to Mr. Kupi11as and I was going to bring it up to the rest of you, t hat you had requested that I try to set up a workshop session. I would like to set up that workshop session for Tuesday, July 10th, if thatls possible, and maybe this could be one of the items that you could discuss at that workshop session. I don't think it's something you're going to solve in the next couple of minutes. MR. ROBERTS-That would make some sense. MR. CAIMANO-Thatls fine with me. MR. HAGAN-What time? MR. GORALSKI-Seven olclock, if that's alright with everyone. MR. HAGAN-Where? MR. GORALSKI-How about over in the downstairs meeting room in the office building, here. MR. CAlMANO-And the date, again, is? MRS. Pu1ver-Tuesd ay. MR. GORALSKI-July 10th, at 7 o'clock. MR. KUPILLAS-That's okay by me. MR. ROBERTS-If most of us think we can do it, let's set that up. John, will you send out notices? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I will. I'll send out a memo. MR. CARTIER-And that will be publicly noticed to? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that will. CORREcc:rION OF MINUTES May 14th, 1990: STAND AS WRITTEN May 22nd, 1990: STAND AS WRITTEN OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1990 FINAL STAGE T'!PE: UNLISTED SR-lA SHERMAN AamS, SEcc:rION II OWNER: WALTER O. AND ELIZABETØ A. JŒBM MlœAELS DUVE, AMY LANE FOR A 6 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX HAP NO. 121-7-999 LaI SIZE: 31.15 AaŒS 3 -- ---' STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Do the neighbors have any questions or quarrel with this? I think itls a question, at this stage of the game we've got all of the I's dotted and the T's crossed and, if there are no other questions, somebody make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE :FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1990 SBEIIMAB ACRES, SEctION II, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 49-89 TWE: UNLISTED BIt-lA ANTIION'f R.ŒSO ROtIITE 9, '" MILE NORTH OF W>tIITE 149 ON EAST SIDE OF W>AD TO OONSTRŒT A BILLIARD PARLOR IN AN H<C; ZONE. (WARREN OOœTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-2-1.2 LaI SIZE: 1.331 AOES SECfION 7.071, 4.020 K VICTOR CINQUINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPtIlr Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER. REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Maybe a little background on this (referring to Staff Notes). John assumed, as I guess I would have, since the County approved this previous ly and it seems obvious that this is an improvement to the original plan, t hat they wouldn't care to see it again. However, when John was on vacation they decided they did want to see it again and. .problem, with our agenda light, tonight, y,¡e found no other way to fill the agenda and with pe ople waiting in the wings, y,¡e prevailed on the County to let us do it in this fashion so we wouldn't be wasting a lot of people's time. (Referring to Engineer Report) John, could I ask you, they got a septic variance from the Town Board? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. ROBERTS-Does that solve some of these things about..under the parking lot? MR. GORALSKI-Right the comment made about seepage pit structures are not allowed under the parking lot, they have received a variance from the Board of Health to allow that. MR. CAIMANO-As important to me is, y,¡e talked about the fact that we should not have a seepage pit and then we talk about how the seepage pit and where the seepage pit should be located. 11m assuming that C is only germane if, in fact, there is a pre-treatment? You talk about not allowing a seepage pit, in A, or the first thing you wanted to say, and then you get to C and you talk about the test for the seepage pit location. MR. YARMOWICH-That' s correct. The seepage pit application criteria still rely on tests. The requirement for pre-treatment has to do with the discharge and the method of disposal. MR. CAlMANO-But there won't be any seepage pits unless there is a pre-treatment? MR. YARMOWICH-Thatls the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulation's for this size system would require treatment other than a septic tank. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. 4 "-'" .-..../ MR. HAGAN-And will that be controlled by the Building Inspector, if we act favorably upon this project? MR. YARMOWICH-The Building Inspector doesn't have authority with regard to the waste water system. MR. HAGAN-He doesn't? MR. ROBERTS-..taken out of our hands and into the hands of DEC. MR. HAGAN-Okay, I just, personally, have to state that when it comes to the percolation rates and how we decipher their results, I don't know how t he public contends with it, but I, as a member of this Board, remain totally confused and I think we should bring that up in our work session, please. MR. GORALSKI-Sure. MR. ROBERTS-I'm a little confused that they're worrying about perc rates faster than five minutes. We usually worry about perc rates faster than one minute. MR. HAGAN-I'm totally confused on the subject. MR. ROBERTS-A four minute perc rate is, who is this unacceptable to, DEC? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, because of the excessive perc rate. it requires further treatment. It's not unacceptable, MR. HAGAN-Last Tuesday night, we approved a project much larger than this that had percolation far greater than this, far greater and if I were the public getting ready to apply to this Board, I just wouldn't know which way to move. I'm not an engineer, but I've dealt with engineers all my life and I still can recite laws of Physic s. We have a man here who teaches it and he can't explain to me how it should be interpreted. I think it's totally unfair to the citizens of this community to have such a broad deciphering method concerning percolation rates. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I think the point has been made that we need to deal with that in workshop. We don't want to get into that now. MR. HAGAN-No, but I think we should get into it in our work session. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. HAGAN-To help the public. that we consider and criticize. We're open to enough criticisms without things MR. ROBERTS-Well, maybe the applicant can shed some light on this, too. 1'11 probably turn this over to the applicant. MR. CARTIER-Let me ask one quick question, here. It'll help, up for me. Is the confusion over the difference between seepage systems? Does that have a bearing on perc rates and how to use systems? I know I'm asking a very elementary question, here, elementary answer. maybe, clear it pits and septic deal with these so give me an MR. YARMOWICH-The perc rate can indicate the available treatment capacity of the soil. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-The soil is an integral part of the treatment system in a subsurface disposal type prerogative. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-The excessive percolation rate or the fast provide inadequate treatment. In cases where DEC has requirements for fast perc is different than small systems. percolation rate can jurisdiction, their MR. CARTIER-Okay. 5 ""-' -..../ MR. YARMOWICH-There are differences in the requirements based on who has jurisdiction. MR. ROBERTS-I'm interested in that, too. The perc rate, if you've got a tile field thatls a couple of feet below the surface or a seepage pit that's six feet deep, maybe that has a bearing, because most of your work with the bugs are done in the upper few feet of the soil. Well, never mind. We're getting into something, I guess MR. CAIMANO-It's possible that the applicant has an answer to this. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, that I s what I was thinking about. Would the applicant try to bail us out of this, please. MR. CINQUINO-I'll do my best. HOWARD KRANTZ MR. KRANTZ-Before Mr. Cinquino commences. Howard Krantz, attorney for Mr. Russo. The applicant here tonight is Victor Cinquino, the architect and engineer Mr. Franklin, Dennis Franklin. We've been round and about, many times, with this project and we're hoping, tonight, that this is it and I'm mindful of the comment made about the Warren County Planning Board. As far as we I re concerned, we were ready to go to the Warren County Planning. We understand we were on their agenda, but there was some snaffu in communication with the Warren County Planning Board. So, if there are no major problems this evening, what we are seeking is approval contingent only upon the approval of the Warren County Planning Board. MR. ROBERTS-That's if, in fact, you get approval tonight. MR. KRANTZ-Right, thank you and Mr. Cinquino will take over, addressing the issue of the percolation rates and treatment of the waste water. MR. CINQUINO-My name's Victor Cinquino. We're architects of Cinquino Associates representing Mr. Russo tonight. I guess, first of all, the plan before you is somewhat different than the original plan that you saw and I'd just like to point out a few of the highlights. The building location, effectively, remains the same. MR. CARTIER-(Referring to map) Could I suggest, sir, that that get hung up so that the public can see that, too, rather than just the Board. Thank you. MR. CINQUINO-The building location, effectively, remains the same. The difference between this site plan and the one you first reviewed, of course, is that. .acquisition of this northerly portion to the site and what we have done, in effect, was, expand the parking on to that recently acquired site which does a couple of things. First of all, it allows for considerably more green space to solve a number of grading problems and I refer you to the grading plans we submitted with the packet and it makes the parking considerably more efficient. Unless there are specific questions about the layout itself and the amenities, perhaps we can go right to the issue of sanitary septic systems. Our analysis of the building load is based on a variety of criteria. It's a somewhat unusual building and there are no real public data on the building use, in terms of the septic load. We are, however, aware that it's potentially peak oriented, that is to say that there will be a peak season for activity in this building. We did some cross analysis of Mr. Russo's facility that he already owns down in Long Island and found that the lower application rates or sewage rates are well within line, in fact, quite conservative with respect to what we I re talking about and we're talking about, here, 1500 gallons per day, based on the capacity of the building. Based, also, on the percolation tests that we took and we took a variety of tests in this area, this area of the site and this area of the site. We came up with a scheme that we presented to you. Aware that those percolation rates were relatively fast, that is to say, they were soils in the 0-5 minute class, we made every attempt to accommodate the recommendations in the DEC guidelines primarily as related to separation of the seepage pits. We were also aware that the Town Ordinance precluded the use of seepage pits in the parking area without specific variance which we have secured from the Town Board, I believe. Our proposal, then, was to locate those seepage pits in this parking area with the distance requirements from the specific elements of importance, primarily the well, \\hich is located on the.. To the best of our knowledge, we have tried, in every respect, to meet the distance requirements. Effectively, \\hat we're saying, here, is that because of the somewhat more rapid percolation aspects of the soil, we have literally doubled the distance between all of the other entities. In other words, a seepage pit, one from the other, 6 '",,- ~ I want to apologize because I can't really remember the distance out of the handbook, whatever it was, is twice that size. The distance from the nearest seepage pit, to the well, is twice that size. The seepage pit location, relative to the banks and slope is not exactly twice that size, but it I S as close as you can physically come. So close that we would like to suggest that we're well within the DEC guidelines. I think about the only other issue that was at hand, from other perspective, was the distance from the seepage pits to the drywells that we determined for storm drainage. It was our understanding, I realize this is somewhat open ended with respect to the Town Ordinance, that accurate storm drainage is related to a multiple lot subdivision and, if you're dealing with a single lot subdivision, it mayor may not be necessary. I, personally, am a little unclear on that and would defer to any member of the Board or..consultants on that issue. However, realizing that storm drainage is of consideration with respect to soil erosion in this particular area because of the steepness of the bank, we did, indeed, provide a system that would retain the storm water under..storm conditions and release it through the natural in a flow rate consistent with what it is presently. To that extent, then, we felt that that was an intermediate system. A system used, in effect, by storm conditions in an intermediate bases and there was a potential for the distance between seepage pits and those drywells, for storm purposes, became a little bit less of a concern. In either case, because we are suggesting that we have a sanitary sewage rate in excess of 1,000 gallons a day, in fact, we're saying 1,500 gallons a day, the primary criteria will come under the primary review which will come from the process of securing a SPDES Permit. We're also providing a snack board facility, so, theoretically, there's..so there I s Health Department review of the facility, as well. Our feeling here is that welve done everything that can be humanly done to make this work and we feel that it really will work. Our interpretation of the DEC guidelines, if you will, was pertaining to the effecting of water systems and there's really two Sections of that code that we're referring. One deal with a large scale water shed situation and it really pertains to large scale developments and subdivisions which we felt didn't apply here. The second dealt with the idea of the separation of the seepage pits to existing wells in the area and, since we already doubled those distances and, therefore, met their recommendations, and because this entire area to the east of the facility is, in fact, the utility right-of-way, and, topographically, undevelopable, we felt that there would likely be no future wells in this area that would be impacted by this system. It was on that basis that we submitted our documentation to you. So, in essence, to sum it all up, what we're seeking here tonight is your approval, obviously, contingent upon the County's review. MR. ROBERTS-I think we I ve skirted an issue, here and I guess we've got a couple of issues. First of all, do we rely, in this case, entirely on the DEC and the Department of Health review on this thing, or do we pay attention to our own consulting engineer who seems to indicate that we are not very happy with the State guidelines. In other words, your talking about separation distance from drywells. We're talking about protection of groundwater, as well and isn't that what we're talking about when welre talking about fast perc rates, the possibility of pollution of groundwater. Now I don't, first of all, know whether we want to argue with DEC on this matter and, if we do, isn't that the issue here and I know you're reading Wayne Gannett's notes and you didn't research this project which puts us between a rock and a hard place, here. MR. YARMOWICH-We11 , I'm familiar with the regulations that are required for this type of project. To address your first question, yes, there's a relationship between movement of of any subsurface disposal liquids and the percolation rate and how that effects the potential for groundwater pollution. Those two are related, regardless of whether they're stormwater management disposal methods or sewage disposal methods. The guidelines are intended to provide that degree of protection. The guidelines are something that the State Department of Environmental Conservation considers when they review the sewage disposal systems, as well. MR. HAGAN-For a practical point, I'd like to ask, has anybody identified where the water table is, in this particular location? If the water table is 30 feet below the surface, then I see no problem with this percolation rate, but if it's 5 feet below the surface, then it's a problem. MR. CINQUINO-We did a series of test pits and we found a layer of. .on the areas that we tested, approximately 14 feet below the surface, which trap a layer of water. Now, as to whether that specifically relates to water table at this site, we really can I t say since we did not do a drill penetration which would determine that. MR. CARTIER-In effect, that becomes what's called a perched water table. It IS temporary, but it's still there. 7 ~ -.../ MR. CINQUINO-Yes, sir, MR. CAlMANO-Can I ask a question and get off this, just for a second, so I can clear up one little point that you mentioned. You mentioned peak times. What's your peak time? MR. CINQUINO-We anticipate, obviously, the peak time would be the "tourist season" in our region. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, the second question is, I think we asked for, because of the traffic problems on Route 9, we had asked for a separation of the in-going and outgoing traffic. MR. CINQUINO-eorrect. MR. CAlMANO-You have a separation of.. the line and my suggestions to you is, in the winter time, there will be no line and there is no separation. MR. CINQUINO-Our concern about providing a specific island there was, in fact, the idea of snow removal, in that, as snow was plowed in and out of those, that we would build a mound there which would further.. site lines.. We fe 1 t that thi s could be kept clearer and safer in the winter, primarily because of that curve and because of the gradient without a specific island. MR. CARTIER-And that's 34 feet wide, that parameter? MR. CINQUINO-Yes sir. MR. HAGAN-But rather than see all of that creeping juniper that you have planned out to make it look better, I'd rather see the present driveway that's up there now, expanded upon to include this one because that curve coming in and out is very severe and way back, over a year ago, when you first brought this up to the County, I was on that Planning Board and we made a real specific suggestion to you on how to help ingress and egress, or whatever you want to call it, in and out, so that you could see the traffic on Route 9 a lot better than you can there. That's a real severe turn and you're on a curve, you're on a hill, coming out a busy intersection, and I think it would have been far better if you had followed the Countyls advice, rather than plant all that juniper there. So, I don't think you took their advice. MR. CINQUINO-Okay, sir. Well, I'll apologize because I took the project over from the previous consultants, so I guess that would, effectively, be my fault. We made the decision based on the grading of this location. First of all, the entrance as we show it is approximately, I believe, 11 feet south of the existing. MR. HAGAN-11m not going to debate this, but presently you have. .comes at this angle up there, now. Youlre filling, you're creating a new one here. We suggest that you leave the old one and open this up so people coming, people coming from the north have to make a severe turn and that's right after a busy intersection and you've got motels on the other side, you've got professional buildings on the other side, it's a busy spot, and I think that that should be given serious consideration. MR. CINQUINO-Well, we would indeed do that, with all due respect, sir. The survey data we had placed the existing driveway in this location. We, in fact, moved it down to ease the grading condition because the road falls rather dramatically at that point. We felt, at that point, that to enter and exit from the site there would be significantly less drop from the road edge to the drive. MR. ROBERTS-I think, perhaps, it also should be pointed out that Mr. Hagan, at that time, was serving on the County Planning Board and my memory doesn't serve, but this Board can override their recommendations and I don't recall whether we agreed or disagreed with the County at this level. MR. HAGAN-Well, I really don't care whether you did or not, but I think the County made a darn good recommendation for the benefit of this community. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe the reports wu1d show whether we agreed with them or not, as a Board, at that time. 8 '-' -..J MRS. PULVER-Do we have an original survey to this scale..existing driveway is? MR. GORALSKI-The existing driveway is on one of those maps. MR. HAGAN-The reason I bring this up, I I d like it's a benefit to the community to have this. so it may be more acceptable to the County. to see this go through. I think So, I'm making these suggestions DENNIS FRANKLIN MR. FRANKLIN-My name's Dennis Franklin. You won't find the other driveway because that I s on Charlie Wood's property, that I s over here and the previous owner either it's..We don't show that because it's not on this property and we certainly have no intention of driving across Mr. Wood's property and the original driveway was here and I think we followed..we moved it to the south, widened it 11 feet. MR. KRANTZ-I would like to add, also, to that that Dennis's recollection is correct. The County had a suggestion. I remember two aspects of it. One was moving it further south, Which they felt had a better site distance on Route 9, and, secondly, to widen it and both of those were done and I might add, also, that subsequent to that recommendation from the County, and the incorporation of that recommendation in the plan, we came back to this Board and there was no issue raised of revising it a third time. MR. ROBERTS-Does that clarify things, Jim? Maybe they did take your advice. MR. HAGAN-I'm for this project. MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. HAGAN-I bring this up because I know it was a sore point at the County level. MR. KRANTZ-The point I'm making, Mr. Hagan, is that, if you compare this with the original plan, you'd see the differences. We did incorporate the recommendations, I was there at the County Planning Board meeting and I remember those recommendations and they were incorporated into this plan. MR. HAGAN-Most of the people at the County level were in favor of this, except for. . MR. ROBERTS-Well, maybe we clarified that. MR. CAIMANO-The sign on the north side of the driveway, how tall is that sign? MR. CINQUINO-J .prepared the details and they were submitted with the original package. I apologize to the Board, but I can't answer your question. MR. CAlMANO-Is it back far enough? I mean, is there rOom to drive to the end of the road and be able to see up the road.? MR. CINQUINO-Yes, it is not an large or significant sign. In fact, the logo you see on the drawings isn't even the size, so that that sign could, in fact, sit on a post. It's intended to be on a rather slim post..specific height. MR. ROBERTS-The cars can see them? MR. CINQUINO-Yes. MR. FRANKLIN-Also, the grade falls of f here. The sign is at least 12 feet high on a single pipe. It shouldn't cause any sight problems. MR. CAIMANO-Our concern is traffic moving at somewhere between 40 and 55 miles an hour. MR. FRANKLIN-We're very sensitive to that. We've spent a great deal of time on the site studying those factors along with a number of other things. In any case, with all due respect, our approach towards this drive was indeed to create the safest possible ingress and egress from that with respect to site lines, grading, and road dimension. With all due respect, the problem will be. .if it doesn't really work. On the is..and then, therefore, the problem becomes mine if it doesn't work. 9 "-' -/ MR. ROBERTS-We have a letter, here, from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped. They're saying that, "With the new ruling on parking spaces, the requirement would be an 8 foot wide access aisle between handicapped spaces." Is that new to us, too? MR. GORALSKI-That is within the last two weeks. MR. ROBERTS-That sounds excessive. MR. GORALSKI-That just was changed by the State within the last two weeks. MR. CARTIER-Read the first sentence (Referring to Citizens Advisory Committee letter). MR. CAIMANO-Yes, the first sentence is more important. MR. ROBERTS-Read "The Committee would like to commend Mr. Russo on his building plans with regard to accessibility. However, does that say that you also know the new rule? MR. CINQUINO-This plan was prepared before that. MR. CAlMANO-There's a big space in there. MR. CINQUINO-Right, these were, ~at was then determined the standard of a 14 foot space. MR. GORALSKI-There's no problem. What's going to happen is, they may lose on parking space as a result. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that was my point. The plan is probably not up to the new ruling. MR. GORALSKI-No, it's not. MR. CAlMANO-This drawing looks like it is. Look at the spaces after the.. MR. ROBERTS-They're big spaces, but eight feet? MR. CAIMANO-We 11 , how wide is the parking space? MR. GORALSKI-Ten, the handicapped space? Therels probably 12. MR. FRANKLIN-Fourteen, actually. MR. CAIMANO-Fourteen, I would say that that's an eight foot space, then, looking at that spacing. MR. CARTIER-Two handicapped access slots share an eight foot slot in between, is that correct? MR. FRANKLIN-Yes, sir. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-I would suggest that, ~en the time comes for striping the spaces, ~atever they have to do to meet whatever regulation is in place, they'll have to meet. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, if this is, in fact, a new regulation, probably ought to be aware of it. MR. KRANTZ-We'll make ourselves aware of it and then we'll.. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I guess maybe the only unresolved thing is my mind is still this seepage pit thing. I don't know where we stand on that. I'm getting more confused all the time. MR. CAIMANO-It seems to me that we can approve this thing because of the way it is. If we fee 1.. because the DEC is going to have their say anyway, right? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CINQUINO-And we have to get a SPDES Permit. 10 ~ ~ MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. GORALSKI-They will not get a Building Permit without a SPDES Permit. MR. CARTIER-And that SPDES Permit will address pre-treatment, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-If the DEC determines it's required. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-The engineering calculations indicate that that's a potential area of need for the system, but we site the design standards as they are written. MR. CAIMANO-So, in essence, we can approve this thing and move it down to or out to, in the case of the State, down to, the State and let them make the final determination, right? MR. CARTIER-Well, I just want to clean up some detail here. MR. CAlMANO-I do, too. MR. CARTIER-I assume you've done perc tests, you've done a seepage pit? MR. CINQUINO-Yes, sir. MR. CARTIER-Have you done it as described in Item 1 D here, from our engineer? MR. CINQUINO-No, sir. MR. CARTIER-"Two perc tests should be taken at the seepage pit location; one at half depth and one at the floor of the pit." That still needs to be done, as far as you're concerned? MR. YARMOWICH-Those are recommended procedures for determining correct application rates. MR. CARTIER-Will that get picked up in SPDES Permitting process, also? MR. YARMOWICH-That data is required for review by DEC. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Peter, wuld be not addressing the whole situation if we just read, verbatim, Item 2? MR. CARTIER-No, I think if we stipulate in the motion that a SPDES Permit be obtained, will that cover the engineering concerns that you have? MR. YARMOWICH-With the exception of any relationship to stormwater management and disposal of that on site. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so, in other words, that'll take care of la and lb? MR. CAIMANO-Right, and C. MR. CARTIER-And C. Mr. Gannett's note of June 19th. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. HAGAN-Wouldn't that encompass all of that? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Well, that was my point. MR. CARTIER-I didn't understand that. MR. HAGAN-If we made the motion and included Paragraph 2, it would be very generally covered. It would cover all our qualms, in my opinion. MR. CARTIER-What are you calling "Paragraph 2"? MR. HAGAN-Right here. 11 ~ -..../ MR. CAlMANO-Number 2? MR. CARTIER-No, no, that's different than up here. This is seepage pit. This is stormwater. MR. CAlMANO-One is waste water, the other's stormwater. MR. ROBERTS-That's right. MR. HAGAN-Because it says, "In accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control." MR. CAlMANO-But one is stormwater. One is waste water. MR. CARTIER-Item 1 deals with waste water, 2 deals with stormwater. They're not the same. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I guess we're getting a consensus of the Board that we I re going to let DEC, trust them to do a good job with this. MR. CAIMANO-Sure. Either way, they're going to have to do it. MR. ROBERTS-And that will satisfy our consulting engineer. MRS. PULVER-They can't get a Building Permit without it. MR. CAIMANO-They can't get a Building Permit without it. So, we just keep moving it along and I think that would be fine. MR. ROBERTS-Even though we, maybe don't understand it and would like to understand it better, we'll look at it again. MR. CAIMANO-We won't understand any better whether we approve it or disapprove it. 1111 tell you, though, \\hat I'm not comfortable with, more than that. We have out, here, and that is that someone who does understand this can work on it. I am concerned and I'm still concerned about this. I'd like to find a better way of traffic control. .they've come up with. We asked for separation of that traf tic. My concern is that somebody coming out, that's supposed to come out this side, will not, they will come out this side, and vice versa. MR. KRANTZ-Listening to Mr. Cinquino' s comments and the engineering, speaking with the owner, it is not, believe me, a cost factor, that is not a consideration at all to put this barrier in between the two and we certainly understand, seriously, the concern for making it as safe as possible. It's just that these people feel that, m.ile it may separate them, it may do more harm in another respect. We've widened it, considerably, for access. It's far better than what was there previously. The site, What it is, there's only so much you can practically, reasonably do and there's no way of doing both the barrier and having the problem in the winter because what's going to happen, the plow is not going to go right up next to it. So, I agree, you're going to have snow build up, ice build up, and when you take those factors into consideration, the consultants, here, feel this is the best combination of factors to develop this. MR. KUPILLAS-How about putting signs on each end of the stripe barrier just to make sure people go to the right or to the left, coming in or going out. MR. KRANTZ -Well, I know, on the entrance, there'll be arrows showing in only and out only. MR. CAIMANO-That' s on the ground. MR. KRANTZ-That's correct. MR. CAlMANO-He I s talking about, like, a little, thin post, at least that would make people MR. KUPILLAS-Just directional, that would make people warned, because when it snows, Howard, the stripes are covered. I mean, we have it in every parking area in the world. The stripes are covered when it snows. They don't tell you anything. If you put a sign post, it gives some direction when you're leaving your establishment and when you're entering it. 12 \.....-' J MR. KRANTZ-That is certainly agreeable, surely. Mr. Russo also asked me to indicate that he would also try working with getting some of the orange pylons and put them in that median area. Those would be very visible with the orange, day g10. MR. CAIMANO-The kind that are down, right now, where Ridge comes into Maple? MR. KRANTZ-Yes, that I 11 separate the entrance from the exit. MR. CAIMANO-I'd be happy with that. MR. KUPILLAS-Because it tends to happen. People wanting to go south are libel to go into the southerly lane and then somebody coming in will meet them. MR. CARTIER-Are you talking about in place of the sign post, here, now? MR. KRANTZ-No, in addition to. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, well, apparently, there's some ideas. MR. KRANTZ-For example, live seen perpendicular to the road saying, in one saying out only, with an arrow. that Mr. Russo would propose putting exit. many establishments have a sign that is only on that side of the entrance and then Those are visible and that plus the pylons in, I think, will be a safe entrance and MR. ROBERTS-I guess this public hearing is still open. MR. GORALSKI-Public hearing is still open. MR. ROBERTS-It's been advertised again. PUBLIC BllltARING OPERED NO (ØfMØ'I' PUBLIC BEARING <J.OSED MR. ROBERTS-Do we have any more questions fran the applicant? If not, What about SEQRA? We must have done that. MR. GORALSKI-No, you've never done it. MR. CARTIER-Short Form? MR. GORALSKI-Short Form. RESOLU'rION WBEØ DETE1tIIIRATIOR OF NO SIGHIFICANCE IS IlADE RESOLU'rION BO. 49-89, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: the cOllllStructiOlll1 of a billiard parlor in a Highway ea.mercial zone in the area of Route 9 amd 149, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE SOL VEl> : 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: DEC New York State DOT DOH 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 13 '-" J 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupi11as, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE Morlœ YO APPROVE SID: PLAN NO. 49-89 ANIBONY RUSSO, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To construct a billiard parlor on Route 9, one quarter mile north of Route 149 on the east side of the road, providing that a New York State Permit will be obtained, specifically fran New York State DEC for the waste water flow and also that the erosion control measures will be provided, as necessary, in accordance with New York State guidelines for urban erosion and sediment control and also that directional signs be installed at entrances and exits of the driveway and it's understood that other measures will be taken by the applicant to control traffic. Handicapped parking be signed to meet the new New York State Handicapped parking lot sizes. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupi11as, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SID PLAN NO.. 42-90 T1PE: 1JILISTED UR-IO IlALLMABK NURSING œBrd. INfit.. O.ER: SAME SOUlIIIŒST OOBJIER OF VESTEBJI AVIØ!fUII: AIm SBl1IIAN AVIØ!fUII: FOR ŒlfSTRUCTlœI OF A 40 BÐ> NURSING WING ADDITICIi NEW DINING/LOUNœ ADDITICIi. NEW LAORDRY!STAn L01lfGE ADDITIœI (16.000 SQ.. "..) (VADEN OOtlfTY PLANIUNG) TAX MAP 110.. 117-3-5. 9. 10. 11 Lor SIZE: 6..08 AQlES SlcrlœI 4.020 E OWEN NEITZEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-One additional comment lid like to make is that there is, according to the plan, the new lighting that IS proposed for the building will be within the courtyard and should be blocked from the neighbors by the building itself. MR. cARTIER-I'm sorry, could you say that again. MR. GORALSKI-The additional lighting that will be added to the building is within the courtyard areas and, therefore, should not be shining on the neighboring property. MR. ROBERTS-So, it's going to take care of itself? MR. GORALSKI-I believe. You may want to clarify that, but that's the way I read the plan. I also have a letter fran Fire Marshal Bodenwiser: "In review of additional proposal to Hallmark Nursing Home, it is our position that access to the overall structure is inadequate for fire fighting access. we sug~st that the asphalt walkways proposed be constructed with roadway specifications and a minimum width of 10 feet. II EBGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) 14 ~ -..../ MR. ROBERTS-We have a second letter from engineering? MR. CAIMANO-There's two letters here. MR. GORALSKI-I can clarify that. This application was incomplete last month and in order to head off some of the problems in the original application, our engineers did review it and those changes were made. MR. ROBERTS-We can disregard the May 15th letter? MR. GORALSKI-The first letter, yes. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, and the letter from Walter, let him speak for himself. MR. GORALSKI-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. CAIMANO-Cou1d I ask a question of Rist-Frost, real quick, regarding the traffic. It says, "From traffic information provided it appears that the impact will be minimal" and then Number 3 says, "Approximately 40% more parking spaces". To me, that's kind of a contrast. MR. YARMOWICH-The basis for that is that this will not be a continuous flow of traffic. These spaces will be occupied for substantial periods. There won It be parking spaces used in such fashion as you might have in a retail outlet where there I d be a large exchange of vehicles of vehicles over a day, for any given parking space, that's the basis for the statement that the impact would be minimal. MR. CAIMANO-I guess my concern is exactly what happened to us last week. We keep approving and approving and approving without taking into consideration traffic as we should have, as we go and then we're faced with the Susse Chalet mote1..outfit which is, all of a sudden, the overburden of the traffic and I really am going to question that considerably because where that Western traffic there is considerable right now. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, traffic at the Western Avenue/Sherman Avenue intersection is considerable. It's considerable during the hours of say, 7: 30 to 9: 00 in the morning and 2 to 3:30 in the afternoon when school lets out. The number of vehicles that travel through that intersection is extremely large. The percentage of that number that comes from that and is created from that Nursing Home, is insignificant. MR. CAlMANO-Compared to? MR. GORALSKI-Compared to the total amount of traffic that travels through that intersection. MR. CAIMANO-I was going to ask, I see the cars parked there everyday, you go across Sherman Avenue and 11m that your 50% increase in beds, there's going to be some increase in Staff. MR. ,GORALSKI-Definitely. MR. CAlMANO-And a definitive increase in the amount of daily traffic. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. HAGAN-That maybe true, daily total, but I think John's overlooking the big important point. The busy traffic or the annoying traffic is during those hours when the Nursing Home is not going to make a contribution to increasing and they're flow of traffic during those off hours will be much less than the normal traffic going through that intersection during those busy periods. Do you follow that or not? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. HAGAN-Explain to me why. MR. CAIMANO-Because of the Staff. MR. HAGAN-They still have the Staff. 15 '--' .-...../ MR. CAIMANO-They're going to have an increase in Staff. John is talking about the peak hours being work hours and school hours and I'm suggesting to you that the normal work hour of that place is going to contribute more traffic to that area, which is, right now, not a nice place to go..all I'm suggesting is bringing it up now, before we have the other 30% increase that's called for here. MRS. PULVER-How much Staff..? MR. GORALSKI-Maybe Mr. Walter can, he did the traffic survey and maybe he can explain it more adequately. MR. ROBERTS-And also the Beautification Committee approved the project with some suggestions. Okay, shall we turn this over, then, to the application. MR. NEITZEL-My namels Owen Neitzel. 11m with Harris Sanders Architects. We also have Frank Walter, our consulting site engineer, and Katherine Costello, the Administrator of the Nursing Home, tonight. I wanted to get back to the question on the traffic. I just want to address that real quickly and then I want to give you a brief overview of the project as we saw it. I just asked Miss Costello and she informed me that the day time staff has to be at the nursing home at 6:30 in the morning and they leave the nursing home at 2: 30 in the afternoon which, I believe, would be off peak hours at that intersection. MR. CAlMANO-Two thirty sounds like it would run right smack into the kids at school, but 11m not going to argue that point. MR. NEITZEL-Okay, I just wanted to mention that the 6: 30, I thought, at least, would help the morning load. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. NEITZEL-I brought a floor plan of the building and the shaded areas are the additions that we're proposing, here, here, and here. The existing building has two L-Shaped wings coming of f the main dining/administrative area in the center here. This is the front of the building. There's a loop driveway along the front. The Nursing Home wants to add 40 beds and they asked us to work out where they could add, hence the T-Shaped wing coming off the back for the addition. They also realized that they're going to have to enlarge their dining/lounge room, so we proposed a small addition in the front, here, and, right now, they have an undersized laundry facility to handle the needs of the Nursing Home, so we have a small building, here, that we're, next to the loading dock area, here. I just wanted to show that to you, so, if any of you ask, how did we come up with the shape of the building that came off there. I thought that that might be of some help there. Again, this plan's upside down from the other one. Sometimes the consulting engineer, the architect don't get things quite coordinated on these points, but we are proposing a walk going around the building, here. Another one of the comments that came up was from the Fire Marshal, but I feel that a lO foot wide asphalt drive around here might be excessive. I think that the Fire Marshal's probably concerned about the winter months and access for emergency vehicles to these back areas. What I would suggest that we might do is, make sure that we have a 10 foot plowed area along these pathways in the winter time and make sure, that has to be plowed, right now, if you've ever driven by there in the winter. There is access around the whole building, that is plowed out at the present time. MR. CARTIER-I think therels more to it. MR. KUPILLAS-How wide are those steps now? MR. NEITZEL-These are supposed to be five feet wide. MR. CARTIER-I think there's more to it than for roadway specifications. What he's understand what he's suggesting. just winter access, because he's calling talking about is..fire trucks, if I MR. CAIMANO-And having. .W1en we did the site review, I would say it needs it. I mean, how are you going to get a truck back there, potentially, in this weather, for example, where you might get stuck going fran.. MR. NEITZEL-The one other point I wanted to make, that there is a available, here of f of Feld Avenue, to access the building, also, fire hydrant so that all 16 '-' '-"" fire fighting will not have to come from the front, there. I just wanted to give you a quick run through the thing and I'll entertain questions that either myself or Mr. Walters might be able to answer for you. MR. CAlMANO-We11, I, for one, am not going to go against the Fire Marshal. I mean, I don't see how you could possibly do that, that's Number One. MR. ROBERTS-I wonder if he knows about that. .hydrant toward the back of the building. I think that's a good point. MR. CARTIER-Well, there's also the issue of evacuation of patients with an emer~ncy vehicle of some sort and I think there's more than just fire access, here. I would tend to agree with Mr. Caimano. I think we have to provide adequate protection in this particular kind of facility and I would agree that I'm not about to cross swords with the Fire Marshal on this one. MR. ROBERTS-Is he sug~sting it be done on both sides? MR. CARTIER-I suspect so. MR. ROBERTS-I wonder if it's possible to compromise. about this? He's talking both sides? Have you talked to Bill MR. GORALSKI-Both sides, yes. MR. HAGAN-What type of a hardship does this present to the applicant? MR. NEITZEL-I would say that it's probably only cost and if that is the grounds upon which we're going to get an approval, I think we 111 have to work that out, I think, in terms of the total development of the project. It's not a major MR. ROBERTS-The good news is that it's good, sandy soil. You wouldn't have to spend a lot of money on base to put up.. MR. NEITZEL-Yes, it is very good sandy soil. MR. HAGAN-Just from a practical point of view, if you had a statement like this hanging over your head from the Fire Marshal and you go to your insurance agent to take out your Liability and Fire Insurance coverage, I think they'd want a heck of a lot more from you. So, you may not even be talking about cost. FRANK WALTERS MR. WALTERS-Frank Walters. I don't know the basis of his request there. I don't know if there's a basis in some kind of rule, regulation, or requirement or if that's something he thougnt would be nice. MR. HAGAN-This is just a practical point. I don't think it would end MR. CARTIER-I was just going to say, as far as I'm concerned, ~'re not talking nice, here. We're talking safety. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, having walked that and youl re going all the way around the building, I think comIWn sense says that, especially when you're dealing with older people, possibly infirmed people, you want as quick an access as possible. Potentially, there.. potentially. I didn't say naturally, but potentially and I wouldn't want that and I'm sure Mr. Bodenwiser doesn't either. If I could bring up one more comment, very quickly. I'm for the..I understand the need for it and I'm for it and we've looked at it and it's a great, the building's a11..My problem with parking is.. ~ keep running into situations like the one we heard about last week. We talk about the Route 9 malls. This Board, from a philosophical standpoint, as Mr. Cartier's often said, is a Planning Board and we've been forced into approving things without necessarily looking ahead and I'm looking at a piece of paper which tells me there's a 40 percent increase in the parking spaces and that means more people. I'm looking at, "Ho~ver, space for an additional 30 percent should be planned for", and I 1m just asking that we take a reasonable, due, diligence and look ahead and whatever it takes to look ahead, knowing full well that that just by natural growth of the community, just by natural growth of this business, there's going to be a traffic problem and there exists a traffic problem. MR. WALTER-Let me address this matter when you're talking about 40 percent. of 15 more parking spaces ~1ich isn't count, it's been suggasted to us, by out there, during a peak period. Wè of percentages. The percentages sound big we're talking about something in the order a whole lot. Now, in terms of the traf fic Rist-Frost, that we might do some counting made the peak period out to be somewhere 17 "-' -...../ in the mid-afternoon from 2: 30 to 3: 30. This is at a time when the shift is changing at the Nursing Home, the school is active, a lot of things are happening, that's the time when we made a count at the intersection of Sherman and Western. The bulk of the traffic, interestingly enough, is on Sherman, not Western. There were about 300 cars heading through that intersection, west, a lot coming from the school, during that hour. We're talking about an hour period. Less than 200 cars were going east into the City. Something, a little less than, 500 cars were moving on Sherman Avenue during that period. During that same hour, and we I re talking about an hour when there was a shift change at the Home, 13 cars entered the Home property fran Sherman, 14 exited. Now, in relation to the 500 cars traveling the road, 13 or 14 coming or going \YOn' t make a whole lot of. .So, the numbers. .maybe a 30 percent increase in parking, that sounds like a lot, but, in terms of the actual number of cars, it really isn't. I mean, it's not a shopping market or a mall or something where there's a lot of coming and going. The people come and they park and they \YOrk there for 8 hours. MR. ROBERTS-You get some visitors. MR. WALTER-The visitor load is very low. We keep a log there and we reviewed that and it's surprising. MR. CAlMANO-Well, I'll tell you, I brought the issue up. that there's not a big problem, then I'm perfectly willing if this is going to be called a Planning Board, then we up to discuss, that's my concern. If the discussion says to, all I want is that, have brought the issue MR. ROBERTS-Fair enough. Do we have any other questions for Mr. walters? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I guess I've got a quick question, here. In the planting plan that was presented to the Beautification Committee, was there anything in that planting plan with regard to vegetation on the south border, because Mr. Goralski has a comment regarding additional screening along that southern boundary. Right now the screening is kind of..stuff that's on somebody else's property. MR. WALTERS-That's incorrect, sir, that is on their property. MR. CARTIER-Cbuld we get on record? MR. CAIMANO-We1l, we have to open up the public hearing. MR. CARTIER-What I heard from the ether was that the trees that are there on the south side belong to the Nursing Home, are on Nursing Home property, is that correct? MR. WALTERS-11m spinning my wheels, 11m not precisely sure, but the..along the property line is probably on both sides of the line. on..some of it's on Nursing Home property. I think that Some of it's PUBLI C BEARIBÇ OPDlIID MR. ROBERTS-Would somebody care to comment on this project, in general and maybe that issue, specifically? HENRY KNOBLAUCH MR. KNOBLAUCH-Hi, my name is Henry Knoblauch. the proposed site. I own the property adjacent to MR. CARTIER-On the south side? MR. KNOBLAUCH-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Can you point it out? MR. KNOBLAUCH-I own this land, here (Referring to Map). First of all, they have a number of apple trees which come along their border on their land. Right now, the apple tree is adjacent to my shed, protrudes, approximately 15 feet. To construct this, they \YOuld have to remove it for trucks and whatever to come by, furthermore, on the aspect of the hydrant, they plan to come across my land to use this hydrant which I have no problem with that because they already do, in the winter time, snow blow a section of my land to the hydrant, however, I can stop them from doing this. In another essence, if they remove these trees for construction, that's 18 .,-, -.../ going to open up my entire back yard which has not been addressed and the lighting that is there now, I have three blankets, my bedroom window's right here, I have three blankets on my window to block the light off. I haven't complained about the light, but, should I complain about it, I wonder if it would be removed. MR. CARTIER-Okay, Wlen you say light, \\bat is it, a spotlight over a door or something? MR. KNOBLAUCH-It's a direct floodlight. MR. CARTIER-It floods that entire area? MR. KNOBLAUCH-Yes, it lights up, the light cast fran this light, here, comes all the way out into the road over on this side of my mobile home and it also lights up the entire back yard. MR. CARTIER-Is it a light designed to illuminate the entrance way and the sidewalk? MR. KNOBLAUCH-No, it's a security light for, I would say, vandalism. MR. CARTIER-Would screening help that? You're saying, if I'm hearing you right, those apple trees don't block any of that light. MR. KNOBLAUCH-No, the don't because the light is higher than the trees. MR. KUPILLAS-Is that on the building? MR. KNOBLAUCH-It's on top of the building, yes. MR. CARTIER-Well, it seems to me, I'm not a lighting engineer, but it seems to me a minor adjustment of that light certainly would reduce that effect. MR. KNOBLAUCH-And another thing, this building, here, is not going to do anything for the value of my property, as a matter of fact, it I s going to make it harder to sell if I try to sell it. MR. CARTIER-Why? May I ask why? MR. KNOBLAUCH-Why, would you buy a piece of property if there was a large building adjacent to the land? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. I'm asking you. I don't know. It's within setbacks. MR. KNOBLAUCH-I bought the land knowing that this building has existed, but I did not buy the land to have another building put in there and I was wondering, \\by can't they build above this. Why can't they build on top of it. MR. CARTIER-It's a Nursing Home. health related facilities. We don't do two floors in Nursing Homes, in MR. KNOBLAUCH-And they also have a large area of land, on this side, Wlich would seem more adequate to accommodate the building. I mean, all the problems have not been addressed. MR. CAlMANO-Where are the septic systems on that property? MR. WALTER-It's all in the City sewer system. MR. KNOBLAUCH-It's on City sewer system, so therels no problem with that. MR. PULVER-I would say maybe there's a problem with the location of the dining room and kitchen to have it located in that open area. It would be too far removed from other facilities that they would need for these patients and that's Why they located it where they did locate it. MR. KNOBLAUCH-Well, I understand that. I'm not questioning the location and everything, I'm questioning the fact that.. MR. CARTIER-I think, sir, ~ can address some of your concerns with regard to screening and lighting, however, that addition is in..rear line setbacks for that piece of property. MR. KNOBLAUCH-I realize that. 19 "'--' -..../ MR. CARTIER-Do I also understand, is it fair to say that your home is located at the very rear of your property? MR. KNOBLAUCH-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. KNOBLAUCH-But what Ilm saying is that, when they construct this, they're going to have to remove some of these things to get their construction vehicles through, without a doubt. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. KNOBLAUCH-Now, when they go back to re-p1ant, they're going to re-p1ant smaller trees. MRS. PULVER-They could construct one from the other way. They don't have .to come through your side. MR. KNOBLAUCH-No, I understand that, but what I'm saying is, the removal of these trees is, youlre going to have to do it. MR. ROBERTS-Well, ~ they going to have to do it? If they came around the other way with most of the heavy equipment. MR. KNOBLAUCH-Well, I've measured, the tree is, it covers a good 15 feet. MR. CARTIER-Are you interested in the screening primarily in terms of the light cast and blocking out light that's cast from this building? MR. KNOBLAUCH-I'm concerned with the view. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. KNOBLAUCH-The aesthetic view, and, not only that, there I s an elderly woman that lives over in this area which isn't shown on the map. She walks her cats through this area, right now. I'm just saying, because there is a Section here that, in Article 5 of the Site Plan Review, that accommodates for that. MR. CARTIER-Well, there are alternative paths for cats to walk. MR. KNOBLAUCH-Right, I understand that. The other thing that hasn't been addressed is the noise level. Now, there is an intake for the air system, that there's a fan and it does create noise. Now, additional intakes are going to be placed along here. I had a fire place, an outdoor fire place, "*1Ïch I had to move to the back of my property as to their request because they have an air intake right on the end of this building and natural flow of the air, they were sucking it in. Now, if they put one over here, Where am I going to move my fireplace? MR. CARTIER-There's nothing that would require you to move your fireplace. MR. KNOBLAUCH-I understand that. I already did move it because, I understand their problems, too, but the noise level of the intake fan, right now, I have no complaint with it, but the additional fans and intake necessary for another 40 beds will present a noise level that I'll have to complain about and, virtually, they won I t be able to shut these down. So, the noise level has not been addressed at all. BOB WHITMORE MR. WHITMORE -My name is Bob Whitmore and I live at 10 Nathan Street. I live at this location right here. The house is toward the front of the residence or toward the front of the property line. Some of my concerns are the screening from here. I was wondering if, possibly, they would come up with some kind of an evergreen pine that would not grow too high, but would kind of shade this area, here. There is a great barrier of green along here, but itls only good during the summer months. The fall and the winter it I S all wide open and you can see right through. I'm concerned with my privacy and also the privacy of the people over here. I understand that there's gping to be no lighting on this back side, so that doesn't really present a problem to me. The only other thing that presents a problem is that you're talking about not bringing the construction vehicles on this side, you're going to bring everything over here. You're only 30 feet from my property line, with bull bulldozers and excavating machines and the dump trucks, there is quite 20 '-' --../ a hedge and quite a bit of the hedge is on my land. That is a problem that could be rectified, I don't have a big problem with it, but it has to be repaired so there is some kind of a natural boundary there. I've been waiting to see it on this road. It took a long time to grow it. MR. ROBERTS-Do either of you gentleman see any reason why that natural vegetation needs to be destroyed for this construction, or most of it? MR. NEITZEL-I just want to say that I know, in talking with Miss Costello and the owner of the Nursing Home, as well, I think, first of all, that the idea of not allowing any heavy vehicles to go through that 14 foot gap, there, can be enforced. There is a construction manager on the project and 11m meeting with him on Friday and I will review that with him and tell him that, under no circumstance will heavy construction equipment be allowed to pass through there and that all care should be, all coming in off the site shall be on one of the existing driveways. I don't want to see anybody coming up one of the other roads there and, also, I will inform you that every effort shall be made to save every tree that it's possible to save on the site. MR. ROBERTS-It wouldn't seem like to much of a hardship to expect, perhaps, some additional vegetation to be planted there. MR. NEITZEL-I think we'd like to take a look at that and see what we can do about providing some additional screening in areas, again, especially in the winter time, to help block the addition. Maybe what we can do is, once construction is started and we get a feel for where the building is and the scale of the building, maybe you could contact the nursing home and I'd be glad to meet with you myself and we could walk back there and figure out where we should be locating some additional p1antings. I think we'll get a better idea, once the building's under construction, -Mlere the greatest impact would be and where we might need to put some more p1antings. MR. WHITMORE-The only other thing I'd like to address, the way this is constructed, right here, is, it's a little deceiving because this is all built up, mounded up on this edge of the building, right here. This part of the building is higher, actually, than this is. Actually, it's the same roof line, but the ground level is tota11y..it's about, at least, an 8 foot difference, probably and they're gping to have to excavate, just to get a truck in here, because it's all, they come up over a mound and you come down and I'm just concerned with the drainage problem here, if it's not repaired properly and is there going to be underwater drainage to these ponds here or is there going to be just. . ground. I know, because during the winter time they have a great amount of ground water, right here, that leaves he re . MR. ROBERTS-can you answer any of that stormwater management? MR. WALTER-Yes, the stormwater will be, there I s a swa1e shown by the finished contours on the drawings, to carry roof drainage and stormwater to the rear of that building between the building and the property line, to the east, and around the corner and into those detention areas. There's two large swales along western Avenue. Theyl re there now and we propose to improve those a little bit and make them just slightly deeper and improve with a little bit of grading, but that's -Mlere the stormwater will be kept on the property and not allow it to run onto the neighbors and I don't think that there's, I know what Bob's saying, the building is sitting up there rather high, I don't think it's 8 feet, but it's high at that point. Some of that maybe cut a little bit during construction, but that whole area will be restored at the completion of the project. That drainage plan is critical to the drainage..it has to be done. MR. WllITMORE-Cbu1d you tell me, any idea, how high this bui1ding' s going to be on the ground. Is it going to be just cedar block, up there, Or is it going to be the decorative block that's on the building now? MR. NEITZEL-What we I re proposing on doing is, ~'ve studied the existing building and I've told the Administrator that it I S not as beautiful a building as ~ I d like to have to do an addition to, so ~'re trying to do something a little bit nicer. We're planning on running a split based decorative block horizontally up to the window sill height of the building, all the way across, then gp with a textured panel surface, say, for the hei ght of the window and then gp wi th a metal facade along the top of the building to help break it up and, really, to try to. .down on this scale. I think, right now, with everything coming up vertically, the various panels, it tends to accentuate the height and I think this will give it a settling effect into the ground. 21 ~ -./ MR. CARTIER-How high, sir? MR. NEITZEL-Fourteen to fourteen feet six inches, I believe. MR. ROBERTS-How is that, in relation to What's there? MR. NEITZEL-It depends on Where youl re talking about. It's about the same height as the Nursing Home existing wings, right now. I think it's within six inches of the wings, right now, there. MR. WHITMORE-Okay, I haven't really got any other problems than that with the unit itself. I know it's needed and my grandmother's in one, just as long as we can make the stipulation that we can do something with some grade in the back there. MARION RUSSELL MRS. RUSSELL-I want to speak to the people. going to put the garbage over there. I want to find out Where they're MR. ROBERTS-Where's the dumpster going to be? Anybody know? Is that on the chart? MRS. RUSSELL-Is that going to be right in the back of my fence, so I can smell it? MR. NEITZEL-Right here is Where the dumpster I s going to be, next to the laundry addition. We have a..here. Pretty much, it IS a compactor/dumpster combination, right next to the loading dock area. MRS. RUSSELL-Why I am asking is, because the last four years I have had that to contend with and I have asked and I have begged of the Hallmark to fix it. They've ruined my back yard. They've ruined my back porch, so I cannot sleep out on my back porch, from the smell. MR. PULVER-Where's your home? Point to it. MRS. RUSSELL-It's right on the front side of MR. GORALSKI-On Sherman Avenue. MRS. RUSSELL-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Is that dumpster in a different location than it is presently? MRS. RUSSELL-Now, they have put in a compactor or whatever you call it. Right now it's over by their.. but where they'll put it when they build the building, I don't know. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's What we're trying to solve. MRS. RUSSELL-We do need a nursing home very badly up there. Those beds are really needed. I am not finding fault with the beds if it'll take care of the. .so they don't smash the fences again. Eight fences on my back lot have been put up there and they didn't fix one. Now, I think they could do a little bit better. Because 11m a woman, they don't pay any attention. I went over there and I asked their Administrator and he didn I t do a thing about it. I went to the health officer and he didn't do a thing about it. MR. CART I ER-Ma 'am, \æ' re talking about a fence on your property, is that correct? The fence is on your property? MRS. RUSSELL-Yes. MR. CARTIER-It has been knocked down by parked cars or MRS. RUSSELL-By their, from Hallmark, either by the nurses or the people that go in there. MR. CARTIER-Okay, is there a way to put wheel stops in? MRS. RUSSELL-And it's the same up the side. Itls the same on the east side, that's been smashed also. One girl smashed 50 feet of it down and she was nice enough to come and say that she had run in there because her brakes failed and she paid me for it and at that time the Administrator was very cross with me because I took the money. 22 '---' '-"" MR. CARTIER-Is there a way to get wheel stops in, Mr. Walters, in such a way that vehicles don't run into this fence? It sounds like the people are backing into the fence when they park or whatever. MR. WALTER-I think if you look at the landscape plans, although it may not have been specifically required in that area, we tried to make an effort to property line around the..we called for some fencing and some plantings on those two sides. We also relocated the, you might call it a dumpster. There is a large container out there which is used to store..that's all.. MRS. RUSSELL-That isn't the one that I'm talking about. MR. WALTER-Okay, but that thing kind of sticks up there and it's a little bit of an eyesore and we propose to move that. That's shown on the plans to be relocated. The dumpster, itself, sits up near the dock. MRS. RUSSELL-Now, but for four years I smelled it. Out in my back yard, you couldn't eat under my butternut tree or even, I sleep on the back porch. I couldn't do it because that smelled something terrible. You nor anybody else ever smelled any cow barn ever smelled like that. MR. CARTIER-How often is the dumpster emptied? KATHERINE COSTELLO MISS roSTELLO-I'm Katherine Costello. To answer your question about the dumpster, it's a compactor, now, that was purchased in January 1st. We knew about the problem. We were contacted by, I forgot who it was, but we bought the compactor from them and we've used the dumpster system and it is emptied every five weeks, that's all we need to do. MR. CARTIER-Are we talking garbage, here, that sits there for five weeks? MISS roSTELLO-In a compactor, yes, an electric compactor. MR. CARTIER-We I re talking about edible waste? We I re talking about stuf f out of the dining room, that kind of material, or are we talking about wrappings? MRS. PULVER-Human waste? MR. CARTIER-Not human waste. MISS roSTELLO-No, that's infectious waste and that's shipped out differently. MR. CARTIER-Well, ~'re talking about edible waste, stuf f that comes out of the dining room and it sits there for five weeks? MISS roSTELLO-Yes, that's when it fills up and then it's removed, but it doesn't have an incredible smell. The problem that she I s presenting over the last four years, though, WiS that we had dumped the trash in a bin and that was removed every, ~ek, I think it was. MR. CARTIER-Are you saying that problem is solved, now? MISS roSTELLO-I think it is. MR. CAlMANO-Let me make sure, Peter, that you understand something, here, too. I don I t know whether you have access to this compactor. We have one, also. It is not a sealed unit. At the front end of the unit, where the conveyor belt goes in, that is not sealed, so, potentially, there is odor there and also, potentially, there is little puppies that could run around. It is not a sealed unit at the front end. Does that answer your question. MR. CARTIER-Well, Wiat I'm think of is that if you have edible stuff that's degrading out there for five weeks, especially this time of year, I can certainly understand that there I s an odor problem, that's going to generate an odor problem if this thing is not sealed. MR. CAIMANO-I agree. MISS roSTELLO-We've had it since January and there hasnlt been a problem, yet. 23 "'--' ~ MR. CARTIER-Well, welre just starting the season, here. MR. ROBERTS-Has Mrs. Russell seen any difference since January? Has there been any improvement? MRS. RUSSELL-When the south wind blows, you can smell an odor, but nothing compared to what it was. It was right by my back fence, wi thin, about, 20 inches, or so of my back fence and I'm telling you it was clear into my back porch it smelled something terrible. MR. ROBERTS-Well, apparently, we've moved it away from where.. MRS. RUSSELL-They've got the compactor thing, now, and it's by their back door. The reason they moved it over by my fence is because the Administrator at that time said that they couldn't stand the smell over there so they moved it over by me. MR. CARTIER-But itls not there now, correct? MRS. RUSSELL-It's not there, no, there's just the cardboard. They put cardboard in. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, thank you very much. MRS. RUSSELL-It isn't the looks that I am, it's the smell that was terrible. MR. ROBERTS-Apparently, we've rendered some improvement, here. MR. CARTIER-Frank, I still missed something here, about wheel stops. Did I understand you to say that between Mrs. Russell's property and here, there will now be a fence owned by Hallmark Nursing? MR. WALTER-That's correct. It's a discontinuous fence. It's a stockade fence and sections of planting, but it will be on Hallmark's property to try to provide some screening there from Mrs. Russell's property. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Hallmark's fence. So, if anybody's going to run into fence, it I s going to be MR. WALTER-They're going to take Hallmark's fence down first. MR. ROBERTS-Is there anyone else in the audience who cares to comment on this project? PUBLI C BlARlBG (1.OSED MR. ROBERTS-I guess we can close the public hearing and address SEQRA. JŒSOLU'I'ION WIlEN DETEBIIINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS IlADE JŒSOLU'I'ION NO. 42-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: regarding THE HALLMARK NURSING œNTRI, IRC. for COIIIIStructio1lll. of a 40 bed nursing wing addi ti01lll., 1IIIe11l dining/lowmge .Jdi ti01lll., mew laU1lll.<iry /staff loUlllge additio1ll (16,000 sq. ft.) and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE SOL VED : 1. No federal a~ncy appears to be involved. 2. The following a~ncies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 24 \..- '--" 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a st atement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE IIOI'ION TO APPROVE SI'lE PLAN NO. 42-90 pT.ToMAR NUBSING CENTRE, INC., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For construction of a 40 bed nursing wing addition, including a dining/lounge addition and laundry/staff lounge addition for a total of 16,000 sq. ft. with the following stipulations: Number One, the lighting system in the court yard, created by the new construction, be directed so as not to illuminate the adjoining property, that the security light on the southwest end of the present building be adjusted so as not to illuminate the adjacent property, present screening be maintained as much as possible. No construction vehicles be allowed to access the construction site around the southwest wing; that 10 foot wide walkways, built to roadway specifications, be provided around the east and west sides; that the planting and fencing plan approved by the Beautification Committee be implemented; and that odor control from the compactor be carefully monitored and that measures to reduce odor be implemented, should the be required; that any screening removed along the southerly border be replaced and additional evergreen screening be provided along the entire southerly border; that noise control measures be implemented with regard to installation of air intake fans and consideration be given to the replacement of the older fans and older construction. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. KNOBLAUcH-You didn't addre ss the noi se. MR. CARTIER-That's right. With regard to air intake fans, Ilm assuming the ones that are presently on the building are, how old? MR. NEITZEL-Thirty years. MR. CARTIER-Okay, technology being what it is over the last thirty years, what about new air intake fans, have they been made more quiet? MR. NEITZEL-What I'm going to do is my mechanical engineer is going to be at the building with me on Friday. Let me take a look at that and review with him the replacement costs with him and also with the Director of Maintenance for all of the Hallmark Nursing Homes. I think that's something, if they haven't broken down by now, they must be near due to be replaced anyway. So, let me work that out with them and we can get something of a quieter air intake fan and I'll also make sure that any fans in the new wing will be either located at the top of the building and will not direct sound directly out to the south side of the building. MR. CAIMANO-May I make a statement before we finish with this? Mr. Chairman, in view of some of the things that have happened and in view of some conversations that Mr. Cartier and I have had, I'd like to compliment Mr. walters and Mr. Neitzel in their association with their neighbors and how they're trying, here, to get the problems resolved rather than fight with each other. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, thanks a lot. 25 '-' -./ SID PLAN NO.. 43-90 'r1PE: UNLISDD HC-lA LEO LœBAItDO LEO'S LœSTltR--BOUSE OWRER: L & fG: LœBABDO atS'r SIDE OF ILOU'lIt 9 FOR fntSTRUCllœ OF A NII.V DINING RO<If SO THA'r THE EXISTING SPAŒ 0\11 BE A VAITING AREA.. CaRlEN ooœ'rY PLABNING) TAX MAP NO.. 33-1-10. 11. 13 Lor SIZE: 3.851 AQŒS SECllœ 4.020 K RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-The warren County Planning Board approved and no action was taken by the Beautification Committee. The Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped: "According to the new ruling of the New York State Codes, dated December 6, 1989, an access aisle of 8 feet wide is needed between the handicapped parking spaces. Also, the new dining room addition should be accessible and usable." øGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, TOWl Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERl'S-Is there someone here to appear on behalf of this client? I hope youlre in receipt of these comffents. They're available to you on the front table. MR. RUCINSKI-I'm Ron Rucinski. I'm the architect for this project. On the issue of the curb cuts, they were installed by the State some years agP When improvements were made to Route 9. This being just a summer operation, he does not plow it in the winter time. So, the extreme northerly curb cut serves his residence, Which is the only part of the site thatls used in the winter time. If we were to close the southerly curb cut where the new parking area is, we'd be forcing traffic to move back and forth across the inside of the site which might be more hazardous than putting them out on Route 9. Route 9, at that point, is three lane s . MR. HAGAN-We had a question, when we were up that at the time, the entrance. When youl re approaching your property or your entrance from the north, it seemed to uS it would make more sense if you did away with your first curb entirely, after your first entrance because, when your traffic is coming north, they're coming at a greater speed than that traf fic entering from the south. The traffic coming from the north seems to be coming at a greater rate of speed and your entrance is containing them or forcing them to make a rapid stop to enter, that was our opinion and I don't see where it would cause any hardship if you did away with the first curb after your first entrance. MR. RUCINSKI-You're talking, that would be this curb, then, between the restaurant and the miniature golf? MR. HAGAN-That's right. Isn't that the one, Nick? MR. CAlMANO-Ye s. MR. ROBERl'S-That's actually the main entrance. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, that's the main entrance to the restaurant part. MR. CAlMANO-Widen it is all welre saying, just take the curb out of there. MR. HAGAN-We're not telling you to stop that entrance, just get rid of that first curb after the entrance, Or widen it. MR. CAIMANO-Because what's happening is, traffic is moving at such a rate of speed, as Jim says, that this..exit into your property at a higher rate. MR. RUCINSKI-Those curbs are owned by the State of New York. MR. ROBERl'S-They'd have to apply for that, probably. I don't know where the State would allow it. MR. RUCINSKI-I can't imagine that they \\ QuId make us make that cut bigger than it is. 26 "'-' ..-./ MRS. PULVER-That's \\hat he said. They put those in when they put the road in. He didn't do it. MR. RUCINSKI-I think those openings are now a little wider and they would issue a permit for them. MR. CARTIER-What we can do to address that is, the one entrance and exit kind of situation. That would help. If ~ can I t get these curbs moved, ~ can change the flow of traffic into and out of and that would help. I think what we talked about was, at the northern most cut, that be an entrance only. The next one down, be an exit only, going north to south, and I don I t remember what we said about the two southerly ones, if ~ did say anything at all about them. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, the two southerly ones are, effectively, dead ended parking areas, unless you force people across in front of the.. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but is it fair to say that the two northerly entrances are, primarily, for the.. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, in the summer time, yes. In the winter time (TAPE TURNED) MR. CARTIER-But in the summer time I think we would improve traffic flow and get things off the road a lot easier. MR. RUCINSKI-We don't have a way to get to from the northern most curb cut to the rear parking lot. MR. CARTIER-Why not? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, you just can't get through there. 11m not saying that this is a great site plan, it's just that we're stuck with some unfortunate conditions. So, if this northern most curb cut becomes entrance only, someone has to turn into the parking lot, drive across the front of the restaurant and then make what will be a tight right turn to the rear parking lot. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. My concern that I have is getting into and off Route 9 and doing it in such a way that we eliminate potential problems on Route 9. I agree with you that you've got a site plan problem internally, but, as far as 11m concerned, the greater problem is into and out of Route 9. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, I have no problem trying to turn those into one way entrance and exit and see how it works, but that doesn't mean ~ won't be back here in a month, saying welve created more problems than welve solved. MR. CARTIER-What might help, I don't remember your parking numbers at the moment, but if you took that parking lot that is at, I'm looking at the restaurant now, the southern most parking slot, okay? Two left from the handicapped, you know what I'm talking about? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-If you eliminated that one, that might help getting around. MR. RUCINSKI-it would help with the turn that we were just talking about, yes. We can spare one space and still meet the zoning requirements. PUBLIC BEARING OPIlØED NO (ØtMllØr P1DBLIC BEARINC'i ø.OSED MR. ROBERTS-What kind of SEQRA do we need with this? MR. GORALSKI-Short Form. MR. cARTIER-(Referring to SEQRA) We have a comment, somewhere, about drywells. Did we address everything on this? MR. HAGAN-The engineers report. MR. ROBERTS-There was a sug~stion by the engineer in his report. 27 '-' ..-..../ MR. CAlMANO-Yes, and in Lee York's notes, too. MR. ROBERTS-This is for Wayne Gannett, "Adequate stormwater management has been provided at the new parking area. Runoff from the new building addition may be minimal; but we suggest the applicant consider installing a dry well or equivalent for roof runoff. II MR. CAIMANO-What about Mrs. York I s comments in Paragraph 3, liThe septic system is not fully identified on the plans. There is no indication of \o.here the septic tank is. There are two leach fields identified, a portion of \o.hich appears to go under a parking area." MR. ROBERTS-Maybe elsewhere it was suggested that we're not increasing the need beyond what exists, apparently. MR. CAIMANO-It doesn't say that. MR. ROBERTS-Well, Paragraph 1 of the Engineer's (Report), lilt appears that no increase in dining area is proposed. II MR. CAlMANO-It says there is to be no additional seating. MR. ROBERTS-"However, if it is increased in the future, the adequacy of the existing septic system would need to be verified." MR. RUCINSKI-I have talked to Wayne Gannett on this, on the roof runoff and it will have a gable roof and I sure don't want to put gutters on the roof in this climate. What I proposed to Wayne was that we would put French drains at the drip line right at the foundation wall going down to the foundation which would reach the roof water as it comes down. MR. ROBERTS-Especially if this is only open for the stmlmer, I would think that would address the problem. MRS. PULVER-Where is the septic tank? MR. RUCINSKI-I don't know. There's no way of identifying them out there. I can tell you where he says they are, but I'm not putting my seal on it. There's a reported A septic tank and tile field, here, between the house and the restaurant which, apparently, goes way back, to some earlier life of the restaurant building and then there's a second system reported to be behind the miniature golf area. Now, that septic tank for that tile field is reported to be, here, at this corner of the restaurant. The only way to find it is to go dig and that would be counter productive because it's not having a problem. MR. ROBERTS-Since we're not expanding the need, this wou1dn't seem to be a problem. MR. RUCINSKI-There'll be no additional p1tmlbing ~th this addition. seating space and it I s just so we can create some waiting space, waiting don It have to stand. It's strictly so the people MR. cAlMANO-And there'll be no additional seating, as I understand it. MR. RUCINSKI-No, it'll stay at 125, which is Where it is now. MR. cARTIER-John, if, at sane time in the future he wanted to turn this addition into a waiting area, would he have to come back? MR. GORALSKI-At this point I think that would be open to interpretation as to whether he was increasing the use of the site. MR. cAlMANO-Yes, we talked about that at that day. MR. GORALSKI-I think, and that interpretation is the Zoning Administrator's interpretation, I think that if you were to accept that and you wanted to be sure that, if it did, in fact, become seating, you put in your motion that if any increase seating were to arise from this project that they would have to come back. The only thing I can tell you is, I have no idea how that I s going to be enforced. I don't know how we're going to know, unless we go out to dinner, whether or not.. 28 ",-,. "-../ MR. ROBERTS-Now remember, this is the Department of Health jurisdiction, as well and we're not the only one's thinking of the septic system and if the septic system fails, obviously, he has to replace it. MR. CAlMANO-Well, John jogged my memory. Jim, I remember talking about the fact that, \\hile they weren't going to increase the seating, as Ron just said, they are going to increase the waiting area, ~ich effectively increases the number of people who can be in there at anyone time and, of course, use the septic facilities. It's not too far presumptuous to assume that people sitting and waiting will be just as likely to use the lavatory as people sitting and eating. So, there is going to be an increase in people. MR. CARTIER-If this is a situation where a septic system has not been looked at for a considerable length of time, one of the things that we've done in the past is require that they be looked at and certified and we are looking at expansion, here, in terms of use, as Mr. Caimano points out, in terms of number of people, anyway and I hate to let this one just slip by. The fact that we're being told that someone is not prepared to certify even its location, makes me, raises a flag, with me. MR. cAlMANO-My only concern here is, if we pass a motion, and I see where you're headed with this thing, Karla, are we on firm ground? We're, essentially, passing a motion which is a, it seems to me would be the purview of the Zoning Administrator. MS. CORPUS -Mr. Caimano, I guess I'd have to ask exactly what type of wording you had in mind. MR. cAIMANO-I don't have it he has it. MR. cARTIER-Who has it? MR. cAlMANO-You. MR. cARTIER-I 1m not talking about a motion. MR. ROBERTS-Still addressing issues. MR. cARTIER-Ye s, things ~re flashing into my head where, as in situations like this, in the past, we have not, or we required that the septic system be certified. We just ran somebody through that and it took her year to ~t through it. MR. cAlMANO-Yes, so the motion would be MR. cARTIER-I'm not even talking about a motion, ~ll, I guess I am, in terms of tabling, until we can get some firmer data, here, on adequacy of this septic system. MR. cAIMANO-Yes, ~ll, the thing I was thinking of, Karla, \\as passing a motion which, in effect, wuld say, this motion only applies if you have your septic looked at and certified. we're now getting into a contingent MS. CORPUS-Oonditional approval? MR. cAIMANO-Enforcement, as opposed to, aren't we, because I don't want to get there, I'd rather table it. MS. CORPUS -I guess it would depend on what the outcome would be if the septic didnlt..that's correct, that's the problem. MR. cAIMANO-Well, I guess if the architect involved with putting this project before us, is going to stand there and say, he wouldn't put his seal on this, for approval MR. RUCINSKI-Well, that's only because I don't know. MR. cAlMANO-Fine. MR. RUCINSKI-But there's no reported problems with it working. MR. cAlMANO-Yes, but youlre asking us to increase the use of that facility and then, \\hat happens then, ~ don't know. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, as I understand, what he explained to me, he's going to do and what our application says, is that the number of diners is 125, will stay 29 '-- '--" at 125. Now, his people waiting, his customers waiting stand and all he wants to do is take a little area and be able to put some chairs and tables so that they are seated while theyl re waiting to dine, which would not, the way we would calculate the load on a sewage disposal system, that wouldn't change those calculations. MR. HAGAN-I would challenge that statement. MR. CAIMANO-I would, too. MR. HAGAN-I would challenge that statement, based on the fact that he is going to have tables and chairs which are going to enhance the waiting period and also give the proprietor, here, a chance to serve more beverages and I think that's going to put an added load on his septic system and I think we're well in our bounds, here, to ask that the system be certified as being capable of taking care of the 125 diners plus how many extra waiting seats of people he'll have. MR. CARrIER-The other thing that concerns me is with the indicated location of the septic system, if I'm looking at the right place, here, is that it is very close to a drainage easement that was flowing quite heavily when we were out there. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARrIER-And, if I recall, and 11m not sug~sting it's from this leach field, but if I recall there was more than algae growing in that water, and so on. What sort of requirements are we looking at, in terms of a leach field being a certain distance away from a drainage easement, an open drainage easement? Are there any requirements? MR. YARMOWICH-Ye s, there are. I cannot red te the particular... MR. CARrIER-Thatls all I need to know. Youlve answered my question. MR. YARMOWICH-That should be maintained for new systems. MR. ROBERTS-As our previous applicant was saying, he made them twice as far as required, whatever the requirement is. MR. CARrIER-I requirements. don't need the number, I just need to know So, I think that needs to be addressed, here, also. that there are MR. KUPILLAS-Well, if you had the site plan, then you' d know how close they were to this. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I guess we're not comfortable going forward with this. MR. HAGAN-We just don't have enough information. MR. CAlMANO-I'm not. MR. CARrIER-I think it might help, too, in addressing and coming up with the actual location of these septic systems or leach fields and they're adequacy, it might help if we had, added to this blueprint, the traffic flow that we mentioned, the entrance and egress and shows French drains and so on. So, that welve got a complete picture of this thing. MR. RUCINSKI-Fine. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I guess what we would be asking the applicant, then, is to agree to a tabling for this additional information. MR. cARrIER-And just to add that one other thing, in terms of showing handicapped parking, too. I think if all of those things are addressed on here, assuming the leach field/septic system's okay, we can get it approved pretty quickly through this next time around, I hope. MR. RUCINSKI-I assume it'll be sufficient to address the leaching field that are used by the customers? MR. KUPILLAS-We11, let's see the one between the house and the MRS. PULVER-By the restaurant. 30 ~ '--" MR. RUCINSKI-Itls this corner. MR. ROBERTS-So, I VJe? this one that is used, the restroans for the customers are in guess VJe don I t want to pry into the system for the house, do MR. CARTIER-Well, now wait a minute, v,e're looking at a whole package, here. Welve got everything on here and, I assume, that's the septic system for the house, over here, the northerly most lot? MR. RUCINSKI-That's the kitchen, the restaurant kitchen, as I understand it. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then that's not the house one. Is the house on it's own septic system? MR. RUCINSKI-I really don't know. MR. CAlMANO-The problem is, that's not for sure. Hels saying he thinks, thatls What he's been told. MR. RUCINSKI-This is where I've been told it is. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then I guess MR. RUCINSKI-I filed a free hand sketch in the Building Department files that indicates that this system exists somewhere over here. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and thatls for the restaurant and this one over here? MR. RUCINSKI-My understanding is, it services the kitchen. the house. I don't know. It may also serve MR. KUPILLAS-Well, v,eld want to see both of them... MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Something like that's not even grandfathered? MR. GORALSKI-Grandfathered, yes, until you increase the use. MR. CARTIER-I don't think you VJere privy to that(referring to Mr. RucinskU. Maybe you should have heard that, with regard to the question of whether that one serves both the house and the kitchen, that's a question that's going to need to be ansv,ered because if that system serves both the house and the kitchen, v,e may be looking at. . MR. KUPILLAS-The kitchen is what we should be looking at. If it serves anything to do with that restaurant, v,e should see it, right? MR. cARTIER-Okay. I agree. MRS. PULVER-Do v,e need a motion to table? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. lIarum TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 43-90 LEO LOMBARDO LEOIS LOBSTER-ROUSE, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For construction of a new dining room so that the existing space can be a waiting area. The Board would like to see handicapped parking be addressed. The septic systems location and size for the restaurant and the kitchen be certified as adequate. That the french drains be shown on the plans and the traffic ingress and egress be shown on the plan. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SIm PLAN NO_ 44-90 'I1PE~ œLISTED PC-1A ABJtAIIAM ItWNIQ( QŒENSBtDRY GARPJ ftS, INC. OWNn: SAllE 15 FOSTER A vlltfœ FOIt CONSTt'OCTION Œ A 1,536 SQ _ FT.. GA.a: TO HOUSE 110lIl THAN ONE ŒJMMERC£AL VJlBICLE PLUS LA. IlAIN'lENANœ EQ1:DIPHIItf'l_ TAX MAP NG. 102-1-18 Lor SIZE: 0..85 AQŒS SE:ClION 4.020 oJ ABRAHAM RUDNICK, PRESENT 31 -- -' STAFF INPUt .. Notes fran Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, is there anyone here, Mr. Rudnick's here. elaborate on this? Would you care to MR. RUDNICK-My name is Abe Rudnick. You can ask me any questions you want. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, it seems pretty straight forward to me. I guess I'm a little concerned about how many trees you're going to have to cut down for the driveway. Can you work your way around, through there? MR. RUDNICK-The storm took a lot. MR. ROBERTS-You did lose a lot of them. MR. RUDNICK-Yes, 72. MR. cARTIER-Is this going to have electrical lighting in the building? MR. RUDNICK-I have it for the house.. MR. cARTIER-Just lighting? MR. RUDNICK-Just lighting. MR. cAlMANO-What about the security lights, Mr. Rudnick? Are you going to have outdoor lights for security, for protection of the trucks? MR. RUDNICK-Well, so far I haven I t had any problems up there, but if I have any problems, II11 put some light outside. I wasn't planning on doing it, but maybe it's just good to have it. If I need it, I'll put it up. MR. cARTIER-How many vehicle s are we talking about? MR. RUDNICK-Well, ~ have two plow trucks, pickups with plows. Then we have a couple of garden tractors..equipment, supplies. MR. cARTIER-So, this material would be kept mostly in the garage? MR. RUDNICK-Inside, right now I've got them allover the place. MR. cAlMANO-Is that your residence, next door? MR. RUDNICK-Right next door. MR. ROBERTS-But you don't live in it? MR. RUDNICK-No, this is the office. My residence is down the road a bit. MRS. PULVER-Okay, that house, there, is the office? MR. RUDNICK-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay, the house is the office. MR. cARTIER-So, there's nobody in the office at night, overnight. area is empty? That whole MR. RUDNICK-Not right now, not during the night. Later on, probably, if it's going to be ..have somebody living there. I don't know. I hope not. So far we have no problems. MR. cAlMANO-Well, I don't really see any problems. MR. ROBERTS-No, I don't see any problems either. MR. HAGAN-I did have a question because I didnlt see elevation drawings, but this is going to be one story? 32 '---' ~ MR. RUDNICK-One story. MR. HAGAN-Because the present building does have somewhat of a storage 10ft. MR. RUDNICK-Right. MR. HAGAN-So, this is going to be just a one story? MR. RUDNICK-I.and an attic. MR. CAlMANO-The only comn:ent I have is, if you are going to put security lighting in, I assume, that you are MR. GORALSKI-Yes, Stu was just concerned that if there was any outdoor lighting that it wouldnlt be shining on any of the neighbors property. MR. CAlMANO-Right, consider the neighbors when you put the light in. MR. ROBERTS-Most of the neighbors are his tenants. Hels gPt to be rather concerned about that. So, I think that IS self policing. MR. CAlMANO-okay. Do you want me to do this one? MR. ROBERTS-Sure. PUBLIC BEARING OPJlBED NO CØfMI!NT PUBLIC BEARING ~OSED RESOLUTION WIlEN DE'lItRIIlNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION NO. 44-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: aJiIIIIStructiolll of a l,536 sq. ft. prage to lløuse more than ome c..mercial vehicle plus laWIII. maintenance equipmellbt frOlli AB~BAM a.UDNIØ{ œf Queensbury Gardens, Il11C. and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE SOL VED : 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. 33 '-' --../ Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupi11as, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MarION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-90 ABRABAH RUDNICK, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For the construction of a one story, 1,536 sq. ft. garage to house more than one commercial vehicle plus lawn maintenance equipment. If outdoor lighting, for security, is needed, that it not be directed towards neighbors. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupi11as, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE (END OF FIRST DISK) 34 '-'0 -- SITE PLAN NO. 45-90 TVE II WR-lA DR. ROBERT L. EVANS OWNER: SAME MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE TO ADD A RAILING TO THE COVERED BOAT SLIP TO BE USED AS A SONDECK. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUlITY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 13-1-18 1m SIZE: ±o.47 ACRES SEClIQN 4.020 D BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-And the County approved? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. PULVER-I have a question. Did we have a letter, originally, from the Abbott's, saying they didn't mind, or were they here in person? MR. GORALSKI-They sent a letter. MRS. PULVER-Okay, they did send a letter? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. PULVER-And they are, specifically, to the south, right? MR. GORALSKI-To the south, yes. MR. PULVER-They did not object. MR. ROBERTS-We were particularly concerned about getting in and out of this dock, to some extent, infringes on the waters.. MRS. PULVER-He did not seem to feel there was going to be any problem with it. MR. ROBERTS-Is there someone here to appear for the applicant? MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, for the record, my name is Bob Stewart. I'm here for Dr. and Mrs. Evans. I don't have any long speech tonight. The dock has been approved by the Lake Ge orge Park Commission, t ~ Department of Environmental Conservation. It was reviewed by the Warren County Planning Board and approved. It meets all of the requirements of the dock, t ~ height, the width and everything. The only question is the railing and you may recall, some of you weren't here. At the last meeting, t~re were only four members and Mr. Cartier felt fairly strongly against a railing for reasons I'm sure he will enunciate, but also said that he felt a little uncomfortable that his vote, alone, was forcing the issue. So, -we sort of left with a gentleman I s agreement that we would be approved on everything, except the railing, and that I would re-apply and come back here, tonight, and with a full Board we would discuss just t ~ railing. So, t bat I S Why we're here. There is no rule or prohibition against a railing on the boathouses on Lake Ge crge. Some are V-Shaped roofs. Some are flat roofs with rails, probably 50/50 around the Lake, depending Which way you go. The concept of this Board giving a site plan review of a dock is new, I guess. I think it just came in with the Ordinance that was passed in the Fall of 1988. I don't understand it and maybe this Board doesn't understand it either. The docks are so regulated it can be exactly, only so high, so wide, so many linear feet. MR. HAGAN-And so far feet back from the property line. MR. STEWART-So far feet back from the property line, shapes and all the rest of it and then they say, and then take it to this Board and this Board has to spend its time on a site plan review, but I don It know really whatls to say, at that point, but, in any event, -we're here, on it, and, since it has been part of the Ordinance, here are two, I believe that the Board has reviewed and passed,. .railings. Those being the applications of Judge Moynihan and Mr. and Mrs. Hans. I don't know if there's ever been an application where a railing has ever been denied an applicant, although I donlt really have a..on every application that's come before you. So, I really think t ~ question is, comes down to the railing, is it proper? 35 '-' ~' MR. HAGAN-My only statement on that, Bob, is the other docks met the setbacks. Now, docks are allowed to be so high. If they have a ridge roof, they're allowed to be higher, but they have to conform to other requirements. This dock does not conform to all the requirements. I think, on that basis, this Board has the right to a judgement call. MR. STEWART-Well, again, all I can say is, the law says the boathouse can be 14 feet high. This is a couple of feet under the requirement. MR. HAGAN-It also says it's supposed to be 15 feet from the property line and this isnlt. MR. STEWART-And it says 'We're entitled to get a relief from that from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HAGAN-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-And the Planning Board's also entitled to make judgement calls, Mr. Stewart, that's what it comes down to, that's the nub of the situation, I guess. I I m sure everybody knows where I stand. Let me just say my peace and then we 111 go from there. My problem with it was and continues to be that the proposed dock has a greater impact on the Abbott Property to the sout h than it does t he Evans Property. It involves maneuvering boats in front of the Abbott Property. It's only 10 feet from the Abbott Property line. It's in site view of the Abbott Property and my concern was trying to get some sort of compromise to reduce that impact on the Abbott's and what I was hoping to do was eliminate the railing which would permit the use of that for pe op1e sitting up there, so that now we would not have people sitting in the Abbott's site view and that's, basically, my concerns. I understand, and I note, that the Abbott's don't have any objections, but, as I pointed out once before, 'We have to take the long view on these and look beyond present owners. Besides, as stated by you, Mr. Stewart, in the application somewhere, verbally that t he reason for the top was to protect the wooden boat and wouldn't that roof on there. .providing that protection for that.. The railing and the fact that somebody could sit up there is not going to help in protection of the wooden boat. So, that's where I'm at. MRS. PULVER-Okay, lid like to say a couple of things, Peter. First of all, the railing isn't going to have any effect on the Abbott's boats going and coming, whatever. I mean, the dock is already there. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I understand that. MRS. PULVER-Okay, so whether they have this railing, or not, that doesn't change the boat situation. That situation already exists, t he getting in and getting out. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. MRS. PULVER-Okay, the Abbottls donlt seem to object and they don't seem to care whether they try to sell their property and can I t sell it because Dr. Evans has put a railing up. So, I guess, if they're unconcerned, then I can't be concerned about that issue. We have a110'Wed this man to cover his boat with a deck. MR. CARTIER-With a roof. MRS. PULVER-Well, a deck. MR. CARTIER-Well, let's not debate that. MRS. PULVER-We did not make him alter his original plan and pitch, put shingles on it. I mean, he has a deck, there and I feel he's probably going to use it and he has small children and maybe elderly family and I certainly don I t want to be responsible if somebody takes a dive. MR. CARTIER-Be sure you understand that if there's no railing there, that, legally, cannot be used as a sundeck for sitting. If that sundeck is going to be used for sitting, legally, there has to be a railing there. Please understand what I'm talking about, here. MRS. PUL VER- Ye s . MR. CARTIER-By eliminating the railing, I also understand that I am limiting anybody sitting up there, becoming part of that site view. 36 '- '-'" MRS. PULVER-But, this man a deck. again, the Abbott's donlt seem to mind and I think that we've If we..we ought to give him the railing to go with it. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I guess I agree, too. MRS. PULVER-And it's not anything that we haven't done in the past. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, it's customary procedure. I sailed by your dock, today, matter of fact, and the same kind of situation is all up and down the Lake. kind of changing the game plan in the middle of the stream here, too. as a Welre MRS. PULVER-Right, let's be consistent. MR. CAIMANO-I didn't get a chance to be here, the first time. I think that Peter is, obviously, right. He has a roof. He doesn I t have a deck, but I just want to make sure that welre arguing about the right thing. To me, the Abbott's have not complained. If there is no complaint because of the site line, then there is no problem, to me. It is not the matter of the roof versus the deck because, in fact, I think you came here for a roof. Did you not, originally? MRS. PULVER-No, he came for a deck. MR. CAlMANO-If he came for a deck, then welve caused a bad problem. MRS. PULVER-We gave him everything, but the railing. MR. CAlMANO-In the philosophical sense, I probably Unfortunately, if you came for a deck, and we gave you a dangerous situation, and, more importantly, to me, it. would agree with Peter. a deck, we've also created nobody's complained about MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-If somebody has complained about it, then I think there's a real question of whether it should be approved, but there's no complaint. MR. ROBERTS-I just wonder if we're to do this tonight, it seems to me we want to, I donlt know, right it into the Ordinance or look at this a little differently. MR. CAlMANO-That' s a whole ot her question. They have to go on what's now. We canlt rewrite the Ordinance and then pass judgement on this. to pass judgement on what's there now. in there We have MR. HAGAN-The thing that I find impossible to accept is the statement or the belief that this Board must accept somebody I s request because it has been accepted in the past. Living in the same neighborhood, I wish that the rules, 20 years ago, were what they are today and I would enjoy, my particular residence, much better than I do now because, to my left, my entire view of the Bay is obliterated by a dock and a deck and people and umbrellas and tables and, if I were the Abbott's, I would strenuously object to this deck, but the Abbott's don't so, therefore, I'm not, but I want it to be on record that, just because something has been accepted before is no reason to believe that this Board must accept the same type of plan, again. MRS. PULVER-Jim, I think that I agree with you, except that, if welre going to do that, we need to be consistent and we need to state, publicly, from now on, we object to all types of railings. MR. HAGAN-11m not saying that, I said, before, that I believe the neighbors, the Abbott's, on the south are far more gracious than I would be and the applicant is my personal physician and he's represented by my personal attorney and all three of us agreed we wouldn't hurt each other, that's why I'm abstaining from the vote, but I'm still going to have my peace. MR. CARTIER-I hope you don't misinterpret my comments as being against all railings. MRS. PULVER-No, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just saying that if welre going to, you know that I object to the size of the docks and everything, that everybody's allowed to have, but until the Ordinance, until we publicly take a stand on it, one way or the other, we just canlt say, you can, you can't, you can, you can't, you know, go along. We have to be consistent. 37 '- ~ MR. ROBERTS-I tend to agree. Well, I think, maybe, welre ready for somebody to make a motion. MR. CAlMANO-I move for an amendment to Site Plan No. 32-90 for Dr. Robert Evans. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me, this is a new application. MR. CAIMANO-It is a new application. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. PULVER-New motion. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, this is Site Plan 45-90 and, \<YOuld you like to have the public hearing, first. MR. ROBERTS-Let me open the public hearing. P1IIBLIC HEABING OPENED NO a>MMENT P1IIBLIC HEABING CLOSED MR. CAlMANO-Do we need a SEQRA Form, too? MR. GORALSKI-No, this is a Type II action. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-90 DR. ROBERT L. EVANS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To add a railing to the covered boat slip to be used as a sundeck. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: Mr. Cartier ABSTAINED: Mr. Ha gan MRS. PULVER-Are we going to accept, as Dr. Evans has submitted, the spindles, or, what did you submit this time? MR. GORALSKI-Spindles. MRS. PULVER-Spindles, okay, we're going to gP with that? MR. ROBERTS-It looks gPod. You might be able to see through them. MRS. PULVER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO.. 46-90 T1PE I LI-lA ASTIO VALU>Œ, INCC:.. O1í1NEI: TECHNICAL PARK PJIOGUSS BOOLEVARD (sourBIND) FOR Q)NSTIWClIœ FT.. WAREHOUSE. (aRREN U>1INTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.. 110-1-24.30 ACRES SEcnœ 4.020 N SAME Q1DEENSBlIIJRY OF A 60,000 SQ.. Lor SIZE: 1~ ..96 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-The Warren COtmty Planning Board approved and Planting Plans for Building Number 4 are similar to Building Number 3, so they v.ere given automatic approval by the Beautification Committee. ENGINEER REPORT Note s by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) 38 '-' "-,,. MR. ROBERTS-It stated here that, somewhere in John's report that you were going to increase the size of the drainage to the east. I looked at it, the other day, and thatls already humungous, that's already been increased, hasnlt it? MR. NACE-Yes, it has. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, with Haanen Engineering, representing Astro Valcour. The drainage channel to the east has been enlarged in two ways. One, we have not extended the road all the way to the end of the property, the way it was originally shown, which would allow the drainage of the retention area in that area, beyond our pavement, or beyond the road, to increase the size of the north. We've also raised the road and the berms around the detention areas higher, so we've provided more storage, that way. I apologize. I was not with the previous submittals and all the various responses. I had not been aware that the drainage calculations still lacked something, as far as the ultimate site development and I thought that everything's been solved. Since I became aware of that comment, I have gone back and recalculated, corrected, the rainfall intensities and the calculations and recalculated the info hydrograph for that detention area. As it turns out, therels a, take a look at the numbers, there's about 25,000 cubic feet required, of volume for that retention area, and there's about 32,000 cubic feet provided. I will be happy to provide the calculations to Rist-Frost and allow them to review them at their leisure, but if..1 would suggest that maybe an approval contingent upon their review of the additional calculations. MR. CAlMANO-What about the parking space? MR. NACE-The parking, there are 66 employees in the combination of Building 2 and Building 3, anticipated, at full employment. According to your regulations, that would require 33 spaces, one for every. .employees, plus space for Company vehicles. There will not be any Company vehicles using the actual lined out parking spaces. There I s additional parking provided for trucks, truck turnaround, that would be used by Company vehicles. So, there, for all intents and purposes, there are 33 spaces required and we've provided 75. MR. ROBERTS-You seem to be going fairly well with your first building. MR. NACE-Yes,. .foundations are in, steel is on the way up and I think, in a couple of days, youlll see something that looks, pretty much, like a building. MR. ROBERTS-It looks impressive. MR. CARTIER-Do you also want to comment on lighting. MR. NACE-Lighting, yes. 1 have been under the impression, when I submitted the application, that the warehouse was only going to be an eight hour operation. It turns out it is going to be 24 hours, so, what we will do, we will need to provide lighting, and, just briefly, we will be providing, these will all be truck bays across the front of the new building. we will be providing lighting on the building. For site lighting, we will provide lighting on the south side of Building Number 4, the warehouse building, to directly light the truck bays, and we will provide lighting on the east side of Building 3, to li ght the parking, employee parking on the side of the parking lot to Building 4. Additionally, I don't know that it was ever shown, but there will be lighting on the south end of Building Number 3, to directly light the employee parking to south of Building 3. MR. ROBERTS-It's a long way from a neighbors. concerned. I don't believe they would be MR. CARTIER-The closest neighbors are MR. CAIMANO-The..neighbors, they're Glens Falls. MR. ROBERTS-Shall we go through the Long Environmental Assessment Form and maybe that I 11 flag some other questions. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO OOMMENT PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WIlEN DETEIUUNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE IŒSOL1TrION NO. 46-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 39 --- --' MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to Long EAF, Impact on Air) No, well, presumptively, I'm still going to go by the say so that no chemicals are stored in there or used there. MR. NACE-That is correct. This building will be warehouse, only. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a 60,000 sq. ft. .rehouse by ASTRO VALCOtDR, INq;;. and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE SOLVED : 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO, 46-90 ASTRO VALCOUR, INC., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For construction of a 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse, engineering review of their stormwater rentention of same. Such review is to be done by July 3rd. contingent upon calculations and the Town's acceptance Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO.. 47-90 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ROBERT 11. WATERS OWNER: SAME IOJ.i'F SHERMAN AVENUE _TO LEO STREET, AQIOSS ElSENIDER, UP DA1If ROAD TO KEEP GOATS IN A FENCED AREA IN TIlE YARD.. GOATS ARE FOR. PERSONAL BOBBY. TAX MAP NO.. 120-1-61..5 Lor SIZE: 30,000 SQ.. F'T.. SECIICJf 4.020 G ROBERT WATERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUt Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MRS. PULVER-Can I ask a question. goats in an SR-1A zone? Why are they here? Because you can't have 40 '--. --- MR. GORALSKI-Because any farm classification requires site plan approval and, by definition, this would be a farm, a Class D farm. MRS. PULVER-So, it doesn I t really matter that he has goats, it's just the fact that he has animals. MR. CAMIANO-Live stock. MR. GORALSKI-Live stock, right. live stock. MR. HAGAN-We would agree on unpleasant odors. You know, it I S not specifically goats, it's any this one. We visited the site. There were no MRS. PULVER-I don't have any problem with what I saw. MR. ROBERTS-But there was a complaint from a distant neighbor, I understand. MR. GORALSKI-There is a complaint from a neighbor who doesn I t even live on this street. MRS. PULVER-Do we have a letter or anything? MR. GORALSKI-No, it was a phone call to the Zoning Administrator. MR. CARTIER-Is that neighbor here tonight? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. Yould have to open the public hearing. MR. ROBERTS-Let me open the public hearing. P1JIBLIC HEARING OPENED NO OOMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CAIMANO-Do we need a Short Form SEQRA? MR. GORALSKI - Ye s. RESOLUTION WON DETERIIINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE BSOLUTION NO. 47-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT K . WATERS:II Dawn RøÐad, to keep gcats in a fenced in area in tbe yard as a pers01IIIal bobby. and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review tmder the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE SOL VED : 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is tm1isted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 41 ~ -./ 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental ef fect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN RO. 47-90 BOBERr E. WATERS, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To keep goats in a fenced in area of his personal property as a personal hobby. SEQRA has been satisfied. There has been no one here to appear at the public hearing to object. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me, before everyone leaves, I have one other thing I'd like to bring up. If you'll remember, last week, you had an application from a Michael Hayes, from Daggett I s Vending. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-During the discussion it was sug~sted, I believe, by one of the Board members, that if he needed more space he could build a second floor in the same footprint. MR. CARTIER-Oh, this is over on Holden Avenue. MR. GORALSKI-Holden Avenue. The applicant I s agent, at that time, said he did not think that the applicant wanted to do that. When the applicant came in for his building permit, he thought that was a great idea. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, \0211 he talked to the owner, the owner thought it was a great idea. MR. GORALSKI-Dave Hatin said he could not issue a building permit based on the motion that was passed at that meeting and asked, if the Board had no problem with that, that they revise their motion reflecting that you have no problem with a second floor being put on the building. MR. ROBERTS-I don't have any problem with it. MR. GORALSKI-I, you know, \02 looked at it. MRS. PULVER-Same footprint? MR. GORALSKI-It would be the same exact footprint. MR. CARTIER-Did we have a public hearing and was there anybody here from the public to comment? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, there were people from the public to comment about the sidewalks on Dixon Avenue. MR. CARTIER-Nobody said anything about the building, itself, or anything like that? MR. GORALSKI-The height or anything like that. MR. ROBERTS-No near neighbors were here. It was just the side walk that came. 42 ~ --' MR. CAlMANO-What's the Site Plan Review Number? MR. GORALSKI-Site Plan Review No. 40-90 Michael Hayes. MR. HAGAN-Is that the one with Pat DePalo? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MOTION TO AMEND SITE PLAN NO. 40-90 MICHAEL BA1ES, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To allow for a second story to be built, in exactly the same footprint. All other statements concerning the motion remain the same. MR. CARTIER-How high? MR. CAlMANO-Second Story, two story's. MRS. PULVER-Two story which would be 18. MR. CAlMANO-Well, that could be 95 million feet high. MR. ROBERTS-Well, no, in the Town of Queensbury, thereld be a limitation. MR. GORALSKI-There's a 30 foot height limit. MR. CAlMANO-There's a limitation. MR. GORALSKI-Let me check. Itls 40. MR. ROBERTS-For Commercial, but this is a residential. less than that. We better limit it to MR. GORALSKI-If you have a problem with this, and you want the applicant to appear, or anything like that, just tell me. MR. CAlMANO-I don't have a problem with it at all. MR. HAGAN-The only thing, I thought the applicant had a good idea that we would go along wi th. MRS. PULVER-No more than a 12 by 12 pitch roof and no more than two storyls and what's two story's. MR. CAlMANO-Well, the builders codes are going to dictate that. MRS. PULVER-Right, but, Peter, Whatls your problem with it? MR. CARTIER-Well, maybe I'm a nit-picker here, but we held a public hearing on a one story bui lding and now a two story bui lding is going up and we're doing that without, and I know there's nobody here, now, and there was nobody there then. I hate to set precedent like this. MR. CAlMANO-I agree, 1'11 withdraw my motion. We held a public hearing and we put ourselves in jeopardy like this. MS. CORPUS -I also believe that the SEQRA would possibly have to be amended also. MR. CAIMANO-We're putting ourselves in a jam, potentially. MR. CARTIER-If \Ie say ~'re going to amended this, What's to say, the next guy comes in and says, hey, I want the same thing and we say, no, you've got to come back. We've created a box for ourselves. I know itls a minor issue, but there is a Planning Process involved here and that's what 11m concerned about. MRS. PULVER-See, this would be one of the things that the Staff could, rather than make them come back in with different guidelines. They could have jurisdiction over that. MR. CARTIER-I would have a problem with that. I want Staff to ask the Board on something like that. 43 ~--_.-...--'~'- .._--------~--- ----------._------~ -' MR. GORALSKI-Well, that's why I'm bringing it to your attention right now. MR. CARTIER-I understand. MR. CAlMANO-We stick our neck out all the time. We just stuck our neck out. My only concern is not the two story, I think it's great for the neighborhood. My only concern is opening a public hearing and closing it and then, at another meeting, men there's no public, making a motion to change what we a1ready..I don't care if no onels out there, it's just the perception of back room, southern jury. I just can't stand that. MR. ROBERTS-Welre trying to be accommodating to the public. MRS. PULVER-Why don't you leave it to the Building Department and see to it that it's a two story building which would conform with the neighborhood, mich means theylre not going to build an 80 story building. MR. CAIMANO-Was there anybody here at the public hearing? MR. GORALSKI-No, the only person who was here at the public hearing was the woman to talk about the sidewalks on Dixon Road. MR. CAIMANO-Do you really think you're going to have to have a SEQRA Review? MS. CORPUS-Well, I think you could probably cover that in additional language done at this time and that there were no further impacts by this. MR. CARTIER-I would have no objection to sticking that on at the beginning of next monthls agenda or even doing it, can we do it at our workshop session? MRS. PULVER-I.this Board? MR. CAIMANO-We11, let's put a motion on the table and find out. MOŒIQN TO AHERD SITE PLAN NO. 40-90 BICBAEL BAYES, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To change the motion to allow a two story building, and the same footprint. No other language of the motion is to be changed and I see nothing in this that would change our acceptance of the SEQRA Review. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupi11as, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: Mr. Hagan Mr. Cartier MR. CAlMANO-We' ve made an amendment, now we have to accept the amendment, W:1ich means that that whole thing, now, is changed, correct? MS. CORPUS-Thatls perfectly fine. HanON TO ACCEPr SITE PLAN NO. 40-90 IIICBAEL BAYES AS AlßtNDItD, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupi11as, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 44 Ii - '-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY --' P1.-nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee Â. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 21, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area VariaDce U.. VariaDce - Sip Variance == Interpretation -L. SubdiñdOD: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, -L FÜIal Site Plan ReYiew - - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Other: Applicatioa Number: Subdivision No. 4-1990 Applicaat'. Name: Sherman Acres. Section II Walter Rehm, III - Owner June 26. 1990 MeetiDø Date: ............................................................................................ This subdivision was granted Preliminary approval by the Board at the April 24, 1990 meeting. The only changes to the plat since pre liminary stage have been the addition of soil test/percolation test data for lot 2, and the placement of a fill system disposal area with appropriate design and grading changes. Since there appears to be no further planning or engineering concerns, I recommend that the Board grant final approval. SGB/pw ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. PC. CONSUL TlNG ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS · POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 . 518.793-4141 '-' -- June 19, 1990 RFA #89-5000.504 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Sherman Acres, Section II Subdivision 4-1990 - Final Stage Dear Mrs York: ~)~ÜW~¡" .!\l JUN 20 1990 ~ "LANNING .. ZOHINC' DEPARTMENT We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. All previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. We have no further engineering comments. Very truly yours, E?ST ASSÔCIATES. k w./.~ne~ Man~~~;"project Engineer WG:cmw cc: Planning Board Members $ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH " _ - -__~' ~ - - ~ I /""1 M/A.///1/?t/M LOT .4RE4·' / AC£é --' II J.u/L)Th"" /50 Fr F.ROA/T .)/ARO,' 30 /'T REAR? YAÆD: êO ,£T. JIDé/4ÆO .. JVM 0,£ J/O £'9VA¿J .30/7 0/2 MORE", M/A// MVM 0/ /o,¡:r "'-1_ If J'£ -//1 - ~ :$ SITf LOCA TION - ( :! /" '" "0 O' ) SH -e".¡-MAIJ 4c(L~ r SfC\+ON IL i . - ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -./ PI..ftftiYlg Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 25, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area VU'ÜmCe U. Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretatioa Other: SubcIm.Iiœa: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, X Site Plan Reriew - - Petition for a ChaDge of Zoae - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppJicaticD Number: Site Plan No. 49-89 Applicant'. Name: Anthony Russo MeetiDg Date: Route 9, ~ mile north of Route 149 on east side of road June 26, 1990 ............................................................................................ This Site Plan has been modified since the last time it was reviewed by the Board. The applicant has purchased a significant piece of property to the north of the original site. As a result, they have enlarged the proposed building and have increased the number of parking spaces to sixty six. To refresh the Board's memory, the applicant has received a front setback variance, a rear setback variance, and a septic variance. All of my previous concerns have been addressed. This revised plan is significantly better than the original submission. . It should be noted that the Wà1Ten County Planning Board has not yet approved this proposal. It will be reviewed at the County Planning Board's July meeting. If the Town Planning Board approves this application, the approval will not be final until Wan-en County votes on it. JSG/sed ; " ~ 'ROST ASSOCIATES. PC. SUL TING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS 'OST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 .-- "'--' -- F ! f - I ,_ ( r r·', . t~1 . Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Anthony Russo, Site Plan 49~89 Dear Mrs York: June 19, 1990 RFA #89-5000.049 ." "-. ",Ülta:...~~ ß~~l!' QLANNING . ZONINC' DEPARTMENT We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. Since the wasterwater flow is greater than 1000 gpd, a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit will be required from NYSDEC. The following comments pertain specifical- ly to the wastewater system: Since the percolation rate is faster than 5 min./in. seepage pits should not be allowed unless extensive pretreatment is provided, as required by NYSDEC. Seepage pit structures are not allowed under a parking area. The percolation test results should be given along with a test pit log indicating the test date, depth and if groundwater, mottling or bedrock found. Two percolation test should be taken at the seepage pit location; one at half depth and one at the floor of the pit. A minimum 50 foot separation distance between seepage pits and stormwater drywells is required. 2. Previous comments on stormwater management have been addressed. Erosion control measures should be provided, as necessary, in accordance with NYS Guidel ines for Urban Eros ion and Sediment Control. Very truly yours, ~ROST Way~nnett, P.E. Ma~~i~~ Project Engineer P.C. WG:c.. cc: Planning Board Members $ GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA. NH -- ~ F Il E ( 0 P ',' -. ~ -- ~) Æ©iÜ,Th-111 ~ JUN191990~ PLANNING a ZONINe DEPARTMENT Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped June 13. 1990 Present: Nancy Calano Sue Helffrich Margo Burrell Recommendations Re: Site Plan NO. 49-89 Anthony Russo Dear Chairperson: The Committee would like to commend Mr. Russo on his building plans with regard to accessibility. With the new ruling on parking spaces, the requirement would be an 8' wide access aisle between handicapped spaces. Re;;:;su~~ Nancy Calano, Secretary, on behalf of the Committee cc: Stephen Borgos" Town Supervisor Lee York, Senior Planner Dave Hatin, Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee '> - / / ..J J .-l .J -Y- ---1 !-- .L- ~...-. b \ \ \ \, ~\~ ;\~ . <I \ \ \ ~ 1 g 1 1 ¡\¡ ~ ~. « I \ -' "-~~ "3~~~_._. __," J :r ~ I J. ../0 " II 1.1 . ¡. II ~ '! J ~ I \j) r ~ \] II' o ., 1- ¡; " Þ II Þ ]. o 1 Þ ~ ;I " .~---... ~ 1\ II 11 o II '1 o iI Þ ;j o 1. . ~ I' Q\ It, O! í?Q\\. ~~ ~ ~i ~ 1. "'11-1 '0 lID t1\ lit ~I~ II 711 ~OIO St' } ~'! ,'''''!:!;!! -- ~ 0000 iiõóï " ~ - J -- --~--¡µ ., - - ~"" ~ -f:~r .J.f; N --.::,,~o· l N' ?e'..o:-- _ 1/1 ,~V" . ~o· _ ' . L. oij ..-, ~t I I' ~...... v~ JO" ~~ '{= 1\ .. " 0 0\ ) ') IÌ ~ o. I A N 1\'\Okj ~ Rv~SO - -- / ~ ~)s.1 - .- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY - . pI.nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mn. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: June 21, 1990 John Goralski Area VariaDce - u. VU'ÏaDce - Sip VU'ÏaDce == Interpretation SubdiflIdœ: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, ::x: Site PlaD Rmew - Petition far a ChaDge of ZoDe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 42-90 Applicant's Name: Hallmark Nursing Centre, Inc. MeetiDø Date: June 26, 1990 .............................................................................................. This proposal is for the addition of a 40 bed nursing unit, laundry area, and dining area. The combined square footage of the additions will be 16,000 square feet. Although this is a large addition, the location of the additions do not appear to have a significant impact on the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. The significant mass will be on the rear of the building and is surrounded on three sides by the existing building. Some thought should be given to additional screening along the southern property line since most of the existing vegetation is on neighboring property and there will be grading taking place in this area. The Sherman Avenue/Western Avenue intersection is an extremely busy one. Although the Nursing Home does have some impact on the intersection. the counts provided seem to indicate that this proposal will not significantly increase the traffic at this intersection. The onsite circulation patterns, both vehicular and pedestrian, appear to be well thought out. The parking appears adequate. I agree that the area for 15 spaces should remain as ~reen area and be reserved for future parkinR. The pro?osed landscaoinq, should soften the i1"1~act of the additional paved area. JG ¡';Jw " '" FJlJ: COPY '-' :: PI.AN REVIEW NO. if J - 90 -...; I~>~üwír~ffi '~ JUN 251990 ~]J TO: John Goralski Planning Department Town of Queensbury ~LANNING . ZONIN~ DEPARTMENT FROM: N. W. Bodenweiser Fire Marshal DATE: June 22, 1990 SUB: Fire Lane Access In review of addition proposal to Hallmark Nursing Horne, it is our 'position that access to the overall structure is inadequate for fire fighting access. We suggest that the asphalt walkways proposed be constructed with roadway specifications and a minimum width of 10 feet. ; .. "-. -- FUNK D. WALTER, Jr.,EE. CONSULTING ENGINEERS -./ .. 11 Sherwood. Drive Glens Falls. NY 12801 Tel: 518-792-6954 May 8, 1990 Queensbury Planning Department Town of Queensbury Bay Road at Haviland Queensbury, New York 12804 ATTN: Mr. Stuart Baker Re: Site Plan Hallmark Nursing Centre, Inc. Gentlemen: Additions have been made to the referenced site plan in accord with your comments and checklist of April 26, 1990 and our meeting in your office last Friday. In brief, the additions consist mainly of d~ensional data along with some lighting and handicapped access information. Fourteen (14) sets of drawings consisting of four sheets each are enclosed. These drawings, together with the applications and supporting data previously submitted and on file in your office should now constitute a complete submis- sion. If anything further is required, please advise as soon as possible so that we can file a t~ely response. As we discussed with you at our meeting, it would be extremely helpful and beneficial to all concerned, if the site plan could be reviewed by your engineer in the next few weeks. We trust you will follow through with this course of action; then if any questions did arise, they could be addressed and resolved prior to the submission date for the June meetings. Your assistance in this regard is v y much apPíeciated. : y ¿;ta. Walter, FDW/js cc: Hallmark Nursing Centre, Inc. Kathleen Costello, Administrator Harris A. Sanders, Architects, P.C. Owen K. S. Neitzel, Architect Wat. Supply Systems Storm Water DJa1nage Municipal Engineering Construction Management Land Planning Wastewater Systems Sol1d 1MDte Management j ;;. ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS .w_~.".... "-' ~~:[\~5' 1990 "'ANNIN~NI"" RF A #89 - 5000 "~D."T"'F.N'" 201 .. POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 SAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 e 793-4148 518 e793-4141 Mr. Stu Baker, Assistant Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Hallmark Nursing Home - Site Plan Review Planner Dear Mr. Baker: As requested, Rist-Frost has made a preliminary review of the above- referenced site plan package. Our comments are as follows: 1. The traffic report states that increased traffic should not be a concern. This may be a reasonable conclusion, however, actual traffic counts on Sherman Avenue and Western Avenue at peak hours would help verify this statement. We assume the City of Glens Falls will also have the opportunity to comment on traffic since Western Avenue is a city street. 2. The drainage concept is reasonable in that retention areas are used for the increased runoff from the new building and parking area. To verify the sizing, the proper methods should be to determine the total runoff over time for both the existing (undeveloped) conditions and the proposed developed conditions. The amount of storage required can be determined graphically by the difference between the cumulative runoff for developed conditions less the peak release rate for the undeveloped conditions, based on infiltration or existing discharge off site. 3. The 2,000 gallon per day increase in water use sounds a little light and should be veri fied. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation stan~~rds normally use 125 gallons per d2Y per person for institutions other than hospitals. With 40 new beds, this equates to a 5,000 per day increase. This may not be significant; again we presume the City will have the opportunity to comment. We will be pleased to discuss any comments with the applicant. Very truly yours, WG: mg cc: Frank Walter, P.E. _ GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA. NH ; - ~ ~ R/ST-FROST ASSOCIATES, PC, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS .. POST OFFICE SOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 518.793-4141 -.. ..-' ILL: ì i ~ ¡ ~ '- u. . June 19, 1990 "iF.4. tF§~,g.04f,· ~)IE©Jawf~1I, ~ JUN201990~ Town of .Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Hallmark Nursing Centre, Inc. Site Plan 42-90 OLANNING a ZONINC DlPARTMINT Dear Mrs York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. From traffic information provided it appears that the impact of the expans ion on traffic flow at the Western Avenue, Sherman Avenue intersection will be minimal. 2. Adequate stormwater management has been prov ided. Eros ion control measures, as necessary, should be provided in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 3. Approximately 40% more parking spaces are being provided for the 50% bed increase. However, space for an additional 30% more parking spaces has been set aside if required in the future. We therefore concur that parking should be monitored and these spaces be added if needed. 4. The City of Glens Falls has stated that water and sewer capacity is adequate·for the expansion. Very truly yours, RIST_~F. s,: ASff/~:;- a ne anne~E~c.~ Manag ng Project Engineer WG:CDl cc: Planning Board Members $ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH ; " . - '--" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -- PI.ftftfftg Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: June 25, 1990 Lee A. York Area VariaDce U. Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretatioa Other: Subdi'riåaD: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, X Site PIaD Reriew - - Petition fer a CbaDge of Zaae - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppUcatiOD Number: Site Plan RevlPw Nn ~~-Qn. AppUc:ant'. Name: Leo Lo~h::lrr1n MeetiDø Date: June 2f1 IqC)o ............................................................................................ The application is for an expansion of an existing restaurant. The zo~e is HC-IA and the proposed eddition will be 1,240 so. ft. added to the 3,400 sq. ft. existing restaurant. The property (:t4 acres) current ly contains four ,?reexist in~ uses ...hich are; a retail sales facility, a restaurant, a niniature f.o1f course and a residence. The applicant has used the f;ra,re1!stone par!dnp, area as 'Jart of his permeability ca1clt.le.tion. He h~s the reCluired perneability ~.dthol¡t the ~raveled area so t~e~e is not a urobleM with this. The a??lication states· that the acldition ~;il1 be used for restaurant seat:i.ns. This will not be additiond seatinr,. The Board ITI.ay ~'::\nt to ascertain that the current septic syste~ is able to handle the load and that there ..;ill be no additional bathrooM facilities added. The se?tic systet:'l is not fully identified on the "lans. There is no indication o~ where the sp.')tic t~n!t is. There p-re t\TO leé1.ch fields idp.ntified, a ~ortion of t,,¡,ich aTJpee.rs to ~o under a u8rking area. :'here f'.re currently a m~~ber of entrances ~.nd e'dts fror.· Route 9. ':'!,e Pcerå I"'I".Y "·;~.nt to reèuce these to tHO. ~i!: WOl~1.rl helT' :>.'Tcid tr:::t::ic ~rcbJ.~¡o~s j.t'. the.t p.reé'.. :: ',iot;l¿ recc¡""':-:enè thé'.t the northerr. ?nct sOl1.t~arn "Ioints of in~res~-e~r~ss b~ eli~inat~¿ 2n~ only two 2ccess ~oints be allowed. T.A Y hu ~ :ROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. ,SUL TING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS .. '05T OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 '--'" - ,- June 19, 1990 Rç~ J.89..Jêi~j\f3 ~)Æ©ìaW~lIl ß JUN201990~ QLANNING a ZONINC' DePARTMENT Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Leo Lombardo, Site Plan 43-90 Dear Mrs York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. It appears that no increase in dining area is proposed. However, if it is increased in the future, the adequacy of the existing septic system would need to be verified. 2. Adequate stormwater management has been prov ided at the new parking area. Runoff from the new building addition may be minimal; but we suggest the applicant consider installing a dry well or equivalent for roof runoff. Very truly yours, WOST ~i.1'Jta'nn.t t, P. E. Manä~ñg· Project Engineer WG:CIllW cc: Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONlA, NH ; " .. ~1~aW)~)lIL J:UW~ Ul'" <.lUaN~BURY SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. Y3,QÒ !~'¡J!J~ l~ COMMITTEE FOR COIllMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION orM#\l~. '~~dy, Chaiman Mrs. Arthur J. se~y, Secretary .ì,?,A.9Iå1lh i~c: 8 Queensbury Avenue ~:~Y. l280~ Queensbury, N. Y. l280! To . (x) Warren COunty Planning Board Da t e . 6/11 /90 6c) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of APpeals ( y) APpli cant Re. Site Plan #43-90 Leo's Lobster Lake George Road We have reviewed the request for.( ) Variance, (~ Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the fOllowing recommendations I ( ) Approval ( ) Disapproval Proposed construction is an expansion at the rear, so no action was taken by this Committee. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve I 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. R~tfully submitted, ,'-~ If. ~~ kõbért L. Eddy, chai~an .. " r-,'-'-~. -- -. -' . I' W. "'U~I:"'~~ ,.., ~~~!o' PLANNING . ZONINe' œPARTMENT Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped June 13, 1990 Present: Nancy Ca1ano Sue He1ffrich Margo Burrell Recommendations Re: Site Plan No. 43-90 Leo Lombardo Dear Chairperson: According to the new ruling of the New York State Codes, dated December 6, 1989, an access aisle of 8' wide is needed between the handicapped parking spaces. Also, the new dining room addi- tion should be accessible and usable. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Nancy Calano, Secretary, on behalf of the Committee cc: Stephen Borgos, Town Supervisor Lee York, Senior Planner Dave Hatin, Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee ~ ~ .:~~ ~, - ~ '-- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY plAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 2 I, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area VariaDce U. VariaDce - Sip Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdiWlioa: X' Site PlaIa Reriew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Sketch, _ Pt-e1imiDary, FiDal Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 44-QO Applicant's Name: Abraham Rudnick /()1u~~nqh11"Y t':!:I,..I"fð1"\a I T'1C. MeetiDg Date: June 26. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant would like to demolish the exist ing garage at 15 Foster Avenue and to construct ai, 535 square foot garage to house commerc ia1 vehic les and lawn maintenance equipment. The necessary variances for this action were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 20, 1990. The Board should look at the following items: I. The size and general site compatibility of the proposed building. 2. Location of electrical utility hook-up, if any is proposed. 3. The possible need for and locat ion of outdoor light ing on the proposed building for security and safety. This proposal is an unlisted action, so the Board should review the short EAF. SGB/pw '" . - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ~ - P1.n.fti~g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 15, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area VuiaDce Uee Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretation Other: SubdiYiaiOD: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary. X Site Plan Rniew - - Petiûon for a ChaDge of ZODe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppticatiOD Number: Site Plan Review No. 45-90 Appticant'a Name: Dr. Rob~rt Evan~ MeetiDg Date: June 26. 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is to install a railing around the roof of a covered boat slip to provide for use as a sundeck. The Board previously reviewed this boathouse but disapproved the roof railing. The motion is as follows: IUlIOR TO APPROVE SITE PLAR RO. 32-90 DR. ROBERT DABS, Introduced by Peter Cartier ~mo moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For conversion of an L-shaped dock into a 32 ft. by 38 ft. U-shaped dock and boathouse with the following stipulations: that the middle finger pier shown on the ph.ns submitted not be constructed; that the upper railing shown on the plans not be constructed, the purpose of this is to reduce the effects on the property to the south of the applicant's property, specifically the Abbott property. It is the Board's option to rereview the application or to let the former resolution stand on this issue. LAY /~\ol ._----- ~ .. - - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pw_nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 15. 1990 Lee A. York By: Area Variance U. Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi'rilioa: Sketch. Prelim' - - mary, X Site Plan Rmew == Petition for a ChaDge of ZoDe Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDaI Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 46-90 Applicant'. Name: Astro Vale our. Inc. MeetiDg Date: June 26. 1990 ............................................................................................ The application is for a second industrial building on an approved site in the Queensbury Technical Park. The plan shous adequate fire emergency access and parking. Pedestrian movement and handicapped access from one building to another will be accornnodated by a covered ramp and handicapped walkway. Sewer and water will be provided by municipal services. Erosion potential during construction will be prevented with an erosion barrier. Vehicular access will be froM Warren Street. Former agreements and approvals have been given based on full development of the site, taking into account traffic generation. The applicant states that the building proposed will be a warehouse and no chemicals will be stored on site. The applicants engineer has stated that the drainage channel to the east of the structure will be enlarged and the drainage wil~ be improved. ! have only two minor cor.mtents. The applicant should address outdoor lighting of the 92rking area. Also, we have no regulations rep'ardin~ STEAM channels. Could the plan possibly be referring to STRE~i channels? LAY /T)~~ " ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS . POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STReET GLENS FALl.S NY 12801 FAX 518 .193·4146 518.793-4141 t ---.. ---------------- -.../ '- r ¡ í.. ...:. C...; " June 19, 1990 RFA #89-5000.046 .., v. ...Üt.~I'II"~ ß~~!~ ~LANNING . ZONIHC DEPARTMENT Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Astro Valcour Inc., Site Plan 46-90 Dear Mrs York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the folloWing comments: 1. Ca 1 cu 10 t ions should be prov ided on how the number of park i ng spaces required to meet Town standards, was determined. Z. Our April 10, 1990 letter, (see attached) stated that adequate stonowater retention has been provided for the first phase of development, but that when additional phases are developed calculations should be resubmitted for those phases using the correct rainfall intensities. Very truly yours, * G\.ENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA. NH -....------ ~~... v· -ftW1f1E'1 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Ja ~ U J \ SITE PLAN REV,n-. NO. 4 ~ - q 0 - . .~. COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFI CATION_ bJµ~ 1~ l~y. C;;Chairman Mra. Arthur J. Seney. Se cretary ~R(, 8 Queensbury Avenue Y. 1280¡ Queensbury, N. Y. 12805 To. (~) Warren CoW1ty Planning Board Date. 6/11/90 ( ) QUeen.bury Town Planning Board (X) QUeen.bury Town Zoning Board of Appeals ( ) APplicant Re. Site Plan #46-90 - Astro Valcour Queensbury Industrial Park We have reviewed the request for.e ) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (x) Approval ( ) Disapproval Planting Plans for Building #4 are similar to building #3, so they were given automatic approval. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~e tfully ~bmitted, J 'K.. ¿- d.~ 'Ro ert L. Eddy, Chai~ '" . - ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY --" pti"ftftiftl Department .. -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 22, 1990 By: John Goralski Area V-š-ce U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == Jøtel'pl'etation Other: Subdi9ÚIÌGB: . Sketcb. _ PrelimiDary, ---K- Site PlaIa Reriew - _ Petition for a ChaDge of ZcDe Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDaJ. Application Number: ~;t~ Pl~" R~vi~w Nn ¿7-QO Appliaat'. Name: Rnhørt F: W."1t ~rQ MeetiDg Date: .Tl1n~ ?n I 1 qQO ........................................................................................... In reviewing the development considerations set forth in Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to this request, it does not appear that there will be any negative impact to the neighborhood from this proposal. Upon visiting the site, I did not encounter any unpleasant smell or noise that might disrupt the neip,hborhood. I would recommend a~!,roval of this site plan. JG/T;JW ------