Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1990-08-28
-' QUEENSBDRY PLANNING BOARD HEETING SECOND REGULAR HEETING AUGUST 28TH, 1990 INDEX Site Plan No. 63-90 Wayne and Dawn Viele 1. Site Plan No. 64-90 Bob Northgard 12. Site Plan No. 65-90 James M. Weller, P.E. 17. Off Premises Sign No. 1-90 George Pfeiffer 32. Flowerland Site Plan No. 66-90 John and Barbara Lynch 33. Site Plan No. 67-90 Barbara L. Read 45. Site Plan No. 68-90 73 Quaker Road Assoc. 47. c/o Tiernan, Bernstein and Pinchuk Site Plan No. 69-90 Andrew D. Tellier 71. ... Site Plan No. 70-90 Michael and Trudi Calabrese 73. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUIES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR IN THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUIES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUIES. -/ QUEENSBDRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER JAMES HAGAN JAMES MARTIN NICHOLAS CAlMANO MEMBERS ABSENT CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTORBEY- KARLA CORPUS TOWN DfGINEER.-TOM YARMOWICH ASSISTANT PLABBD.-STUART BAKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 24th, 1990: Page 21, Mr. Cartier is speaking, second comment from the bottom, the last word, which reads, "numbers" sIb houses or buildings STAND AS AMENDED lUtW BUSIDSS: SITE PLAN NO. 63-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA WAYNE AND DAWN VIELE OWNER: THOll AND SANDY RIPLEY CORINTH ROAD, 1 JlILE WEST OF 1-87, nIT 18, TWO PIlOPERTIES ON nGHT PAST STEPllABIE LANE FOR A SOFT ICE CREAM TAKE OUT RESTAURANT WITH SEATING AVAILABLE 011 PREMISES. (WAUD COUIITY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 126-1-30 LOT SIZE: 2.1 ACRES SEClIOII 4.020 II BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF IIIPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) I\1IGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-And the Warren County Planning Board approved with these comments: "Approved with the condition that at least the first 2 parking spaces on each side be eliminated in order to alleviate the problem of cars backing onto Corinth Road and also subject to the approval of the Queensbury Beautification Committee." And the Queensbury Beautification Committee has disapproved (attached) And we have a letter from a neighbor, Stuart? MR. BAKER-Yes, we do. MR. ROBERTS-I'll have you read that. MR. BAKER-Read letter from Richard R. Seeley, to Queensbury Planning Board, dated August 25th, 1990 (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Is there someone here to appear for the applicant? MR. CARR-Good evening. My name is Bruce Carr. I'm an attorney with Ludemann and Carr and 11m also here representing Wayne and Dawn Viele who's application is before you. Through the Staff Input and people I s comments, I think you have an idea of what this project is all about. It's a family fair restaurant, hamburgs, hot dogs, ice cream, light menu. I would like to go through the Staff Comments 1 because I think we have addressed a lot of their concerns and, just to keep you informed as to what the intentions are. The first thing that they had talked about was the parking and the five foot buffer, therels enough room on this property to have more than ample parking and, if we need that buffer zone, we will gladly move the parking to whatever configuration is necessary to meet all the buffer zones and all the setback requirements. The Warren County Planning Board had asked that we remove the front two spaces on each side of the parking area, so as not to have anybody backing on to Corinth Road or backing up traffic as people are pulling in and we'll gladly do that. For safety reasons, that was a very good comment. The pool meets all the requirements of the pool regulations for the Town of Queensbury. It is surrounded by a fence. It does have a locked gate on it. MR. HAGAN-I'd like to interrupt you, at that point. The fence does give me a problem because it's the type of fence that's inviting kids to climb it. It's not a cyclone type fence. It's a bordered fence with a cyclone fence behind it which is not tall enough to prevent children from climbing that fence and entering that pool, particularly with an attraction like soft ice cream and I would ask that you give consideration to changing the fencing on the pool. MR. CARR-Well, we III certainly give it some consideration and Mr. Ripley, the owner, here, has indicated to me that he may even be pulling the pool out completely, which I think would solve the whole problem. MR. CARTIER-Okay, I'm not that familiar with the Ordinance, regarding pools, but I assume they apply to residences and I think we have a somewhat unique situation here. If I were an insurance agent who was going to insure that property, with all the comings and goings of kids, I I d have some serious problem about being sure that there was more than adequate protection around that pool. If that pool is pulled, that solves the problem. MR. CARR-Well, if the required under, I'm determination to pull a little further. Board desires to ask us to put something more than what's sure Mr. Ripley would consider it, or else make the the pool out completely. So, I think we can discuss that MR. MARTIN-Bruce, I have a question. If we're totally going to change the use of the building from a residen tial structure to a commercial structure, what is the use of the pool? I mean, What is its need or what is its function? MR. CARR-I don't believe it has any function, at this point. Perhaps, Mr. Ripley, would like to answer that. MR. MARTIN-I think it IS just, as is being alluded to, it's just it in existence, so close to what I s going to be a restaurant. any purpose for a residential swimming pool in the back yard a hazard to keep I just don't see of a restaurant. MR. CARR-Well, I'd have to ask Mr. Ripley What he'd like to do about that, but, if you would feel better with a different type fence around the pool, that's your option to do and then our option is either to comply with what you want us to do or pull the pool out. So, I'm sure we can answer that question to everybody's satisfaction, just depending on what you'd be looking for as protection surrounding that pool. Then, Mr. Ripley, as the owner of the property, would just have to decide which way he'd rather go. MR. ROBERTS-We've got a lot of other problems with the project. Let's let the pool thing go, for now. MR. CARR-Okay. The spotlights will be on the west side of the building, except for one lighted area, I'm sure, that I s going to light the walkway, but it will not be a spotlight that will be shining on Mr. Seeley or anything, that's not the in tention, is to light up his back yard or his building, at all. So, we will comply with what I s ever necessary for the lighting and, mainly, keep it to the parking area on the west side of the building. As to the road cut on the east side, Which is just a driveway, now, we're willing to give up that road cut and just leave it as the road cut into the parking area on the west side. MR. CARTIER-Does that also address Mr. Seeley's Item 3? addresses, that's the same thing. I guess that also MR. CARR-Yes, I think t hat would address that issue, also, sO that the delivery trucks would not be allowed to tmload on the east side of the building. As I 2 mentiónéd, with the parking areas, we will comply with the five foot buffer. The handicapped spaces are in that location for a reason and that's because that would be the most direct route into the restaurant. The handicapped access is on the east side of the building, due to the layout of the building and the entrance to the restaurant and, so, the most direct route for handicapped people is through the back of the building, which will be a walkway, back of the building, and up onto the ramp and into the restaurant. So, that is why we have placed that at that location, rather than up nearer to Corinth Road. MR. CARTIER-How does somebody else get to that? Let's say I'm parked at the one that Warren County wants to eliminate. I'm going to go across the front of the building and in, I assume, am I not? MR. CARR-I believe the entrance will all be from the back. MR. CARTIER-All from the rear? MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. PULVER-The front entrance wonlt be there? MR. CARR-It won't be used, right. Yes, that's where the handicapped ramp is coming up to, but the entrance is going to be from around the rear of the building and up the side and in. I think that also services, mostly, Where the parking is going to be, Which is farther back, off of Corinth Road. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think that's too clear, yet. Would you show us where you're talking about, here. Where the main entrance is going to be? MR. CARR-Yes, this is going to be the entrance (referring to map). This is going to be the walkway and up, directly in, between the handicapped parking and back and just up that way. DAWN VIELE MRS. VIELE-I'm Dawn Viele. I'm one of the owners of this new restaurant. The reason we put the handicapped here is it's lower land, here, so that they can just go across here and up the ramp. It's all high level land, up in here, Where they would have to really roll up a hill to get into the restaurant. So, ~ put it here because it I slower, it's flatter, and they won't have to climb anything. They'll just go a walkway up here and up the ramp, here. MR. ROBERTS-The main entrance is up in here? MRS. VIELE-Right, for handicapped, and then there I s going to be a side entrance, here. MR. CARR-On the west side of the building. MRS. VIELE-On the west side of the building. MR. ROBERTS-That doesn't solve your question, does it, Peter? They are going to have to walk across the front of the building to get to the main entrance. MRS. VIELE-Only handicapped have to go around the back. Anybody else will just have to walk across the parking lot and in the side entrance. MR. ROBERTS-There's a side entrance? MRS. VIELE-Yes, right here. MRS. PULVER-Why wouldn't you put the ramp, here, to go in this entrance, here, rather than, I mean, if this is the low, they could come right up into the low and go in, rather than go in all the way around the other side. MRS. VIELE-We could do that, too, yes. I just had it go around the back because it's all low level. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. VIELE-I didnlt want to make them have to climb. 3 MRS. PULVER-They should not have to go the farthest distance. MRS. VIELE-Right. MR. CARR-Whatls ever most convenient for the handicapped, I think, is What they're thinking of. MRS. PULVER-Yes, well, I mean, if this all needs to be built, this ramp and everything. It would be just as easy to put it in MRS. VIELE-Yes, it does. We were just thinking convenience for them, so they didn't have to come up a hill. MR. CARTIER-The Independent Living Center, handicapped parking and handicapped access. of thing, so that's available. free of charge, will help you design They are delighted to do that sort MR. CARR-Great, and, Mr. Cartier, also, to answer your question about people cutting across, say, the front lawn to get into front entrance, Warren COtmty has asked us to get rid of these front two parking spots , so it will be more back. So, I think most people will park, probably, in this area, here, and just go right in the building. MRS. PULVER-I would be more inclined, Peter, to have, did you hear what I was saying? They're going to put a side entrance, here. Put the ramp MR. CARTIER-On this side. MRS. PULVER-Yes, Why have it here? Put it here and they can go right up. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. CARR-As to the engineer's report, I think, attached to the application, is the engineering report of Mr. Nace from Haanen Engineering who has done stormwater runoff calculations and we feel those are sufficient to handle whatever needs may be. MR. CARTIER-Are you satisfied? MR. YARMOWICH-That the stormwater management calculations are based on a 9,000 square foot parking area. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-The information on the plot plan shows quite a bit more parking. MR. CARR-I believe we're only required to have, like, 15 spaces and 1 handicapped space. The reason the application had more spaces was to satisfy this Board's concern to have adequate parking, even though it's more than necessary and I think Mr. Nace probably did his calculations based on just the minimum necessary and, if we have to, we'll cut back our parking to meet just the minimum necessary and then we'd have sufficient stormwater runoff, but I think that's why the calculations may differ. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, there are other elements of the calculation that were not fully understood and I think should be explained, in view of the fact that these plans are needed, in order to take a look at what actually gets built, as opposed to what comes before the Board, that's the reason for raising these comments, at this time. MR. CARTIER-Let's make the assumption that this is going to become a successful business and let's not just go with the minimum parking. Let IS talk about the 14.5 and do the calculations on that basis. MR. YARMOWICH-I think that's an approach that would be acceptable if the calculations were revised to reflect the amount of parking the applicant intends to put in. MR. HAGAN-What about the occupancy of the building, though. Isn't that going to be MR. BAKER-The parking requirements are based on the occupancy of the building. MR. HAGAN-And theylre only talking about 20 people. 4 MR. MARTIN-I have a question, as it relates to that. Can you define for me, a little more in detail, the type of restaurant we're talking about, here? Is there going to be a lot of over the counter stuff? Is it more of a drive-in, drive out nature? MR. CARR-I wouldn't classify it as a drive-in restaurant or with a drive thru or anything like that. 11m sure there'll be a lot of take out, as well as, people seated there, in that area. I think it's really conducive to take out and go home. MR. CAlMANO-Compare it to Martha's. MR. CARR-I don't think, Marthals, I donlt think is a MR. CAlMANO-In terms of the traffic, in terms of the in and out and sit down. MR. CARR-Well, we hope it's as good as Marthals, that takes years to build up, I think. MR. MARTIN-The reason why I asked for some clarification is because the Ordinance makes special reference to requirements for drive-in restaurant parking. MR. CARR-Right. This is not a drive-in restaurant, as defined under the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-I just think, given the sort of border line use you're proposing, here, I think you'd be well advised to stick with larger parking, by no means cut it back. MR. CARR-That's not our intention. I mean, we donlt want to go the bare m1.n1.mum on anything here. Theyl re here to stay for, hopefully, a long time and have a very successful business. So, we do want to think positively at the beginning and provide more parking than is necessary. As to the buffer zone, obviously, it I S a preexisting building. We can't move it out of the buffer zone and the buffer zone of 50 feet between these two zones reaches just about to the west edge of the building. With the change of the entrance on the handicapped side, making it to the west side, I don't believe there will be any building, t hen on the east side, near the residential zone, any construction of any nature, meaning the handicapped ramp, will be on the west side of the building. So, I think we've complied, as much as possible, with that requirement, given the location of the building. MR. CARTIER-I just have a couple of other things. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see the sign location on the drawings that we've been given, that's something that should be included on a revision. MR. CARR-Isn't the sign location on it? MR. CARTIER-There it is. I see it now, okay and the only other thing I have is, Nick has kind of sensitized me to parking lanes, parking lot lanes, here, because we looked at one, that's 15 feet, by the way, up there and I'm beginning to wonder if 20 feet is really wide enough. I can see 20 feet if you have angled parking, in a one way sort of traffic flow, but, hopefully, t his is going to be a busy place and we want to, since this is a two lane, inlout situation, here, and we have the room, I think it would be appropriate to expand that 20 foot driving lane to 25 feet. MR. CARR-Mr. Cartier, I think we comply with Department of Transportation requirements, as to parking directly behind. I think they like 10 by 20 foot lots, with 20 foot in between for the turning radius, if 11m not mistaken. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. MR. CARR-11m sure, with a little work on the design, we can put it on slanting. MR. CARTIER-Our Ordinance says, at least 20 feet. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And, if there's room for it, and there certainly is, I think it could be expanded somewhat, without any great change. MR. ROBERTS-How would you expand? It would have to be closer to the building. I don't see where you've got to go, here. 5 MR. CARTIER-Is this a property line. MRS. VIELE-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-I think it is and if we were to angle the parking, then you'd have to have somewhere to go down here and turn around. I don't think that's practical, either. MR. CARTIER-Okay, I'm misreading this diagram, then. the property line. You're right up against MR. CARR-Yes, I believe that that lot line is for West Mt. Deli, isn't>it? Isn't that right next to there? MRS. VIELE-Yes. MR. CARR-So, the Deli's right next to them, another business. MR. ROBERTS-So, we're not having very much buffering or beautification along that property line, either, are we. MR. CARR-As Mr. Roberts said, it is along another commercial zone, so it's not sO much, we're not that concerned about the buffering between two commercial lots, eating establishments MR. ROBERTS-You may not be, but we are, for Beautification purposes and so forth, and stormwater management and a lot of other things. MR. CARR-That's true, but, we've met with Bob Eddy and he has given us a letter that, pending approval here, we will be appearing before his Committee on September 10th. We have plans for additional plantings between this property and Mr. Seeley's property, of some Red Cedars to complete a tree line down through there and, hopefully, give him some relief and buffer the area, again, because of the location of the residential zone next to this, and we hope this will help take care of sOme of the problems. I know Mr. Seeley's not particularly thrilled with having commercial next to him, but we're working as best we can to try to work with him and take his comments into consideration. MR. CAlMANO-Have you met with Mr. Seeley? Have you talked about this letter? MR. CARR-I think Mr. Ripley has met with Mr. Seeley and I know t he Viele's have met with Mr. Seeley, at some point and I think that's why they came up with this planting of Red Cedars, but I think Mr. Seeley is here tonight. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, we'll talk to Mr. Seeley. Let's not put words in his mouth. I'll open the public hearing in a minute. I still want to address that buffering against, even, the other commercial zone. I don It think, usually, we allow black topping or parking directly to the parking line without some kind of attempted- MR. CARR-I think that's Where the five foot green space buffer has to come in, that was a mistake on the drawing. Is that where it's supposed to be, Stuart? MR. BAKER-That's correct, that's What John Goralski was referring to his notes, with the five foot buffer area required between parking. MR. ROBERTS-That IS Wiat this dotted line is referring to. It just says, curbs, here. MR. MARTIN-John Goralski's referring to, for the five foot buffering, planting around the parking area. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, he's asking for that, as well. Is that something you think you can accommodate? I don't know where you're going to find the room, though. We Ire starting to run out of room. MR. CARR-Well, \\hat we can do, we can get rid of the lateral parking up to the handicapped spaces on the east side of the parking lot, as you come off Corinth Road, get rid of those four or five spaces, move those back five, so you only have that one row, there, and then just have the other parking in the back. MR. CARTIER-There's all this room in the back. 6 --" MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes, plus there's eight acres there. MR. CAlMANO-There's six more acres back there. MRS. PULVER-That was going to be one of my questions. Are the Ripley's selling the entire parcel to the Viele's? MR. CARR-Itls not a sale. It's a lease agreement. MRS. PULVER-Okay, so they're leasing the entire property or are they only leasing 2.1 acres of it? _'-> MR. CARR-I believe they're leasing, they're using 2.1 acres, but they're leasing / that Tax Map No. ~ MR. ROBERTS-So, they will be able to expand parking into that other property, or does that require another lease? --:.:~ MR. CARR-We don't want people parking way back there. for a hamburger. It would be a long walk MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm a little confused, now. We were talking about four or five of these parking slots, along the east side, moving those back here some place, is that right? MR. CARR-Not necessarily moving them, maybe just deleting them from the plan. MR. CARTIER-Which would address part of my concern, about the width. MR. CARR-It's, actually, yes, it would take care of that, also. MR. ROBERTS-We seem to be getting into a major redesign, here, as we go along. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think what we're doing is letting the applicant know what we want to see on the revised plan. MR. MARTIN-I would even like to put up, for a point of our discussion, as a part of our approval, removing the pool, completely. I just think there's no use for it and it's just creating a hazard. Why leave something there for people to stumble over? MR. CARR-Well, I'd like to look into the options available, there and let Mr. Ripley think about what he wants. I mean, the pool meets the criteria for Town. I mean, I know it's on a commercial, not residential, zone, but, tonight, I don't want to, especially if we're looking toward redesigning this plan and, perhaps, tabling it to the next meeting, I don't want to tie him into having to get rid of his pool until he finds out what it's going to cost, maybe, to put a different fence around it and what it's going to cost to remove it and things of that nature. I mean, I think we will address it, next issue. MRS. PULVER-And supposing he is only leasing this, t hat he takes it back as a residential property? MR. MARTIN-Well, he IS making a pretty substantial commitment, though, he's changing his house from a house to a restaurant. MR. CARTIER-Yes, as long as the applicant understands that, if he comes back in with a revised pool, the pool issue is still up for grabs. MR. CAlMANO-Did I miss something, or, in Tom Yarmowich's letter, did we cover Number One, about the septic system? MR. CARR-I believe the septic system has been taken care of in the drawings from Mr. Nace's proposal, but, obviously not to the engineer's satisfaction. MR. YARMOWICH-We would like to get information on the size of the existing septic system, that would be the size of the septic tank, clarification on any other uses on the property, residence, and the pool. In particular, their contributions in the septic system, as well as the disposal system. 7 -..-/ MR. ROBERTS-Let me open the public hearing, now. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AL GREENO MR. GREENO-I live on the Corinth Road, east of this project. Two things that concern me, primarily. The traffic situation, which has already been brought up because they I re just above Stephanie Lane. It was not mentioned that on the opposite side from Stephanie is Stephen I s Road, in fact, slightly west. Theyl re not directly across from each other, but close to it and I think you I re going to have more of a traffic problem, there. You're getting somewhat of a problem from that Deli, there. It I S no wonder that there hasn't been more then there has. The other thing is, those of us that live in that block long area of residential, sandwiched in between industrial, we get all the garbage from all these fast food places and like that, of people walking down from the Deli. If they're going to have soft ice cream, hot dogs, hamburgers and that type of thing, we're going to be collecting the same type of litter all along, only more so. If they have a regular restaurant, you're not apt to have this, but you can pretty much bet that your soft ice cream is going to be a take out, as well as some of your hot dogs, hamburgers, and so forth. We get a constant littering problem, down through there. They go along, eating their stuff, and when they get done with it, chuck it. I realize it's not the fault of the restaurant, but if the restaurant isn't there, the problem wonlt arise. MR. ROBERTS-An interesting point, thank you. Is there anyone else? Mr. Seeley is satisfied with us having read his letter? Do you can~ to have any further comments or have we pretty well covered your comments? RICHARD SEELEY MR. SEELEY-I guess I'm not clear on some of the things, I suppose we addressed. I don't know. MR. CAlMANO-Could you identify yourself. MR. SEELEY-Richard Seeley, property owner, 1 Stephanie Lane. The meetings that were discussed, that I had, with the owners and people who want to lease, consisted of a Sunday night meeting, about four weeks ago, at the Viele's home, lasting about 1 hour, consisting of, maybe, four or five neighbors that cared to show up. That meeting with Mr. Ripley consisted of me sitting at my picnic table one morning, having a cup of coffee, reading my paper. It consisted of discussing a buffer zone for, approximately, 10 minutes, that was it. He was measuring for a fence. I asked him, I told him I preferred trees instead of a fence. So, that was the end of my discussions with all parties concerning everything. Grease venting and odor venting, I have heard nothing about where it's going, how it's going to be and things like that. Rubbage containers, again, I've heard nothing about where they're located and how odors and varmints and things like that are going to be controlled, \\hich, obviously, I would be concerned about. At the meeting at the Viele's home, they said they would operate from 6 to 7, again, 11m saying 7 to 7, in my letter, but, again, I don't know how this is addressed, W:1ether we have a right to put restrictions on them or not. I'm just curious, more than anything else. They also said that their commercial establishment borders another commercial establishment, which part of the property line, is true, but there also is a home located in the middle, there, too, \\hich I'm not familiar with the residence. I don't know how many people live there, but there is a fence around the home and whatever. I'm sure the rest of the property line does border West Mt. Deli. Where this parking is going to be located, now, it sounds like it's going to be moved back, so, again, my back yard is, basically, again, going to become a parking lot, or going to look at a parking lot, rather than a residential home. For the five years that live owned the home, it's been a residential home. It's listed in the Site Plan Review. It's been a ceramic shop, that ceramic shop has not been in operation, ever since I owned my home. I have no idea how long, before that, that that, the sign was out for many years, but it was not in operation. That's all I have, thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Well, it would appear that Mr. Seeley has some valid concerns, as, I guess, we do. MR. CAlMANO-I think one of the things Carol said, earlier, kind of strikes home, here. It seems like the neighbor is, let's see if I can get it straight, the neighbor is being reasonable. I think the Viele's want to make a nice business, 8 ~ here, but the whole thing seems to strike me, since it's a lease operation, we're dealing with less than a third of the lot being used, it almost strikes me as, I'd like to make this thing go, but if it doesn't go, let's go back to something else and let's not do all of the work that's necessary to make this into a going operation, including, satisfying the neighbors, that's what I see, here. Maybe I'm wrong and I think Carol brought that up earlier. MR. ROBERTS-Well, perhaps if we table this and give them another crack at it, we can get a better plan. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I'd like to, I think that's, maybe, the way to go, but I think we should make perfectly clear our concerns, so they can go away with a thorough understanding of what those are and I've just been listing them, here, as we've been talking, odor venting or where that's going to go, show it on the plan; a redesigned parking, with the buffer area; the buffering along the east side, in terms of planting or fencing or whatever; location of trash receptacles; and a real hard look and a solid presentation, next time, of how the pool issue IS going to be dealt with. MR. ROBERTS-And/or, perhaps, the pool could be replaced by some buffering against the residential use, next door. I'd like to be, about the residential use to the west. I'm not sure I am clear. substantial also, clear MR. CAlMANO-Residential use or Commercial use? MRS. PULVER-Commercial. MR. HAGAN-It's Commercial use on the west. MR. ROBERTS-Commercial. MR. HAGAN-It's Commercial use on the west, Dick. MR. CARTIER-Zoned Commercial or is Commercial. MR. CAlMANO-It is zoned Commercial. MR. ROBERTS-It's zoned, I understand, now. I don't know about the use. MR. BAKER-Itls zoned Light Industrial. MR. CAlMANO-Light Industrial, right. MR. CARTIER-Is the property, presently, being used commercially, or as a residence? MRS. VIELE-It's a residence. MR. CARTIER-It's a residence to the west? MRS. VIELE-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And I also think it would be a good idea if we consider the recommendations of the Beautification Committee to have them go before them, before they return to us. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I agree. MR. CAlMANO-I think they are. MR. ROBERTS-I guess they plan on it. MR. MARTIN-That will take care of a lot of our buffering issues, I think. MRS. VIELE-I just want to address Mr. Caimano. ~ had had a meeting at our house and I sent a letter around to everyone, welcoming in to my husband and my home to explain what we were doing with this restaurant. We are trying to work with our neighborhood and Mr. Seeley was there and he got very upset, of course, and left, \\hich we can understand him being, but it is going to be a clean establishment. There is going to be no grease smells. There's just going to be good, clean smelling cooking coming out of there. If we don't go in there, 9 there is going to be another business establishment that is going to try to go in there and I just wanted to address him and let him know that we are trying to work with the neighborhood. MR. MARTIN-When we look at something like this, it's not, maybe this will be converted into a restaurant and maybe you'll manage it for a couple of years and then somebody else new will come in and we have to make sure that the building, When it's designed, or the site, when itls designed, will accommodate every user or every owner. MRS. VIELE-Right. MR. CAlMANO-I appreciate your saying that. I'm not against the business, at all. MRS. VIELE-Right. MR. CAlMANO-I just think that we have to, and one of the things I'd like to do and this Board, if you come here month after month, we always ask that the people next to each other get together because it helps us a lot. MRS. VIELE-Well, that's what we did. We had a neighborhood meeting and the people that were interested in what we were doing, four of them came. We have West Mt. Deli that's on the other side of where we're going in, that's a problem that we're going against, too, because he doesn't take care of his parking lot or his yard and the papers do fly around, but I just want to make that clear that that's not going to happen with us. I plan on keeping the yard clean and, hopefully, the papers in the storage, \\hich is going to be behind, \\hich is on the plan, in a fence. There is a fence around the pool. MR. CARTIER-Just to add to your list, Jim, I think, maybe you've got these. You mentioned something about showing walkways and trash container location. MRS. VIELE-There is one on the plan. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and I think, in terms of this gentleman and traffic, it might help, \\hat I'm concerned about is getting stacked up on Corinth Road, getting in and out of there. There needs to be some way to accommod ate that, even if it's a matter of just flaring the entrance onto Corinth Road. I think that's something that ought to be addressed, too, so we don't end up with somebody stacked, on Corinth Road, waiting to get in. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Bruce, do you have copies of all of this? MR. CARR-Yes, I do. MR. CAlMANO-I guess the other thing we should, the applicant pretty much, you've outlined, pretty much, \\hat you'd like to see. There are engineering concerns. Mr. Seeley I s letter, we ought to let both Mr. Seeley and the applicant know, at this point, those things that they ought to get to~thér on and those things which we have no control over. For example, they asked a question regarding the hours of operation. What's the situation? MR. ROBERTS-We can place some restrictions on it. MR. CAlMANO-I know, but do we, you know, we're talking about a soft ice cream place. Summer is when you sell most soft ice cream and the sun doesn't go down at 7 olclock. I think the late hour is restrictive. I don't know about the early hour, but I think the late hour is restrictive for that type of business. MR. ROBERTS-It may be unreasonable. MR. CAlMANO-If I'm going out with the kids to get soft ice cream, it may very well be 8 or 9 0' clock on a summer night. It may very well be that we have to do, if we're going to put restrictive hours, that they should correspondence to that, as opposed to just a strict 7 o'clock. MR. CARTIER-Well, recognizing that what we're talking about, here, is compromise on both sides. MR. CAlMANO-Right. 10 MR. CARTIER-I think it might not be unreasonable for this Board to consider a 10 o'clock closing or something like that. MR. CAlMANO-For a certain amount of hours, a certain amount of months, or whatever. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAlMANO-So, everything on this letter, that we see as a Board, that Mr. Seeley wrote, is negotiable with the applicant and Mr. Seeley, is that what we're saying? MR. CARTIER-Most of these things have been addressed already and I think some of them have been addressed to Mr. Seeleyls satisfaction. MR. CAlMANO-Except the last three questions that he asks us. MRS. PULVER-Well, you would need a Site Plan for anything. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MRS. PULVER-So, we don't know if he'll expand until they come up for Site Plan and then Mr. Seeley could come back. MR. CAlMANO-The three questions at the end, Mr. Seeley, the first question, you canlt do anything without coming back for Site Plan Review, again. You can't, arbitrarily, do something. The second one is being addressed. "What is the proposed use of the existing garage." I don I t know, but when we make the approval, if we make the approval, it will stipulate what can be used and what can't be used, so that they can't just, carte blanche, go ahead and doing anything else they want to do on the property. I hope that answers the question. MR. SEELEY-Richard Seeley, again. Is the driveway staying or is there any proposed changes with that at all? MR. CARTIER-What I heard was that driveway is going to go. MR. MARTIN-I was of the opinion the east side driveway was gone. MRS. PUL VER- Ye s . MR. SEELEY-I thought so, but I just wanted to be sure. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Carr, is that your understanding, too? MR. CARR-Yes, it is. MRS. PULVER-You're going to eliminate that? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, I think that we're getting on the same wavelength, here. I think, with you're approval, we probably better consider tabling this to get a plan that we can all live with. MR. CARR-We would appreciate it if you would table this application. MR. MARTIN-Have you got our, made a list of our concerns, there? MR. CARR-Yes, I've got them all. MR. ROBERTS-And we'll leave the public hearing open, if we're going to talk again. Let's have a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 63-90 WAYNE AND DAWN VIELE, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Pending further clarification of location of walkways; location of venting of odors and anything off the grill, What have you; and redesigned parking. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts 11 NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. ROBERTS-Well, perhaps, since this isn't disapproval, do we have to be that specific? list to the applicants and the neighbors. really a motion of approval or I think we've given the laundry MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CAlMANO-Could I make a request of you and this is just, strictly, a personal request, again, all these things always go better if everybody works well together. I sense a certain animosity, but there's also a reason to get together, so I'd ask that, hopefully, everybody will do that before next meeting. MR. CARR- I wi II hope so. SITE PLAN NO. 64-90 COINER OF MINNESOTA FOR RENTAL PURPOSES.. E TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 BOB NORTIlGAJID GIBER: SAME AS ABOI7E AND IŒNTIrAL AVENUE FOR CONSTRDCTlœ OF A BI-LEVEL DUPLEX TAX MAP 110.. 127-8-1 Lor SIZE: )f..183 ACRES SEcnœ 4.020 BOB NORTHGARD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-(Referring to Staff Input) Excuse me, \\hy isn't this a subdivision of land. MR. BAKER-The mortgage lines are, I believet for loan purposes only. It is one lot on the Tax Map. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. CARTIER-But that's the same question I raised, Wien I looked at this. MR. ROBERTS-But he I s going to be a single ownership. I guess he can build rental units without subdividing it, under Site Plan Review, maybe not what we intended, but. MR. HAGAN-In other words, What is the ultimate intent of the applicant? MR. BAKER-I think that's What Mrs. York is pointing out in her comments, here. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. ENGINEER JlEPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Is the applicant or a representative here? MR. NORTHGARD-Ilm Bob Northgard. I do have a question. I'm not an expert or an engineer. When you say "trench width", you're referring to the septic system? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. It's the trenches that the drain pipes are installed in. MR. NORTHGARD-Now, as opposed to increasing the length of the, I believe it's 300 feet of septic line. Could we also increase the trench width, would that be acceptable? MR. YARMOWICH-No, the trench width, maximum, is 24 inches or 2 feet. MR. NORTHGARD-That' s the maximum? MR. YARMOWI CH - Ye s . MR. NORTHGARD-So, \..e need to go with more length? 12 ~ MR. YARMOWICH-More length, either additional length on the laterals that are there or additional laterals. MR. NORTHGARD-I don't see where that would be a problem. How much more lengt h would be required? MR. YARMOWICH-375 feet is the total required length of trench. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay, so we need to pick up another 75 feet. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay, I'm sure that won't be a problem. MR. YARMOWICH-It should not be. MR. NORTHGARD-In answer to your question, as to future development, I have none. Mort gage lines, of course, were drawn. The entire parcel was purchased under one mortgage. We've gotten land releases and I obtained additional mortgage money to build the project and that's why the mortgage lines were drawn. MR. CARTIER-Do you understand that, if you were to sell off one of these pieces of propert y, okay, \\hether it be the empt y lot or one of these two house s , at that point, he'd have to come in for subdivision, correct? MR. BAKER-Correct. MR. CARTIER-You would have to come in for a subdivision. MR. NORTHGARD-I'm aware of that. MR. CARTIER-You are aware of that? MR. NORTHGARD-If the property is to be sold or broken off, in any way, it would have to be subdivided first. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NORTHGARD-If there were any plans to do anything it would be to subdivide, that would probably be the next intelligent step. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC BEARIIIG CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-This detail, or I call it a detail, of having to enlarge the septic field, is that a problem that we need to see again? MR. YARMOWICH-No, it is not. I think the applicant understands that 375 feet of 2 foot trench is what's required. MR. NORTHGARD-Right. My contractor did his own engineering calculations and we had them confirmed. We thought we were within the specs, but, obviously, we're not, but I'm sure it will not be a problem to change it. There's plenty of acreage there to put the additional footage on. MR. CAlMANO-Karla, can we, in a motion to approve this, asswning we're going to approve it, restrict it to what's on this drawing and what we do today, so that no further development could be, are we allowed to do that? MRS. PULVER-We can anyway, Nick. MR. ROBERTS-That goes without saying. MRS. PULVER-He has to have Site Plan. 13 --../ MR. ROBERTS-He has to subdivide before he comes in for anything further or Site Plan, if he wants to build another new one. MR. CAlMANO-That' s right. MR. CARTIER-I would suspect, just sO we're being very fair to you, Mr. Northgard, suppose you decided you want to put another duplex on this additional back piece, at that point, I would suspect, very strongly, that we would ask to see a subdivision application, at that time. MR. NORTHGARD-As I said, I think the most intelligent stép would be to subdivide, probably, right at the mortgage lines, and that way we can have a clear definition as to where everything's at and if we decide to develop in the future, ~'ve got it already subdivided. MR. CAlMANO-Great. MR. ROBERTS-Mrs. York was wondering if this was inconsistent with the neighborhood, with the size of the building. I guess I really didn't see that as a problem. MR. NORTHGARD-I don't know if you have kind of an overview or a picture as to what this home is going to look like. The reason that I picked a bi-level type of duplex in this neighborhood is because I don't see any other duplexes around and I want to try to conform with single family type housing, from an appearance standpoint. There'd be one entrance, not two. There's not going to be a garage on each side to kind of tell you it's a duplex. It's going to, more or less, look like a single family unit, with more parking. MR. ROBERTS-Great. Well, if we don't have any further questions, I think we can entertain a motion, here. MR. CAlMANO -We've got to do a SEQRA. MR. ROBERTS-11m sorry. SEQRA Short Form. MR. BAKER-Also, before SEQRA is addressed, 11m going back to Mrs. York's comments. I think the reason she suggested the Board request a conceptual plan for total build out on the lot is to make sure that they can, indeed, fit more development on the lot and meet all the requirements of the zoning. MR. ROBERTS-Why do we need to worry about that now? If he doesn't have space to build another one, he doesn't have space to build another one. MRS. PULVER-He should be thinking of that and not us. MR. CAlMANO-And we can't do anything about it without the Site Plan Review, or he canlt do anything about it without the Site Plan Review, right? MR. HAGAN-We addressed that by MR. NORTHGARD-I guess we cross that bridge when we come to it, right? MR. BAKER-He couldn't do a subdivision without coming back before you, correct. MR. CAlMANO-Right, and he can't do anything without subdividing this lot. MR. CARTIER-In other words, What we're saying, in effect, is, this is as far as he can go without a subdivision application. MR. HAGAN-Which mayor may not be approved. MR. NORTHGARD-Correct. MR. CARTIER-In other words, Wiat What I'm hearing is, even if you going to own, ~ are going to want of this entire piece of property. saying. we're saying to you is, even if you come in, come in to build another duplex, that you are to see it, in terms of a subdivision application I don't hear you disagreeing with what welre MR. NORTHGARD-No, I doni t disagree. I'm simply asking, if we decide to build an additional unit, maybe this one turns out very, very nice and we want to do another unit, is there a requirement in the Zoning and whatever, that would require 14 -..-/ subdivision before additional building or is this simply something that would be suggested? MR. ROBERTS-If you're going to own it, it would be another rental unit and it would just be another Site Plan Review like this one, if you've got the space for it. MR. NORTHGARD-If I've got the space for it. MR. ROBERTS-If you run out of space, that's your problem. MR. NORTHGARD-My calculations show us with MR-5 zoning, that's 5,000 per dwelling. MR. ROBERTS-Right, per unit. MR. NORTHGARD-And we've got some 50,000 square feet, there, so, I think we'll be alright, but I don't have any intentions of doing that. I don't have the money for it, anyway, but I just want to get this one built. I want to get it built properly. MR. CARTIER-Well, I just want to be sure you're very clear about what your hearing from this Board, or at least from me and from Staff, here, is that what you're saying is true, yes, you could put up another duplex on a Site Plan basis, but what this Board is saying, I think, before we're going to allow that, ~ want to see a subdivision application on this property. MR. CAlMANO-No, that's not what we said. MR. NORTHGARD-That's not required, if I understand that correctly. MR. CARTIER-Thatls what Staff is saying, but we're not saying that. MR. CAlMANO-No, Karla? MRS. PULVER-He doesn't have to have subdivision to put up another building, but he has to have Site Plan Review. MS. CORPUS-That's not a requirement under the Ordinance. MR. ROBERTS-We, often times, usually do like to look at an entire parcel and see what's going to happen down the road ,for everybody's benefit and that might very ~ll be wise for US to look at the entire parcel, either now or another time, certainly. MR. HAGAN-And don't sell it on the pretense that this could be done. RESOLUTION WHEN DETEJDllNA'IION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS IfADE RESOLUTION NO. 64-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Roberts: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: the construction of a bi-level duplex for rental purposes on the corner of Minnesota and Central Avenues, owned by MI... ROBERT NORTIIGARD and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 15 "--- -..-/ 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 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-90 BOB IIORTHGARD, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: With the following stipulation: That 75 additional feet of leachfield be provided, for a total of 375 feet. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. ROBERTS-Yes, Mr. Carr. MR. CARR-Bruce Carr, again. It's just come to my attention that the deadline for revised drawings is tomorrow at 2 p.m. I'm asking your indulgence to extend that deadline for us, maybe, until a week from Thursday to allow us to revise the drawing and get it to the Board, which would be September 6th, which would allow us, still, to be on the September 18th agenda, which would allow the Staff and the Board over 10 days to look at the revised plan . Otherwise, now, we're looking into October and the winter season and we I d like to, if everything is approved, be building before that time. MR. ROBERTS-That may sound easy. I'm not sure it's quite that easy. Stuart, if we were to extend the deadline for this application, for Mr. Carr's project, won't that conflict with Staff Review time and give us some other internal problems. MR. BAKER-Well, we do have Staff Review a week after the submission deadline date, so we would need it before that date. MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry, I have a difficult time with this request. MR. CAlMANO-I do, too. I see Mr. Weller out there. What if he came in and did the same thing and every other builder. I think we open a big can of worms doing that. MR. CARTIER-I understand Mr. Carris request and it's one that's made often. Unless there are some extremely extenuating circumstances, I'm not sure this Board is prepared to provide a deadline extension. MR. CARR-Mr. Cartier, I don't know if you would consider this extenuating circumstances, but we were one of the first applications in, for the August meetings. At the time, it was felt that we would be on the last week I s agenda and we were surprised to find we were on this week's agenda which only, through working of the calendar or whatever, gives us one day to revise the plans, otherwise wait two months. MR. CARTIER-Well, Mr. Carr, you asked me and I don't consider that extenuating circumstances. I'm sorry. 16 '-- MR. CARR-I feel we could have it in prior to the Staffl s Review of next week, which is, I guess, a week from Wednesday? MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. CARR-I mean, if we could have a deadline extended to that extent, and we can have it in, I think we would really appreciate the opportunity to do so because I don't think the modifications are extensive. I think they're very straightforward and we can get the answers that are required. MR. HAGAN-Does this present a problem to the Staff, more than it does this Board? MR. ROBERTS-I think it does and I kind of wonder. You say your application was in early, if it was in that early it would have been on last week's agenda, wouldn't it? MR. BAKER-Except for the number of Old Business items that were on last week. MR. ROBERTS-Well, sure, but they're stacking up in that order. MR. BAKER-Right. MR. ROBERTS-We do have some carryover, from month to month, which, admittedly, poses some problems. Your request sounds simply, but it opens a can of worms for us that we've been burned by when we've done it in the past. I'd like to find a way to get around that, but I donlt think we've found a way. MR. BAKER-Mr. Carr, just for your information, yourls is not the only application that has been tabled for more information the night before the deadline date. This has happened often before, I'd say. MR. CARTIER-And often we get a request for extension and often we turn them down. MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I don't remember the last time we gave one. MR. ROBERTS-We have been hesitant to do that, recently. It is a great incentive to get your things in very early. MR. CARR-And we will. I guess the reason I ask is because it's not that we have to get a surveyor anything like that. It's not those types of changes. It's more of drawing changes and just making sure of the septic. I mean, I think we can do it and, as long as we get it before the Staff meeting of next week, I don't see where anybody would be harmed. I'm not looking to burn this Board, by any means, by doing it, but we were going to try to comply with all your requests and I think we can do it. MR. CARTIER-Well, one of our requests, apparently, is that submissions be in by deadline and I think, unless I'm misreading t his Board, and I certainly don't think I am, I think we're going to be pretty hardnosed about that. MR. ROBERTS-I think we've set some policies and procedures, here, that I think would be difficult to honor this request. It's a change in our system that I think we have to go back and alter the entire system, if we're going to do this because it opens a serious can of worms and I don It know that we can do that. MR. BAKER-If you're going to uphold the current deadline date, no motion is necessary. MR. ROBERTS-I guess weill have to turn down your request, is what it amounts to. MR. CARR-Okay, well, thank you for your time. SITE PLAN NO. 65-90 'lYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA JAMES M. WJU.T.~R, P.E. OWNER: JAMES E. BAIUŒTT QUAKER ROAD, 110RTHWEST OF QUAKER ROAD CAR WASH (AD.JACItIIY Lor) FOR COBSTRUCTIOB OF A ONE STORY BUILDING TYPE 2B 1I0NcœmUSTIBLE EXTERIOR WALL. PROVIDE ON SITE PARKING FOR A MINIMUM OF 16 VEHICLES. FOR TRUCK REPAIR AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT (TRUCK) SALES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.23 LOT SIZE: 1.963 ACRES SEClIUf 4.020 N JIM WELLER, PRESENT 17 STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ØGINED REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-And Warren County approved without comment and Queensbury Beautification Committee approved as well. Is there anyone here, Jim? MR. WELLER-I'm Jim Weller, and I'm here to represent the project. me to, I just received these comments. I can comment to each one I'm equipped to, tonight. Is that the way you'd like me to proceed? Would you like of them as best MR. ROBERTS-I would think that would be the way. MR. CAlMANO-Yes. MR. WELLER-The proposed sign is shown on the Site Plan. It's not dimensioned as to how far it is off the property line. Our intent would be, when we file for a permit for the sign, that it will show all the dimensions that are required and be of the required setback. The lighting on the front property line should be directed away from Quaker Road and that was our intent and if you look closely at the lights, they do have an indication on them that shows that they are directed away from Quaker Road and onto the property. The suggestion that signage be provided at the road cuts to Quaker Road indicating one way access, it's not indicated on the plan. If that's the wishes of the Board, we have no problem in complying with that. The truck display could be arranged in the side parking area in such a manner to provide adequate visibility to traffic on Quaker Road. We don't believe that the truck display has any effect on the visibility on Quaker Road. The Quaker Road is fairly straight in that area and I don't believe that these trucks would come into the vision of the traffic along Quaker Road. MR. CAlMANO-I don't think that's way he meant it, though. MR. BAKER-No, Mr. Weller, what I meant by that comment was that the trucks could be arranged on the side so that they would be very visible, if not as visible, to traffic on Quaker Road as they would be if they were displayed in front. I wasn't referring to the site distance for the traffic. MR. WELLER-I see. Well, we responded in laying that out to what we thought were the requirements of utilization of the property within the regulations of the Town of Queensbury and to suit the various desires of the property owner. So, I'm sure there are other arrangements that could have been complied with. This is the way the owner of the property chose to develop the property within what he, and we, thought were the restrictions of being able to develop the property. So, certainly, there are other arrangements. MR. CAlMANO-Well, my comment, and I'm not sure I understand you either, Stu, is that this is a truck sales place. Car sales places have cars in front. Truck sales places have trucks in front. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to do. MR. BAKER-Well, I was referring to the character of that neighborhood. Granted, there are car sales along that section of Quaker Road. MR. CAlMANO-With cars in front. MR. BAKER-With cars in front, yes, but truck display in front has more of a visual impact than car display. MR. CAlMANO-Right and that's exactly what a truck salesman wants to do, right? MR. BAKER-Right. Well, what I'm stating is that the trucks can be just as visible if parked on the sides then if they were put directly in front. MR. CAlMANO-Alright. MR. BAKER-And they would have less of an impact on those who aren't looking for truck sales. 18 ~e MR. WELLER-The "E" Comment, "The proposed access in the rear of the parcel should have a drainage culvert." I think, and I just reviewed the drawing, again, after I saw this comment, I think there's not room in the elevations to provide for a drainage culvert and I think we' ve provid~d for a swale in the black topping to continue the drainage path as it now exists. MR. BAKER-I was referring to the drainage not on your prop~rty, but just beneath it where the road cut will be for your rear access and what I'm suggesting is that a culvert be placed underneath there. Granted, this is not on your property, but I think a culvert is needed there to con tinue what appears to be a natural drainage way or a drainage way that was created by the development in the area. MR. WELLER-The new paving is at the same elevation as the existing ground, in the back. MR. HAGAN-That's Where I have a problem, too, Jim. I was trying to ask you. At what point in time was that fill brought in on this lot owned by your client? MR. WELLER-I don't have any knowledge of that. I don't know. MR. HAGAN-Well, that gives me a big problem because, as far as I'm concerned whoever did that, has created a problem for the adjoining property and that should have b~en part, in my opinion, of this original Site Plan, before that fill was brought in. MR. WELLER-I was retained by the people that own the property, a couple, three months ago, to take it from where it's at. I have no knowledge of who brought it in or tmder what conditions it was brought in. I did talk with the Planning Board Staff, to the extent that I questioned, in our drainage calculations and our considerations for development, if they chose us to go back and try to reestablish the preexisting conditions and we were told to take it from where the conditions are now. I don It think the ultimate development of this property, the way we have submitted it, is going to cause a problem to the n~ighbors. MR. HAGAN-That's a matter of opinion. MR. CARTIER-Well, this Whole area is a high groundwater area and what bothers me, here, with this is, we're taking, yes, you've met the numbers, you've got 31 percent permeable, here, but 70 percent is impermeable, that creates some major drainage problems and I think we need to be careful, in that whole area down there, in terms of being sure we Ire not just, you know, we ran into this with QEDC. MR. CAlMANO-QEDC, right. MR. CARTIER-That we're not just passing the water problems on to the last guy to develop in there. MR. CAlMANO-Not only that, but we can't. MR. CARTIER-And I think that has to be addressed early in this process, in this area, and it's, your right, this has been aggravated by What you're talking about. MR. HAGAN-I think, Jim, that your client has to be aware that it's got to be his responsibility to take care of any excess runoff on the adjoining lots because his fill, in my opinion, has created a detrimental condition on the adjoining land. So, I think, if there is a drainage problem, it should be his responsibility to take care of it because he has created it. MR. WELLER-I understand. 11m not aware of a drainage problem existing down there, at the present time. MR. CARTIER-I'm not saying on this specific site, Jim. area down there. Welve got groundwater problems. I'm saying this Whole MR. WELLER-I understand. MR. CARTIER-And you may not have it on this individual site, but you may and itls going to get passed on to somebody on another piece of property and we need to get a handle on this, site by site, as that area develops down there. MR. WELLER-I understand. 19 ~ MR. CARTIER-Otherwise, QEDC's going to end up under water. MR. WELLER-Well, I think our design does provide for handling the stormwater runoff, even if you take into consideration what it was in the pre-developed, and I say the preexisting fill condition. MR. CARTIER-I think, maybe, these things will be addressed as you address the engineers comments, anyway. I think if you satisfy the engineer, at least I think my concerns about drainage over there will be addressed, because Tom does make reference to some of those things. MR. WELLER-To finish up, it was our intent that the drainage on the right-of-way on the rear of the property would not change the drainage patterns that currently exist. They would remain the same. MR. BAKER-From an on-site visit, it appeared, though, that there was a natural drainage way that went in a westerly direction along the rear of the property and that is why I mentioned the possible need for a culvert there underneath the rear access. MR. CARTIER-What I'm suggesting is if you take 70 percent of that parcel and you make it impermeable, that water's got to go somewhere. MR. WELLER-Well, I think welve provided for that in the retention area. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. WELLER-At least, that was what our design asked to respond to. (Referring to Staff Notes) "The slopes on the edge of the existing fill should be cleared of rocks, graded and seeded for erosion control and aesthetics." It is our intent to do that. If it's not set in these same specific terms, it was certainly our plan to show it on the drawing with the re-grading of slopes and the indication that we were going to plant an established ground cover on the entire parcel, but it is our intention to do, to accomplish what's in this note, and the last one is the DPW and DPW did review the curb cuts and the drainage at the front of the property as we developed the plan and we developed the plan around things that they're planning on doing down in that area and we do have the Highway Permits from Warren County. MR. CARTIER-That's got to be one way in, one way out, I assume? MR. WELLER-That was the intent, that's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay, are you going to have signs besides what is just painted there? MR. WELLER-There's no signs indicated on that drawing. It would be my intent to comply with the suggestion in the Planning Department's report. MR. CARTIER-Okay, because we talked about this once before. These things get covered up with snow and you can see them and if there's one way in, one way out vertical signs that helps. MR. HAGAN-I respect the fact that you ran the percolation tests in July, rather than in December. MR. WELLER-Well, the date of the perc test is indicated on the drawing, that's When we took it. If a test pit is required to establish the groundwater level or the bedrock, we can do that. We did what we thought was required for this submittal and that was to do a percolation test to the depths that the percolation criteria asked for. (Referring to Engineer Report) "The separation distance between the stormwater retention basin and the absorption field be at a minimum of 50 feet", I am not familiar with that stand ard or that requirement. We did try to, I think we separated it, on the drawing, by 10 feet. I think that's equivalent to what it would have to be separated from a property line. 11m not familiar with the requirement for a separation of 50 feet. We did try to make the retention area as large as possible. I think it's some 25 to 50 percent larger than what would actually be required for a 25 year storm. We were trying to provide as much as we possibly could to retain the stormwater. "The stormwater management design calculations should be provided." We offered to submit those, with our submittal, to the Planning Staff. They indicated that they didn I t think they would be required. We have them in our files. There is no, basins, as such. The emergency overflow spillway, there isn I t really, this is a retention area 20 --.../ and not a detention type area. We understand, from Planning, that these type of management facilities ask to accommodate a 25 year storm and it is the detention facility that requires a 50 year storm. However, I think the point maybe moot, in that, if you were to look at our calculations, and the results of them are on the drawing, that we actually provided 25 to 50 percent more than what might be required and I think the difference between a 25 and a 50 year storm is around 10 percent. "Calculations for the design of the proposed culverts at Quaker Road are required to demonstrate adequacy to convey 25 year storms." We really put those culverts in as we were ask to provide them by Warren County. The drainage on the project to be developed is primarily away from those culverts and away from the Quaker Road drainage ditch and whatever the stormwater is that's going down that drainage ditch, is a product of other properties in the road and so forth. So, we provide it the way Warren County asked us to provide it. Erosion control measures, we think we addressed erosion control. We certainly intended to address it. There are erosion control notes on the drawing, relative to protection during construction and establishment of seeded areas as the construction progresses and maintenance of those areas. The driveway at the south end of the property is too steep. We understand that that may not comply with certain Highway Department regulations. It is about 15 percent. It is not going to a public way. It's going to a private right-of-way. The owner requested that as an access, so that he could get down to that right-of-way. He has a deeded right-of-way to that driveway going into the Hewitt's Offices, there. Otherwise, we could delete the access, if you insist. The owner would like to be able to get down to that right-of-way if he could. MR. CARTIER-Well, it's delete or come up with a 10 percent or less grade. not a delete, necessarily. It's MR. WELLER-We don't understand where the stand ard would necessitate that, for a private entrance like that, that it might be 10 percent. We understand that there would, probably, less than 10 percent if we were going to a State or County road. MR. CARTIER-Well, maybe, worst case scenario, emergency vehicle's got to get in, back there, somehow or other. MR. WELLER-I understand. Probably, the owner would choose to delete because a 10 percent grade would change our stormwater runoff plan. We don't want to be taking stormwater down that ramp into that back ditch line. It was the intent to keep it on the site and one of the reasons why we kept the grade as steep as we did. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I guess I have to ask our consulting engineer how serious the criticisms are, or have we been able to mitigate some of these things? MR. YARMOWICH-The Ordinance does require test pit data, as a part of èvaluating the subsurface conditions for suitability and the type of soil disposal system to be provided. That information can lead to important indications of seasonal high groundwater conditions that could limit system use. We recommend that that data be obtained as a part of the system design. Regarding Comment Number Two, separation distances, I'm not able to furnish a conclusive determination as to where the 50 foot minimum is. In the absence of that, I'm not able to clarify that any further, for the applicant. Regarding the stormwater management, the 50 year design period is specified in the Subdivision Regulations, which are the general criteria for commercial site plans. The 50 year storm would include detention and retention basins. The 10 year storm is a suitable mechanism for control, other than basins. It IS not clear how the pre and post development runoff volumes are developed and, therefore, we were requesting calculations to show that. Regarding Item 4, the applicant has answered that the Warren County Highway Department has directed them to place the culverts at that size. Erosion control measures are indicated to be in place as part of the specifications for the project and the applicant has addressed the 10 percent grade requirement for a driveway. So, I believe that Item's 1 and 3 remain outstanding. MR. HAGAN-One note on Item 3. maintenance and repair of the sort of a wide open request. take exception to it. I fail to understand where you claim a note regarding structures should be given. To what extent? Thatls If I were the applicant, I would be inclined to MR. YARMOWICH-The maintenance and repair of the stormwater structure, if it's to provide release, can involve replacement of rip rap, removal of sediment, making sure that the culverts and outlet structures that are part of the concept. 21 ~. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but you said structures. I'm thinking of the building he intends to use. MR. YARMOWICH-It's only the context of the stormwater management approach. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. CAlMANO-This is both new and used trucks youlre selling? MR. WELLER-Presumably. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, my question is, trucks that come in for repair, before they go inside the building for repair, is there a staging area? Where are they going to be kept on this land, do you know? MR. WELLER-It I S my understanding that they'll be behind the indicated parking areas, along the side of the garage. MR. CAlMANO-Here? MR. WELLER-That's correct. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-I guess the only other issue I can think of that hasn't been brought up is, we're into heavy equipment repair, here. There are various kinds of solvents and so on that are going to be used in cleaning of equipment, so on and those are all going to have to be dealt with, somehow, in the building. I guess we need some comments to the effect of how that I s going to be done, so that we know that stuff isn't getting into grotmdwater, you know, no drains in the building floors and that sort of thing. MR. WELLER-We have submitted, I believe, with our application, the Material and Safety Data Sheet. MRS. PULVER-Yes, it's right here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. WELLER-We have also notified the owner that he is committed to that sheet and if anything should change from it, after he occupies it, that it must be re-submitted. MR. CARTIER-Okay, good. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED MR. ROBERTS-I guess I'm a little bit hazy as to whether or not the engineer feels that your request would hold up approval here. MR. CARTIER-He I s saying he needs test pit data from down in that area. Because it is that area, I strongly support that. MR. YARMOWICH-The Board should also be aware that retention basins, wet basins, those which fill and remain filled for sometime, are discouraged by the Subdivision and indicated in the Subdivision total site release is not exceeded, The use of wet retention ponds can applicants propose that stormwater Regulations. The approach that's preferred Regulations is a con trolled release, Where the for events up to a 50 year return interval. become a detraction and a nuisance and the approach. MR. CARTIER-Is together with to this Board, there anything to prevent the applicant, Mr. Weller, from getting you and satisfying your concerns prior to submission of material for approval? MR. YARMOWICH-No, therels not. MR. WELLER-One of the reasons why we suggested to the owner that he look to a retention type basin versus structures, as you referred to them, is that we felt that he would maintain a basin and the structures, or the sanding of the roads and so forth have a tendency to have to be maintained, extensively. There are 22 -./ structures, so to speak, at the two facilities down, the Mazda dealership. We also checked with the Town of Queensbury to be sure that we were following about the same kind of standards that were followed on that particular project. That project has structures and the water is recharged into the ground. If they don't keep the sand out of those catch basins and those perforated, underground pipes down there, it's not likely to work very well and we thought the retention basin would provide the owner with something that would stand a better chance of being able to be maintained and being able to operate. I draw your attention, also, to the fact, Wien we talked 25 year storm, 50 year storm, that we have provided some 25 to 50 percent more retention on the area then our calculations indicated would actually be required. MR. YARMOWICH-We would like to see those calculations. MR. WELLER-I have no difficulty with that. MR. YARMOWICH-And have you demonstrate that they comply with the 50 year storm. MR. MARTIN-So, \\hat you're saying, here, Tom, is the system he's proposed is something that's a little more maintenance intensive, in other words, that requires the owner, on a regular basis MR. YARMOWICH-What Jim is saying about maintenance is, gðnerally, true. Drywell systems and perforated under drain systems, generally, are subject to clogging. The apparent impact of what you see is greatly different, with regard to a retention basin. A retention basin will remain full of water. They can be a hazard, in terms of life safety and they are allowed to fill to a depth of four feet. A four foot basin that's there for a period of time can present a safety hazard, in this case, it I S not fenced. The Board should be aware of that. They are designed to drain over a period of time, to control the release. The Subdivision Regulations promote stormwater retention, to protect discharge to areas such as wetlands or other critical environmental areas, \\here a release structure that will have a control depth and much shorter duration of filling is the preferred approach in the Subdivision Regulations. MR. WELLER-This retention basin, I think, is a foot and a half deep, maximum depth. We tried to be careful that we didnlt create a hazard on the site. MR. YARMOWICH-¡Im speaking to the general intent in the provisions in the Regulations. I think the applicant should satisfy the Board whether or not this approach is not going to compromisð the intent of the Regulations, to allow it to occur. MR. CAlMANO-Could we go back to something Peter asked before, because I think we got the wrong answer. I think you started, correct me if I'm wrong, you started to ask the question regarding spillage of hazardous material, not whether or not certain hazardous materials were being reported, because they are and that's attached, here. The question I thought you asked, and I don't know if we have an answer to it is, if the more than 100 gallons, is there an area or require an area, so that, if there is spillage it does not go into the ground water, that's the question I thought you asked and that's the question we got answered by the ot her gentleman on the Quick Oil Change on Route 9, Who said they collected, if there was a spill, all of that material was in an area where it was collected and spun off and then sold and that none of it would go to ground and I think that's the question that you wanted answered. MR. CARTIER-Correct. There is no, just the sketch of the building is there. There is no drainage shown on the floor of that building, as offered to us. I'm assuming there will be none. MR. WELLER-I'm sure there will be. We expect there will be, doing the design of the facility, itself. MR. CARTIER-You said you're sure there will be. MR. WELLER-Well, I'm sure there will be provision in the building design. MR. CARTIER-For? MR. WELLER-For collection. I'm sure there I s going to be floor drains in the building. I've never donð one of these facilities that didnlt have floor drains in it and some provision for oil and grease interception. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 23 '--" MR. CAIMANO-That's fine. MR. WELLER-Generally, that shows up on the building design. MR. ROBERTS-Well, is this something thatls going to need to be tabled for additional information, then? I MR. CARTIER-I think so. addressed, I think. There I S not a whole to address, but it's got to be MR. WELLER-Well, I think t he issues we're talking about are t he test pit and the calculations, the stormwater calculations. We would have submitted those. We offered to submit them. They are readily available. I'd respectfully request that we satisfy those two concerns of the engineer, conditional upon being able to go forward with the project. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think what the issue here is, and, Tom, you can clarify this, is that you would like to see a different type of stormwater retention than what's shown . MR. YARMOWICH-I would like the Board to indicate if stormwater retention basin of this size and magnitude, on this site, is an acceptable concept for them, in light of what the regulations indicate is preferred. If t he Board is satisfied that this is an acceptable approach, I think that the numbers can be demonstrated quite straightforward to satisfy that a concept like this can work. It depends on if the Board wants this sort of a concept. MR. CAlMANO-Well, I canlt speak for the other five members, but this member of the Board depends on you, as the Consulting Engineer, to tell me if that's okay or not. MR. ROBERTS-Again, what did we do, next door, or a couple of doors down? MR. YARMOWICH-That's something important for the Board to consider, the nature of the uses in the area and what IS adjacen t to it and how this thing is going to function, in relation to the site. I find that, technically, it's an adequate concept. From t he owners standpoin t, it has a lot of benefits. It's easy to maintain. You don't end up with drywells. It's a lot less expensive. MR. WELLER-Well, the detention system, as it's called, the detention system is What is at the Mazda facility. The detention system at the Mazda facility is below the surface. This detention system is above the surface and, to answer your question, the intent, here, is that the system that we're proposing would be more maintenance free, more likely to work if it were not properly and adequately maintained. MR. ROBERTS-I guess there's more than one way to skin a cat, here. I don It think any of us feel too comfortable to become instant experts on this subject, now and I guess, if we need to waive, to a small degree, what the Ordinance says, perhaps, that's what welre willing to do, here. MR. MARTIN-Well, all I'm saying is, if this is adequate, then it IS up to Building and Codes, from the point that this place is established, to see that that is maintained in a working fashion. MR. WELLER-It certainly, of the Town of Queensbury. in our judgement, meets the spirit of It cert ainly meets good design practice. the Ordinances MR. ROBERTS-Well, if there's some chance we can finish this, let's jump into the SEQRA Review and see if that will lead us anywhere. MR. CAlMANO-(Referring to SEQRA Form) "Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid wastè production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding problems?" MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's what we're dealing with. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but that's being addressed. MR. CARTIER-Well, we don't know if theylre addressed satisfactorily, yet. 24 '----' --' MR. CAlMANO-Whatls the concern? MR. ROBERTS-Our advisory has said that this would work, a system that will work. MR. CARTIER-I need to hear the engineer say he's satisfied, that's What I need, that's ~at it comes down to, for me. MR. BAKER-Also, there were concerns about the depth to bedrock and the depth to the high water table, there, as well. MR. CARTIER-You said you had all this data, already, you just havenlt submitted it? MR. WELLER-I have all tre data, the engineering data, on the calculation of the stormwater runoff for 10, 25, and 50 year storms. MR. CARTIER-Have you got a test pit? MR. WELLER-No, sir. I have the test pit for the percolation test. If you want a test pit to bedrock, I do not have that. MR. CAlMANO-Let me ask you a question. What did we talk about, we talked about deadlines for the first meeting in September being when? MR. BAKER-Tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m. MR. CARTIER-That's where I was going. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, rather than continue on and run into the possibility of us having to not have a negative declaration, is there some way that we could table this thing so that you and Tom Yarmowich could get to ~t her, by tomorrow, have all the numbers in, have him satisfied and tabled for the next month's meeting, so that, my concern is, that we're not going to get by this thing and we're going to have to have a positive declaration. MR. WELLER-I don't have any problem in going through the engineering calculations that were done for the stormwater. I'm not sure that, if you want a test pit to bedrock, that I can get that done tomorrow. MR. CAIMANO-Do we need it? MR. YARMOWICH-I think that it's good to have that information before you design the septic system and with regard to the stormwater management issues. Now, if high groundwater is present, a suitable septic system can be designed using alternative technologies. The Board should be aware of that and if the applicant finds those conditions to be the case, evidence of high grotmdwater occurringt then that's what the Ordinance will require the applicant to do to proceed. MR. CARTIER-See, one of the problems we have is, we've got fill of unknown characteristics. MR. CAlMANO-That' s right. MR. WELLER-We have known characteristics on the fill, relative to the results of the percolation test t hat was done. We did do a percolation test in the fill area. MR. MARTIN-See, my problem with a test pit and, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the test pit, by the mottling that's shown, will show you the characteristics of what the groundwater or the high water table's been doing, right? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-And if this is fresh fill, then it's pointless. You're not going to see anything. All you're going to see is sand. MR. YARMOWICH-Percolation test depths do not give you an indication of the depth to groundwater. MR. MARTIN-No, I'm saying test pit depths. 25 ~ MR. YARMOWICH-Okay, but the fact that a perc test can be conducted does not tell you what exists below the excavation for the perc test, which is relatively shallow. If groundwater occurs very near by that can impact the type of system that is required. MR. MARTIN-I see. MR. YARMOWICH-Getting back to the stormwater retention basin, I think that it's reasonable to deal directly with the applicant's engineer to verify that the calculated volumes are correct. I think that the Board needs to consider whether or not the change from the preferred method of management, Which is infiltration basins, drywells, or detention basins, Which are used in the adjacent areas in conformance with the Subdivision Regulations, Which are stipulated for commercial site plan developments, or is the Board comfortable in allowing a change to the management programs that surround this particular site. I will, you know, the Board has been told what the advantages and disadvantages are of each and I think the applicant's information is fair and correct. MR. CARTIER-Considering the situation that exists in that area, I think what we want to do is come up with the best system of management that we can possibly come up with, and by best, I mean the one that has the least impact on the surrounding area, \\hich means, Wiich type are we talking about, t hat fit the criteria that I have just described. MR. YARMOWICH-That would be subsurface infiltration system. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then this member suggests that we table this until we can get a look at a subsurface infiltration system that satisfies our engineer. We've got to bite the bullet, over there, earlier. This is, I think, one of the first times that we've been able to get ahead, in some situations like this, rather than behind, thatls my peace. MR. WELLER-I respectfully suggest that a subsurface infiltration system versus a retention system as we've asked for is strictly a matter of engineering judgement. MR. CARTIER-That's what I'm looking for, Mr. Weller. There are six, non-engineers si tting here. MR. WELLER-I understand. MR. CAlMANO-Could we make a suggestion, then, Jim, that we table this thing so that you and the Staff could get together and convince each other, because what I'm concerned about is, that we can't make a negative declaration, here. MR. WELLER-I think your regulations allow for and provide for the type of system that we've proposed to use. We certainly feel that we're within your regulations, wi thin good engineering criteria and judgement and if you're going to prevent the use of this specific type of system on this site, then that's going to be in difference with your regulations. MR. CAlMANO-He's not preventing is. He's saying there's something better. MR. BAKER-Yes, Mr. Weller, if I could try to clarify this for you. What the Board is saying is that they cannot do an approval or an approval with modifications without preparing a negative declaration on the Environmental Assessment Form and they do not feel, at this point, they have enough information in front of them to do a negative declaration. So, they are not in a position to approve, ri ght now. MR. CAlMANO-And if we don't, ~ open up a whole can of worms that MR. WELLER-I don't see where a subsurface system is going to change your concern about a negative declaration because it's still going to retain the same volume of water, Whether it retains it under the black top or adjacent to it. MR. CARTIER-As far as I'm concerned, this is a debate you need to carryon with our Consulting Engineer. MR. CAlMANO-But he makes a good point. MR. YARMOWICH-I think that the applicant's point is well taken. The management system, however it is, if it complies with the requirements, will not have an adverse environmental impact. 26 -...' MR. CAlMANO-That' s right, we're not approving the plan, we're going through a negative dec and Mr. Weller makes a very good po in t. Either system, and our Consulting Engineer says the same thing, either system will work. MR. MARTIN-Yes, you can do a negative declaration on either system. MR. CAlMANO-That's right. MR. YARMOWICH-Given the system presented here, you can provide a statement that this does not provide an adverse environmental impact. It has an aesthetic impact and it has certain characteristics of operation, but, as far as the managemen t of stormwater, it functions acceptably. It's not consisten t with what I s being done around it. MR. CAlMANO-But my point is, to Peter, is, we can do both things. We can go through this, apparently, this Environmental Assessment Form. Then we get to the next step, which is approval, we may very well table so they can argue it out, on which system is best. My concern, now, is, can we get through a negative declaration. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess we can, from what I'm hearing. MR. ROBERTS-Apparently, we can. MR. CARTIER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETEØKlNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 65-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a one story building Type 2B nonco.bustible exterior wall to provide onsite parking for a minimœn of 16 vehicles for truck repair and heavy equipment (truck) sales and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency is involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: The Warren County D.P.W 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 thè 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 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas 27 -.-/ MR. ROBERTS-Are we still thoroughly confused? Two systems that will work. MR. CAlMANO-I kind of lean toward Peter. I think you guys should get together and determine what's the best for everybody and come back and do it again. MR. WELLER-Well, he and I, he's an engineer and I think you know, I am, too, and we Ire going to sit and talk about the pro's and conls of each system and there certainly are pro's and con I s to each system and we thought, from an engineering standpoint, that we were somewhat at liberty, within the regulations of the Town of Queensbury, to pick the system that we thought would be best suited to serve the needs of the owner and the Town of Queensbury and my recommend ation to the owner was the system that we proposed, primarily because of the maintenance aspect of it. We Ire familiar, and I'm sure you are, with how drywells and underground piping doesn I t get maintained, or, a lot of times, doesn't get maintained, and if it doesn't get maintained, it doesn't work and this system requires little or no maintenance and we feel reasonably sure that it will work. It'll keep the stormwater on the site and it will not be the result of problems to adjacent properties. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but you've got to do a test pit anyway. MR. WELLER-But the test pit, I think, responds to another concern. MR. CARTIER-Let me finish. What I'm saying is, you've got to do a test pit. In the time you need to do a test pit, I think what you've got to do is sit down with Tom and convince him of what you're saying. He's the one that I'm going to look to come up with an answer where he says, I'm satisfied with the system, given the specific site out there. I don't see this getting resolved, tonight. MR. CAlMANO-Right, we're not disagreeing with you. We just don't know. MR. YARMOWICH-Mr. Cartier, maybe I can clarify that for you, right now. In light of the fact that this is an individual site application of a system that is, technically, ftmctional for the problems that itls supposed to deal with, it is not unacceptable, from an engineering standpoint. It only deviates in the regard that other systems are, typically, installed a different method. Can the Board indicate whether or not they're comfortable with allowing a different method for this individual site, if it functions with adequate capabilities. MR. CARTIER-What we're doing is handing the ball back and forth here. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, right. MR. CARTIER-I'm speaking for me. What 11m saying is, given the specific situation that's in there and the fact that we have high groundwater problems in that entire area, What I want to hear from you is, this is the best system, I don't mean this one that's here, that the applicant has come up with best system, given the specific situations. Now, I've just handed the ball back to you. MR. YARMOWICH-The Board will be aware, then, that if the decision is made that the system, as proposed, is adequate, it will not conform to what adjacent uses have been required to do. The Board is aware of that? MR. CARTIER-I understand that. MR. YARMOWICH-Then I will assess the applicant's proposal accordingly. MR. CARTIER-Based on that, thank you. MR. ROBERTS-I have a feeling these are difficult soils to work with, in that area and, perhaps, this system, in that particular area, might work better than the seepage pits would in sandier and different soils, else where. MR. CARTIER-This is an erudite discussion that has to take place between two engineers. MR. HAGAN-However, They're both good. choice, deliberated in both cases. I think Tom is asking me, Which is better, a Ford or a Chevy. It's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of an engineering on certain engineering facts and calculations that is acceptable MR. CARTIER-Yes, but these are the two guys who have to have that discussion. 28 ~ MR. HAGAN-Well, ~'re already having it and I hear both of them saying that they are systems that will work. MR. YARMOWICH-Does the Board want me to accept any system that will work? MR. CARTIER-No. MRS. PULVER-How about a system that's within our Ordinance. MR. WELLER-I don't think weld ask that, either. MR. CARTIER-It's more than that. We have to be site specific, in some cases. MR. WELLER-And I think it should meet generally accepted, good engineering practice and I believe that it does. I think it should serve the functions and purposes intended and I honestly believe that it does. It will work. It will function. An underground system, once we do a test pit, if the bedrock is as close as some may suspect that it is, may not work. MR. CARTIER-But we don't know that, because we don't have test pit data. MR. WELLER-No sir, you don't have test pit data to bedrock. MR. CARTIER-It's not just Item 3, is what I'm suggesting. MR. WELLER-Right, thatls true. MR. CARTIER-We still need Item 1 and, in the process of accomplishing Item 1 MR. WELLER-Well, lid respectfully request that Item 1 might be able to be handled on a conditional approval, so that we meet all the criteria for the design of the septic system because that's what it really pertains to. We do have a test pit, but we donlt have a test pit to bedrock. MR. ROBERTS-Well, if we're going to have a unique design system, it seems to me we may want to see that up front. MR. WELLER-I don I t think we have anyt hing unique, here. MR. ROBERTS-Even if we have to get into a Wisconsin Mound or something, on this site. Well, if we're going to see anything, in the future, perhaps we could be somewhat lenient, here, and allow it to come in, put it on the next month's, even if it's an extra item? Well, this isn't something you can, ~ll, this probably, is something that you can get done tomorrow. MR. WELLER-I'm not sure I can get the test pit to bedrock done tomorrow. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think you have to go too far. MR. WELLER-Well, I know there's four to five feet of fill. If you drive by the site, it looks like that much. Youl ve certainly got to go below t hat. I can't speak for that, right now, being able to do that tomorrow. MR. CARTIER-Well, that I s not a reason to gO ahead and approve this. The fact that we can't get a test pit done by 2 o'clock tomorrow, is not a reason to approve this. MR. WELLER-I respectfully suggest not having a test pit, at this point in time, to bedrock, ~ do have a test pit, may not, in itself, be a reason not to allow us to go forward. MR. YARMOWICH-What test pit data do you have? MR. WELLER-The percolation test pit data is on there. MR. YARMOWICH-It doesn't indicate anything about soil typing. It's not of adequate depth to evaluate groundwater. MR. WELLER-No, sir, it's not. It was done for adequate depth to determine the percolation rate. MR. CARTIER-Let's fish or cut bait, are we going to approve this, or are we going to table it, or what? 29 --....' MR. ROBERTS-11m wondering if we don't need a third engineer, as a mediator, in this thing. MR. CARTIER-Let those two guys go get one. MR. WELLER-I respect the other engineer. I'm not sure that we're going to arrive at anything different than what we're talking about right now. It's a matter of opinion and it's a matter of two different, acceptable systems. We feel that we're providing something that's going to hold up and work, over a period of time. MR. HAGAN-Getting back to my original statement, if your client had come in with a Site Plan, before he made the fill on this property, we wouldnlt be arguing, here, about this situation. MR. WELLER-I'm sorry. I can't address that. I don't know who put the fill on the site. MR. HAGAN-Neither can we. MR. CARTIER-But the point's well made. MR. HAGAN-Itls part of what's causing our problem, tonight. MR. ROBERTS-It goes back farther than that. This entire duplex property should have been subdivided a long time ago and it's been done in a piecemeal fashion which is part of the problem. MR. WELLER-I understand. 11m not trying to fight against that. I'm trying to deal with, at this point in time, what can be done to do a good job in the Town of Queensbury. MR. ROBERTS-So are we. MR. WELLER-And I apologize for taking so much time. I'd like to find a way so that I don't have to take your time, again. I really would. I'm not trying to make it difficult. I'm trying to do the best job that I can, for the owner, for the Town of Queensbury and for the project. MR. CARTIER-I have no argument with that. I agree with you. I understand that. MR. WELLER-And if therels some little conditions that you want to place on that, I have no trouble whatsoever in complying with them. I think our purposes our the same. MR. ROBERTS-It's just a question of whether they're little conditions or not or whether they might cause major redesigns. MR. CARTIER-What do we do the next time we run into this situation? Are we establishing precedent, again? Do we say to this guy, well, no you can I t do it and what I s going to come back to us is, well, you did it in this situation and I, to me, inconsistency, here, creates some major problems, for us, for Staff. MR. WELLER-Well, I think Staff reviewed it, extensively, with us. MR. CARTIER-Thatls not what I'm referring to. MR. ROBERTS-I think this applicant's owned this piece of property and has been thinking of doing this for about three years and now, all of a sudden, we're supposed to knuckle under, here, in 10 minutes time. MR. WELLER-I'm sorry. 11m not asking anybody to knuckle under. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe we've got to pass this along. MR. CAlMANO-I think the best thing to do is to back away from this thing and get a second look at it with these two. MR. ROBERTS-And maybe even bring in another engineer. MR. CAlMANO-Maybe even bring in another engineer. 30 ~ MR. ROBERTS-And mediate this thing, somehow. MR. YARMOWICH-Would the applicant be willing to redesign the system as a detention basin with a control overflow that will meet the requiremen ts, regardless of the presence of groundwater and bedrock? MR. WELLER-I understand, but if we redesign it with a control discharge, t ren it gets redesigned, potentially, as a much smaller basin and, the way we've got it laid out, the basin is large enough, the oretically, to retain all of the water and, if it were to overflow, if the storm exceeded the 50 year storm, it would actually follow the same drainage pattern that our release device would follow. So, I'm not sure that we'd really accomplish anything and, maybe, accomplish less. If that detention basin overflows, it's going to flow in the same general direction as the property now drains and as a detention type basin would release. MR. ROBERTS-I guess the answer to your question is, no, he's not willing to. MR. WELLER-I don It think we'd really accomplish anything. accomplish less. I think we might MR. CARTIER-Do we have your agreement to table this? MR. WELLER-I will agree to table it, but I don't understand what I'm going to be able to do to satisfy, other than do a test pit and send in the results of the test pit. MR. CARTIER-You're going to sort that out with Tom. I can't answer that. MR. WELLER-I'm not sure that we're going to, I understand where he's coming from. He understands Where 11m coming from. MR. CARTIER-We're not going to do it, tonight, Jim. MR. WELLER-I think welre both in compliance with the spirit of the regulations in the Town of Queensbury and itls a matter of one system versus another. MR. ROBERTS-That IS Wiy 11m saying, we can I t make up our minds. arbitrator in this thing and maybe a third engineer. We need an MR. CARTIER-Well, that IS up to them. MR. CAlMANO-That' s up to them. it I s obvious that the Board is Engineer does not approve what's if they can work out what they're They've got to decide. If it can't be decided, not going to approve it because the Consulting going on. So, the answer is simply. Let's see going to do. MR. ROBERTS-At any rate, it looks like they need to table it. The only question is, when can it get back on the agenda? MR. HAGAN-That's not the point. If we don I t table it, I don't think we have any choice but to disapprove it. MR. ROBERTS-Is it the attitude of the Board, are you willing to table it? MR. CAlMANO-Yes, he said he would. MR. WELLER-I don't have a choice. MR. ROBERTS-Then I guess we'd better entertain a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 65-90 JAMES M. WELLE. P.E., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: So that the applicant can address concerns raised by engineer in Items 1 and 3 of his letter of August 22nd and any other concerns raised by Staff. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas 31 ~ MR. WELLER-Is there a way for me to get it back on the agenda? MR. ROBERTS-No, there's no way. We just went through that earlier project. MRS. PULVER-If he makes the deadline. MR. HAGAN-If he makes the deadline. MR. MARTIN-Tomorrow at 2 p.m., yes. MR. BAKER-If we get all the information in by 2 p.m. tomorrow. MR. WELLER-Is the engineer available to meet, tomorrow? MR. ROBERTS-I would imagine he would probably make himself available. Or maybe your not. MR. YARMOWICH-If the Board would like, I will be available for the applicant to confer wi th. MR. CAlMANO-I think it's fair to the applicant. Welve put him through this ringer. MR. ROBERTS-I'd like to be that cooperative. You might even want to be onsite to witness the test hole. MR. WELLER-May I ask a question of Staff, please. Are there agenda openings for next month? MR. ROBERTS-We'll put you on as an extra since we've done most of the work, even if it IS an extra item. It wonlt take long. I guess we'll agree to that, would we? MR. BAKER-Right now, there is room under Old Business, but we are expecting other items to come in, under Old Business. So, I guess the answer is, I don't know, at this point. It depends on What comes in before your application. MRS. PULVER-But Dick just said we could add him on. MR. CAlMANO-We could add an additional item, since it's just this small amount that needs to be satisfied, if it's satisfied tomorrow. MR. BAKER-If that's What the Board wants to do, certainly. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, let's make the decision to do it. MR. ROBERTS-Itls the least we can do. MR. WELLER-Thank you. OFF PREMISES SIGN 110.. 1-90 PC;:-lA GEORGE PFEIFFER FLOWEILAND: 2 GLENDALE DR.. SIGN LOCATION: OOIlNER OF GLEN ST.. AND GLENDALE Dt.. TAX MAP NO.. 104-1-22 AND 23 Oain OF Lar: ME.. JESSIE RDSSELL OF 665 UPPER GLEN S1J.. MARCI PFEIFFER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Is that something ~ can address, tonight? MR. CAlMANO-Why don I t we just stipulate. MR. CARTIER-Just two stipulations, that's all. MR. ROBERTS-Make it conform. MR. CAlMANO-Sure. MR. ROBERTS-The location doesn't bother us. MR. CAlMANO-No, it doesn't. 32 --./ MR. CARTIER-Well, all you've got to stipulate is that the changeable copy portion be eliminated and that it be placed 15 feet back from the two front lot lines. MR. CAlMANO-And a revised plan be submitted by tomorrow or Friday or something. MR. ROBERTS-I don It think this calls for a public hearing, does it? MR. BAKER-There is no public hearing scheduled. MS. CORPUS-If the Board believes that there won't be much controversy generated by this application, then a public hearing is not required. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARCI PFEIFFER MS. PFEIFFER-11m Marci Pfeiffer and we're willing to reduce the sign to just Flowerland and a arrow pointing, very simple. MR. ROBERTS-So, you're the applicant? MS. PFEIFFER-Daughter, yes. MR. CARTIER-You're also willing to move it back 15 feet? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and submit a revised sign design for approval? Great. MR. BAKER-We should also be given a Site Plan showing, with the 15 foot setback from both Glendale Drive and Glen Street. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Somebody make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-90 GEORGE PFEIFFER D/B/A FLOWEBLAND, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: With the following stipulations: That the changeable copy portion of the sign be eliminated; that the sign be relocated at least 15 feet back from the two lot lines on the Russell property; and that a revised sign design and site plan be submitted for approval to the Planning Department by September 4th. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN NO. 66-90 T1PE: œLISTED _-lA JOlIN AND BAIBAJIA LVlOI O1IfER: SAME AS ABOI7E 1272 BA'W PA"''W, ASSEMBL'W POIIIT LAKE GEœGE FOR THE ADDITION OF A NEW MASTER BEDPJoI AND DECK TO BE USED AS A 1'EAR-R01JID JlESIDENCE AT PIlESENT IT IS A SDlMER RESIDENCB. (li/!\RREN COŒTY PLANIUNG) TAX MAP NO.. 9-1-22 Lor SIZE: O.35± ACRES SECXIQN 7.076 KEVIN DAILY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF NOTES Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-If a Mound System is not allowed wi thin 200 feet of the Lake, Why are we even talking about it at all? 33 -- MR. YARMOWICH-A replacement system to serve existing uses is permitted within 100 feet of the Lake. A new system, Which would be something which would serve and expansion or a new construction, in it's entirety, is not permitted within 200 feet of the Lake. The option for a variance to allow a reduction of that requirement for a new or expanded system of 200 feet would be a mechanism to implement such a plan. MR. ROBERTS-Which would have to come from the Department of Health, which is the Town Board. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, the Town Board would have to grant a variance for the Sewage Disposal Ordinance in order to allow the expanded use. MR. ROBERTS-Warren COtmty Planning Board approved with no comment and I guess you had some telephone calls, Stuart? MR. BAKER-Yes. We had a call from Jane Caffrey, an Assembly Point resident and a neighbor and she called to inform the Planning Board that she has no objections to the proposed expansion and she did drop in and submit a letter, today, which I'd like to read into the record. "As a neighbor of John and Barbara Lynch, I would like to attend the meeting of the Planning Board, tonight. I will be unable to do so, though, because of going to the hearing of the Lake George Park Commission, but I want to indicate my approval for the changes they wish to make, Which will be an improvement to the property." MR. ROBERTS-Okay, thank you. MR. DAILY-Yes, Mr. Roberts, members of the Board, my name is Kevin Daily. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Hinman, Straub, Pigors, and Manning, with offices at 71 Bay Street in Glens Falls. I'm here representing John and Barbara Lynch and Mr. Lynch is here with me in the audience. I have prepared comments on each and everyone of the points brought out within the Ordinance, but, after listening to Mr. Cartier, I think that we would probably be wise to just respond to the comments that were raised by the Department. I think that you had made that comment a little bit earlier. The first point that was raised was on the current septic system. I would like to point out to the Board that the 200 foot setback which is a requirement of the Lake Ge orge Park Commission and the Town, if strictly adhered to, would render it impossible for anyone living on Assembly Point to put a new septic system in. We have about 110 feet of depth from the Lake to the drive which would simply be impossible and I think what we're looking at, here, is really a replacement of the existing system, hence, perhaps, the ambiguity, in terms of how we've approached this in the application process. ~'re not proposing on putting a new system in. We're talking about a replacement system for the existing septic system that is on site. MR. CARTIER-What is the difference between that and a new system? MR. DAILY-Welre trying to follow the Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Now, wait a minute. you're saying, we're not putting in, I want to be sure I understand you. You're saying, we I re not putting in a new system, we're putting in a replacement for the old system. Is that not a new system? MR. YARMOWICH-A system that accommodates an expansion is considered a new system. If you are going to repair or replace an existing system that serves an existing use, it is permitted within 100 feet of the shoreline. Deviations from that require a variance. MR. CARTIER-But, according to your Item Number 1 (referring to Engineer Report), if I'm understanding Wiat you're saying here, "The site may be able to support a conversion of the existing use to a year rOtmd residence." In other words, the site could support year round use. MR. YARMOWICH-With the no expansion. MR. CARTIER-With the no expansion. MR. yARMOWICH-No bedroom expansions. MR. CARTIER-But, if you expand it, the site cannot support? MR. YARMOWICH-Without a variance. 34 MR. CARTIER-Without a variance, okay. MR. CAlMANO-Could I interrupt, here. That wasn't the first question. The very first question, What gets to the heart of the matter and may stop this right in the beginning is, Mrs. York's first paragraph indicates that her totals are 922 square feet. Is that number correct with you? MR. DAILY-Without reference, I will accept her number. MR. CAlMANO-Because if it is, t~n I'll read Article 9.011, which says, Article 9 is Nonconforming Uses and Structures, which this is, Section 9.011 B says, "No enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent of the gross floor area of such single family dwelling or mobile home immediately prior to the commencement of the first enlargement or rebuilding" and, if that I s the case, you're 73 percent, and, if that's the case, then we've got, no? MR. HAGAN-I don It think therels any way we can accept this. (END OF FIRST DISK) 35 >,,--, MS. CORPUS-If that's true, the applicant would have to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board. MR. CAlMANO-Thatls right. So, therels no sense wasting time, here. MR. DAILY-Mr. Caimano, I'm not sure if youlre reading the Ordinance correctly. We've taken a good look at this. I have Article 9 with me and it talks, we Ire not talking about a nonconforming use. We're talking about a nonconforming building, in terms of the setback from the shoreline, if I follow you correctly. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, 1111 buy that. MR. DAILY-Let me just read the Ordinance to you, "Subject to the provisions of this Article, a nonconforming structure or use, or a structure containing a nonconforming use maybe continued and maintained in reasonable repair, but may not be altered, enlarged or extended, as of the d ate this Ordinance becomes law, except by Site Plan approval, generally, as follows". Now, what the Ordinance does is give the Planning Board the authority, unto itself, to deal with nonconforming uses and allows you, on your own, to deal with uses up to 50 percent enlar~ment of the original use without anything else. MR. HAGAN-Let's not keep saying, nonconforming use. Letls stick to your original statement. MR. DAILY-Alright, nonconforming structure. MR. HAGAN-Right. There's a big difference. MR. DAILY-Right. I'd like to point out to the Board that we had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, originally, which we did. MR. HAGAN-Right. MR. DAILY-We received a setback variance. Now, the current zoning, if I can refer to the map, the current zoning specifies that there shall be a 75 foot setback in WR-1A, Wiich is fine. We understand that. Since we have now obtained a 40 foot variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, our setback, for this lot, begins at 27 feet and that variance is in effect and is effective for one year. So, essentially, anything in back of the new setback line, which has now been established by the ZBA, is appropriate and is subject to Site Plan Review. So, according to your Ordinance, we are not dealing with a nonconforming structure, at this point. MR. HAGAN-Well, you have a variance to expand within that 75 foot setback, thatls the only variance you have. You don I t have a variance giving you permission to expand that structure by more than 50 percent, as stated in the Ordinance. MS. CORPUS-Kevin, if I might ask, Wien you presented this to the Zoning Board, what we I re your calculations on the square footage of the addition, because I honestly don't remember. MR. DAILY-I canlt recall, at this point, Karla. MR. HAGAN-Well, the applicant stated 549 feet with the addition. MR. CARTIER-That was my question. MR. HAGAN-But it doesn't figure up that way. It figures up much more. MS. CORPUS-I need to know what the Zoning Board was looking at, if the Zoning Board was looking at the same plan, at the time. MR. DAILY-Well, it appears that Lee's calculations were all based on the square footage which she got off the Site Plan, which shows the first floor. There I s two floors, here. So, I don't think she figured in the second floor. We Ire talking, only, about an addition of a master bedroom, here, and, according to generally accepted zoning principles, everyt bing is now in back of the zoning line. ~'re not dealing with a nonconforming structure any longer. MR. CARTIER-That's not true. MR. ROBERTS-That's a new interpretation I haven't ever heard before. 36 MR. CARTIER-Look, the question before us, at the moment, is, t ~re' s a discrepancy in the numbers that were used when the application was made for a variance for the Zoning Board, correct? MS. CORPUS-Correct. MR. CARTIER-The first thing ~ have to do is we have to go back and straighten that out because, now, t hat variance that was granted may no longer be valid, simply because the variance was granted based on some numbers that may have been inaccurate. So, we've got to establish that, somehow, first. So, we may be back to square one on this thing. I don't want to mislead the applicant here, though, in saying, well, go back and get your variance, again, and then come back and see us. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-I think this Board has some major concerns with this project, Whatever these numbers are and, in fairness to this applicant, I think we should spell out very clearly what those concerns are. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And we may, in fact, end up voting on this based on what Karla suggests, Whatever these numbers are and disregard what's going on with the Zoning Board problem. MR. HAGAN-Again, only speaking for myself, I'm not trying to put words in the Board's mouth. My interpretation of the Zoning Law states, even with the variance, with a structure 1274 square feet, allows him only to add a maximum of 637 square feet, that IS my interpretation. MR. CARTIER-That's half, correct? MR. HAGAN-Right. He is proposing to add 922 square feet plus 260 square feet for a deck. MS. CORPUS-Th ose numbers and that calculation could be verified by t he Zoning Administrator and have her render an opinion. MR. HAGAN-Okay, but 11m just saying, for the benefit of the applicant, should he reappear, those are the numbers that will dictate how I vote. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we all have to be clear on this interpretation of the Ordinance. Can ~ approve something over a 50 percent expansion or can I t we, under Site Plan Review? MR. CARTIER-You can't. MR. BAKER-Not without a variance. MR. CARTIER-Only t he Zoning Board can do that. MR. MARTIN-The other question I had is, the total side yard setbacks. They're supposed to total 50 feet with a 20 foot minimum on one side. He has a 20 foot minimum on one side, but when I add up a distance of 26.6 feet down one side and then the 23.4 feet down one side to the deck, that falls short of the 50 foot requirement. MR. DAILy-It's 26.6 and 23.4, which is 50 feet. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. DAILY-Right to t he number. MR. HAGAN-There is nothing against the applicant. I sympathize with his intent, but if every keeps adding and adding to nonconforming situations, look what is already happening to the Lake and I, somewhere along the line, this Town, this State has got to put a stop to it. MR. ROBERTS-Well, is there another alternative, too, to the septic system? I mean, let's assume that we're calling this an expansion and it's going to mean 37 -- that the systemls going to have to come up to code. If you can't put it within 200 feet, you have the option of a possible variance from the Department of Health or couldn't we design a holding tank. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, that would be the Board of Health. MR. ROBERTS-The Board of Health. MR. BAKER-Board of Health. MR. ROBERTS-The Board of Health, with the Town Board. Or couldn't we agree to a holding tank, in this situation? MR. YARMOWICH-I' 11 have to investigate the applicability of holding tanks for year round use. MR. ROBERTS-I think you can do it for, not new construction, but I believe you can do it for MR. YARMOWICH-Well, if he's expanding, then, it's the same situation. The reason he needs the holding tank is to accommodate the expansion. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, thatls a technical point I'm not sure of. JOHN LYNCH MR. LYNCH-If I could address that. I haven't had much of a chance to say much. I know it's late. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we're disagreeing with your interpretations, that's what got us off the right track. You're saying we can, any expansion beyond the 27 feet from shoreline, or something, I donlt think that holds any water. MR. CAlMANO-Late has nothing to do with it. MR. DAILY-That's why I thought we were directed to go to the Zoning Board, in the first place, was to get the setback variance. MR. ROBERTS-You did, the 75 feet from the Lake. MS. CORPUS-Kevin, I guess the Board needs clarification that, is, if the numbers that were presen ted for the Zoning Board were inaccurate, for some reason, and were below the 50 percent expansion, whereas, the numbers might actually be above the 50 percent expansion, that may change the necessary variance that was needed, that, again, is something that the Zoning Administrator would have to determine, whether a variance would actually be required for the plan, as it's presented today and, frankly, I canlt remember if there was any difference. MR. CARTIER-Basically, we're back to square one, Mr. Daily, on this thing. MR. MARTIN-We have to confirm the square footage, right? MR. CAlMANO-For one thing. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DAILY-Would you like to hear more about the plan? MR. CARTIER-No, because it all hinges on the accuracy of these original numbers and, once we get that established, then we can go from there, but it's pointless for you to go through all this if it's based on numbers t hat are not accurate and it's a waste of your time. It's a waste of Mr. Lynch's time. It's a waste of our time, okay? MR. LYNCH-John Lynch. What I would like to know is what other objections that you have to the plan. I mean, there's a great deal of expense involved in updating these Site Plans with architects and engineers and whatever and if the only, I understand the 50 percent limitation. I believe it's within the 50 percent. I think the problem is that whoever measured this didn't measure the entire structure, which is two stories, with a front porch and a rear porch. All of that comes in with the original footprint of the existing use, as I understand it. I don't believe that the addition is over a 50 per cent expansion of that use. However, if we straighten that out, what other issues are we looking at? My understanding, 38 -..-/ with regard to the septic system, was, I have an existing septic system which is down by the camp. I've made a proposal to put in a Wisconsin Mound System, which all of my neighbors have. All of them have the same dimensional lots that I have. Regardless of whether I continue this as a summer residénce or not, I havé to changé that septic system. The Lake George Park Commissions new rulés which are going into effect would probably require me to do that. The building that I have is a structure that was built in 1925. It I S a summer structure. Itls used by my family and myself for two months out of the year. Two years ago, the Town of Queensbury came in a reassessed all of the propertiés in the Town. They reassesséd my property so that my taxes now aré triple what they were prior to reassessment. It no longer is feasible to operate that home as a two month résidence. It isn't economically feasible to do so. It requires, I think, that we make it into a year round residence so that we can use it for more than two months. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Lynch, I'm sympathetic with the concern you raise because we were talking about that éxact same issue when we were out there looking at it. Thatls why thesé seasonal residences are being converted to year round use because of the tax problems associated with them, but we still have to look at them, it's not that we I re ignoring that economic issue, but we still have to look at them in terms of what impact there is on the Lake and that's what our concern is, here. MR. LYNCH-I understand that. MR. CARTIER-I'm hearing the engineer say that the Wisconsin System isn I t going to do it with the éxpansion, simply because it's not 200 feet from thé Lake. MR. YARMOWICH-Absent of variance, a conversion and an expansion, or an expansion without a conversion, is not possible within the régulations of the Ordinance. A varianCé for setback for the Systém, from the Lake, would be required. MR. LYNCH-Could I ask the engineer something? If I went ahead, within my existing résidence, and applied for a building permit to put a new Wisconsin Mound Systém, without changing the use of the structure, wouldn't that be permissible? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, b~cause you would be able to do it within 100 feet of thé Lake. MR. LYNCH-Okay, so, if I did that this fall and then came back next spring and said, I donlt want to put a new septic system in. All I want to do is add a mastér bedroom, then the septic system would be a non-issue. Isn't that correct? MR. YARMOWICH-No, it IS not. accommodate the expanded use. Your septic system would have to be upgraded to MR. LYNCH-Wéll, assuming that it was such that it accommodated the expanded use. MR. YARMOWICH-You would still need a variance to upgrade that system to accommodate the expanded use. MR. LYNCH-Why would I have to upgrade the system? MR. YARMOWICH-Because it's not sized to serve the additional use. MR. LYNCH-Well, it was designed, as such, to accept the expanded use. MR. YARMOWICH-'Your replacement system would be designed to be serving just the éxisting use. MR. LYNCH-Well, I don't want to argue the point with you. I think I'm corréct, but I don't want to argue with you at this point. MS. CORPUS-I believe the issue could also be settled by the Building and Codes Department, as to the interpretation of the Ordinance, on that point. MR. CARTIER-Okay, well, Mr. Lynch asked a fair question and was, what are our other concerns with this. MR. CAIMANO-Can I start with something, here, Peté, for a second. Just to start from the very beginning and find out where this Board comes from, in general, and to back up Mr. Hagan's comments, is this piece from the DEC that accompanies Leé York's notes and, about the middle of it, it says, "The major findings of a DEC Task Force as presented in the final plan to the Lake George Park Commission 39 ~ in March, 1987 show:", the first thing it says is, "Inadequately controlled land development on sites with environmental and othér limitations." So, what the Board is trying to do, from my standpoint, and correct me if I'm wrong, is be very careful about controlling land devélopment where there are limitations and, certainly, your land, unfortunately, has limitations and that's where we'ré starting from, that's thé starting point. It has nothing to do with Mr. Lynch. That's the starting point of this whole thing. Is that correct or not? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. LYNCH-Well, Mr. Caimano, I Can understand that, but what aré the limitations? MR. CAlMANO-A good place to start with is the fact that it's a one acre zone in which you have .35 of an acre. Let's start with that. That's the first limitation of the whole thing. The sécond limitation is the numbers, regarding the square footage of the building. Wé're not even sure what thosé numbers are. Now, we Ire being asked to make a determination in an Environmentally Sensitive Area on numbers that we donlt even know are accurate. MR. LYNCH-I'm not asking that. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. LYNCH-I'm saying, your saying that the Ordinance says I am permitted a 50 percent expansion on the existing use. Assuming I am within the 50 percent expansion, is that something that the Board would look with favor on? MR. CAlMANO-That's certainly a starting point. That ansWérs the first problem. MR. HAGAN-It gives us less réason for disapproval of your sité plan. MR. LYNCH-Okay, What other issues do I have to addréss, other than the 50 pércent expansion? MR. HAGAN-Wéll, Whether or not you are going into year round use and how you're going to answer the questions raised by the Town Engineer. MR. LYNCH-With regard to the séptic system? MR. HAGAN-Regarding the septic system. MR. LYNCH-Alright, is theré any other qUéstions that I have to address, other than thé septic system and the 50 percent limitation? MR. CARTIER-Do you have copies of Lee York's notes of August 24th? MR. LYNCH-Kevin has them and I looked at them when we Came in here, I think the only ones that, theré was a question of stormwatér runoff. assume that could be handled. tonight. Now, I MR. DAILY-During construction, we would check adequaté measures with the Building Departmént. MR. ROBERTS-There's standard operating procedures that you can follow, during construction. MR. HAGAN-I think it would certainly hélp éstablish whether or not your endeavor, here, is a good one or not if you went to the Lake George Park Commission and asked for a review or for their comments. I think you might get an unbiased answer. MR. LYNCH-With regard to what? MR. HAGAN-In regard to your overall project of adding to this structure. MR. LYNCH-Well, I'm not aware that the Laké George Park Commission has any jurisdiction over an expansion of an existing USé. MR. HAGAN-No, 11m just saying, you might ask for their review. influence either your plans or our review of your site plan. It might help MR. LYNCH-Mr. Hagan, I understand that, but, I mean, I have been up and around Lake Géorgé for a long period of time and I undérstand the sensitivity to the 40 ecology of that area and, believe me, I'm trying to deal with it. I'm not coming up here and trying to put up a structure that is out of conformity with the neighborhood. I think that the fact that none of the neighbors on Assembly Point who have all been aware of this project have come here to voice any objections is, certainly, evidence of that. MR. CAlMANO-Well, I think that's a two way street, though, Mr. Lynch. As you mentioned, yourself, that is probably the oldest residence there and, certainly, your upgrading it helps everyone. So, t 1e exterior upgrading helps everyone, so it's not surprising that there aren't people here objecting. I wouldn't object if I lived there. You wouldn't object if you lived next door. MR. ROBERTS-Do we know that? I don't think we opened the public hearing. Maybe we should and ask if anyone in the audience does care to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CAlMANO-I think you're right, Pete. I think that going through this is really the key, here, through Lee's notes and through Tom's notes, after we answer the square footage problem. MR. ROBERTS-~s, I think Mr. Lynch thinks he's doing a good job, an environmentally sensitive job. We seem to be hung up on some numbers and things, here. 11m wondering why it even got to us, to tell you the truth. MR. CAlMANO-That's what I wonder. MR. ROBERTS-There's been a little of a snaffu, here, somehow. MR. LYNCH-~ll, I think it's a little disturbing to me, Mr. Roberts, that Mr. Daily called the Planning Department, within the past two days, and said, is there any problem that we ought to be prepared to address and the ans~r given to him was, no, look at the Zoning Ordinance and what Site Plan Review is all about and come prepared to answer those issues. We came in here tonight and this report was handed to Kevin Daily, as I understand it, and I just received it when I walked in. MR. CAlMANO-So did we. MR. BAKER-Mr. Lynch, if I could just clarify something for Mrs. York hadn't completed her comments on this project. Mr. Daily called me and that is why I recommended that and be prepared to address the concerns listed in there. the Planning Department. I hadn't seen them when he look over Article 5 MR. LYNCH-~ll, Mr. Baker, thatls fine, but that doesn't answer my problem. I come in here, tonight. I take the time and we walk up here to find this report and we're required to answer the questions that are asked, I think we ought to be given an opportunity to address it. MR. CARTIER-That is exactly what's happening here, tonight and that I s exactly why this is done in public, in a public meeting. There's a misconception about what goes on in Planning Board meetings and that is, this is where you come to get approval, thatls the last step of a very complex process. Part of that process is going through the public portion of getting all of these issues out on the table, okay. MR. CAlMANO-We didn't see this before tonight, either. MR. DAILY-Mr. Cartier, if I could just comment, here. I know how Planning Boards work. I was an attorney for a Planning Board for two and a half years and I understand how municipal government works, too. We understand your problems and we would like to address them. We feel that, ~ would like to, ~'re just trying to find out if there are an additional problems, so that, next time we come back, ~ won't get our heads handed to us, again. Other people have been given occasion to speak at great lengths on a lot of issues this evening and we're just trying to find out what we need to do. MR. LYNCH-I would like to request that we be given the opportunity to come to the next meeting of the Board and answer the questions that have been raised by the Planning Department. Obviously, I'm not an architect. I'm not an engineer. I hired an architect to design this building. I hired an engineer to design this system. In retrospect, I probably should have had the two of them here, tonight, 41 ~ to explain what they did and they operated, presumably, at least as I was led to believe, within the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Queensbury. So, I would at least like the opportunity to bring them in and let them explain what they did and how they arrived at MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think that may prove to be a waste of time because, if we find, or if the Zoning Administrator finds, that there have been some funny numbers before the Zoning Board or if we find that, in fact, this much expansion, even if itls within the 50 percent, it's going to be enough expansion, probably, to dictate a septic system that is going to have to be something other than this. MR. LYNCH-Mr. Roberts, that Site Plan that you have in front of you is exactly the Site Plan that Was in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals when they granted the variance. MR. ROBERTS-Is it? We asked that question, earlier. MR. BAKER-Yes, in terms of the measurements for the setbacks that know Mrs. York did take a scale to those and those are to scale. is, the dimensions given on the plan for the existing building are not are shown, I The problem to scale. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The question is there. It seems to me, if I'm understanding the problem, here, the first thing you have to do, Mr. Lynch, is get in to the Zoning Administrator's office, correct me if I'm wrong, and get a determination from her, then we go from there, okay. Whether you get on the next agenda depends on a whole bunch of other time, submission dates and so on and so forth, but I think thatls where youlve got to go from here. MR. LYNCH-Well, as I understand the limitations that I have, in terms of the variance that I have from the Zoning Board of Appeals, that's good for a one year period. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LYNCH-If I intended, if I could get approval to start construction of this, this fall. MR. CARTIER-Well, once you start, that's okay. In other words MR. LYNCH-Well, I understand, but there's a limited period of time in which I can dig a found ation up in Lake Ge orge and cover it over, so that a contractor could work on this project during the winter and we're fast running out of that time. If I can't get on before the next hearing of the MR. CARTIER-No, I'm misunderstanding, it sounds like you think that you have to be done, twelve months from now. MR. LYNCH-Well, I have to commence, but I certainly don I t want to commence next spring and not be able to enjoy the place next summer. MR. DAILY-Mr. Chairman, we have the plans for the entire structure with us, this evening. If we can be given a few minutes, I think we might be able to work on those numbers and perhaps you could go on to the next item and MR. CARTIER-Well, that still does not address the septic concerns brought up by engineer. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, important information for a conversion of a seasonal residence is contained in Item H of the checklist and that requires locating all the adjacent wells and septic systems, that's an important element in Site Plan Reviews and the Board has utilized it. MR. LYNCH-There are no wells on Assembly Point. Everybody on my end of the Point draws water out of the Lake. MR. YARMOWICH-Furthermore, this is supposed to be a statement which is rendered from a licensed engineer. I don't think that, in the time that they can take to go over the numbers in-house, they can satisfy that requirement as well. I think that some investigation of the Sewage Disposal Ordinance and the compliance, their options in it, is important. It appears as though, unless they get a variance from one part of the Sewage Disposal or another, they don't have an option to expand, on this site. MR. ROBERTS-Wouldn't we normally require that variance before we see it as a site plan? MR. BAKER-Yes. 42 ~- MS. CORPUS-That's correct, Mr. Chairman. I think, for the applicant's clarification, that the Board could pass a resolution requesting the Building and Codes Department to make an interpretation as to whether Mr. Yarmowich is, indeed, correct, as far as requirements of the 200 foot setback and whether it would be a replacement or the expansion requirements would be in effect. MR. CARTIER-Recognize, also, that, if everybody up in that area is drawing their drinking water supplies from the Lake, how much more critical fully functioning septic systems are in that area. MR. LYNCH-Well, Mr. Cartier, I think that the septic system that I'm proposing is probably a lot more adequate then the one that I have. MR. CARTIER-That's very possible. I won't argue that with you. MR. LYNCH-Well, I think that that, from that standpoint, is an improvement. MR. CARTIER-I agree, but we still have some other issues that have to be addressed, Mr. Lynch, and I just don't see us getting them settled, tonight, unfortunately. MR. LYNCH-Well, if we can I t get them settled, tonight, then I request that this matter be put on at the next meeting of the Planning Board so that we can give a clarification as to the issues that have been raised by the Planning Department. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we need to get our clarification from our own Staff. In-house, is where we need the clarifications, here, as to what I s going to be required, then you'll be notified as to whether, communication, find out what kind of septic system or what kind of a variance, perhaps, you need, to know where we go from there. MR. LYNCH-Or we can meet with the Planning Department between now and the next meeting and see if we can't come to an agreement on what the measurement numbers are and whether or not the septic system is in compliance. MR. ROBERTS-Thatls right. MR. LYNCH-As I understand the Zoning Law in the Town, from reading it, is it's within your power to grant approval of a system that's within 100 feet, if it's a preexisting system that I s being changed over to another system. I'm not aware of any provision in the Zoning Law that says where you add to the structure, that it then becomes a new system, as opposed to a replacement system. MR. ROBERTS-Well, welve just been told that, ourselves, tonight. MR. LYNCH-Well, I'm not aware of where that says that, in the Zoning Law. MR. YARMOWICH-Let me clarify that for you and you can pursue it as you elect. The provision, Preexisting Systems, Article 4, Section 4.020, Repair, Alteration, Enlargement or Extension of the System, A. "It shall be unlawful to repair, alter, enlarge, or extend a preexisting individual sewage disposal system, except that, 1. Minor repair and minor alterations may be undertaken without a permit. 2. Major repairs, extensions, or major alterations may be undertaken pursuant to a Disposal System Building Permit." That says, you can go ahead and enlarge your system if you get a Building Disposal Permit, okay. MR. LYNCH-I have a Building Disposal Permit. MR. YARMOWICH-You have to get a new one. MR. LYNCH-I have a new one. MR. YARMOWICH-To enlarge your system? MR. LYNCH-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-And then the Special Standards, Section 3.030 B. "No Sewage Disposal fill or mound system may be located within 200 feet of the shorelines of Lake George. For the repair or replacement of existing systems, the distance may be a minimum of 100 feet. MR. LYNCH-That's what this is. 43 -....../ MR. YARMOWICH-The fact that you're providing an expanded use does not make it an existing system. MR. LYNCH-I don't see that in there, at all. MR. CARTIER-Well, look, this is a debate that needs to take place between some lawyers, now. MS. CORPUS-This is an interpretation that must be made by the Building and Codes, the Zoning Administrator, David Hatin, in particular, who administers this provision. If he's given a permit or whatever, he will have to make a written determination as to the adequacy of the Sections of the Ordinance. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, we're on the horns of a dilemma, here. I guess we need some clarification, before we proceed any further and I don't think we have any other alternative, except to agree to table this for this interpretation. I guess we'll have to ask you to agree with this tabling, unless you want us to bring this, well, I guess, I don't think we'd even bring this to a vote. MR. CAlMANO-You don't have to bring it to a vote. MR. DAILY~We' 11 agree for the next meeting. be able to answer some to a tabling and, we've heard other pe ople ask to be on We know there's a two o'clock deadline, tomorrow. We may of the questions, with some sufficiency. MR. LYNCH-Well, I don't know as that two o'clock deadline applies to us. We don't have any additional information to supply to the Planning Department or the Board. We have to give them a clarification as to the dimensions of the Building, as I understand it. MR. CARTIER-Well, this is not going to be a short debate, the next time it comes around, I'm sure. We have, rarely, in the past, added items that we knew were only going to take a very short period of time. 11m not sure that this is going to take a very short period of time. So, I'm not sure we can just add it to the next Board meeting. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I'm not sure we can, either. MR. CARTIER-Welve already added one, didn't we? MR. ROBERTS-I'm wondering how many things we can add to the next meeting? MR. CARTIER-We've got nine, now. MR. CAlMANO-Well, at any rate, it's all premature, because the Zoning Administrator may determine this goes back to the ZBA. MR. ROBERTS-And/or to the Town Board. MR. CAlMANO-And/or to the Town Board. MR. LYNCH-Well, assuming that the Zoning Administrator doesn't say that. MR. CARTIER-Well, we can't assume that, Mr. Lynch. MR. LYNCH-Well, we can't assume that she will, either, Mr. Cartier, and I'm just asking for permission to put it on the Board, assuming that we are able to straighten it out with the Zoning Administrator. MR. CARTIER-11m sure it's going to get on the agend a, the first possible agenda that's available, but I don't think we're going to make the next meeting. MR. CAlMANO-You want to make the motion, Peter? MR. CARTIER-Okay, are we ready for a motion, here? MR. ROBERTS-I guess so. IIOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 66-90 JOHN AND BARBARA LYNCH, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption seconded by Nicholas Caimano: 44 -- For clarification of issues by the Zoning Administrator and also to allow the applicant to address concerns raised by the Planning and Engineering Staff. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN NO.. 67-90 T1P1t II 1/R-1A BARBARA D.. READ GUNER: SAME AS ABCJlE BItAWœ lOAD, CLILVItRI>ALE FOR. CONSTRUCTlœ Œ A DECK JIOOF Ø1ER THE PRESENT DOQ(/BO\T SLIP.. (aRREN COIINTY PLANBINC) TAX MAP NO.. 11-1-29 Lor SIZE: 1/3 ACIIE SECllœ 4.020 D DONALD READ, PRESENT STAFF NarES Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-And the County approved without comment. MR. CARTIER-They approved it, even though it's, the ladder is from the land? MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I thought they ~re against that. MR. BAKER-Yes, there was no comment. MR. CAlMANO-They approved it even, what? What did you ask, Peter? MR. HAGAN-well, they usually disapprove any plan showing access to the deck directly from the land. They usually require it to come down onto the dock and then to the land. MR. READ-My name is Donald Read. My wife, of course, is the owner of the house and I'll speak for her, if I might. To ans~r the items on the first paragraph, seven inches is the correct height. I'm sorry. I made the drawings and I haven't made a drawing in 40 years, so I, obviously, made some discrepancies. MR. CARTIER-For the record, you meant seven feet, not seven inches? MR. READ-Seven feet, yes. The total dock is 40 feet long, now. we're not planning to go over the end of the dock. We're planning to go out to the end of it. It wonlt extend over it. Knowing, now, that that's not appropriate, I didn't know that before, it'll go in, approximately 36 feet and leave 4 feet of the dock on the inside. I think that covers all the issues in the first paragraph. MR. HAGAN-How do you live with Comment B, Don? MR. READ-Comment B? MR. HAGAN-liAs with most roof additions.." MR. READ-You mean relative to the scenic concerns? MR. HAGAN-~s, and your generally philosophy concerning Lake George? MR. READ-I cert ainly agree with you that anything that we put on the Lake effects the scenic characteristics and that is a concern. On this one I was careful, for example, to make sure that I didn't put a high roof on it SO it would shut anybody off. I have nobody on either side of me who has any concern about being shut off. The man on the boat side is going to build it for me. The man on the other side is anxious to have as many obstructions as he can between himself and the boat company, from that standpoint. From the standpoint of looking at it from the Lake, if Queensbury should ever decide they don't want anybody to do that, I prestune I would conform as anybody else does. Cumulative impact, Mr. Hagan, I can only say, on that one, that I think, and I've even recommended it, that there should be a cumulative impact study made of the Lake so that we'll 45 .~ '--" have that answer, really be useful consideration. MR. HAGAN-I didn't you could deal with but I don't think anything has been made, to date, that would in making such a determination, but it certainly is a mean to put you on the spot. I was just curious as to how it in your particular situation, right now. MR. CAlMANO-Actual1y, if he wasn't going to deal with it, I was because if ever a place needed a place to block with a roof, thatls the place. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, it would appear that this particular dock is not going to bother the neighborhood. MR. CAlMANO-Well, more important than that, it I s going to help the neighborhood. The man to his, whatever that, MR. ROBERTS-To the north. MR. CAlMANO-He gets helped. MR. CARTIER-Item E, on Page 2? MR. READ-Item E, I wasn't aware there was a concern about that. The County did tell me that they had a policy against that. Our plan, as you maybe noticed, is that we're going to step up from the dock onto a planter that is on the edge, is actually a little bit on the dock and it's a little bit on the bank. I would say it IS mostly on the bank, but it's between the two of them, on top of the dock, but then, going back into the back, and it's a planter that's been there on railroad ties for a number of years. We were planning to step up from the dock onto that planter and then, from there, up to the overhead area. The County decided that that was close enough to going up from the dock that they would not concern themselves with it when they made their decision. MR. ROBERTS-Well, historically, this Board has not always agreed on that particular issue, anyway. MR. READ-I understand that. MR. ROBERTS-I guess I, personally, don't see any reason why we can't come in from the land, especially some places where it comes in on the level and it's ideal. MR. HAGAN-The trouble with that is, it encourages people with small lots, again, nonconforming lots, to extend use of their land over the Lake and, as far as I'm concerned, that does not contribute to anybody's good health, as far as Lake George is concerned. You're not in that predicament. MR. ROBERTS-If we want to get into changing the Ordinance to that effect, I would agree, that's worthy of discussion, but I, somehow, hesitate to change the rules of the game in the middle of game, here. Let's see, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who cares to comment on this project? PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO OOMMENT PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-If we have no other burning questions, I think we're ready for a motion and we do not need SEQRA for this dock, which is the good news. IIOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 67-90 BARBARA L. READ, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For construction of a deck roof over the present dock slip on property owned by Barbara L. Réad, on Brayton Road in C1everdale. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupi11as 46 ---- SITE PLAN NO. 68-90 TYPE: UNLISTED BC-IA PC-lA 73 QUAKER ROAD ASSOC. clo TIERIIAB, BEU'STEIN AND PINŒŒ OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTllWEST CORBER OF QUAKER ROAD AND GLEBWOOD AVENUE PROPOSAL FOR A NEW SHOPPING CENTER INCLUDING A USTAURANT AND DRIVE THROUGH BANK. (WARREN CX>UBTY PLABBIIIG) TAX MAP 110. 101-1-4.31, 4.4 Lal SIZE: 4.40 ACRES TO BE DEVELOPED sEcrlœ 4.020K MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF NarES . Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-Excuse me, Stu, let me interrupt you, right there (referring to Staff Notes). How much of a variance do they, What is it, 75 feet from the front? What should it be, in other words? MR. BAKER-I believe, I don't have my Ordinance in front of me. I believe it's 75 feet from Quaker Road, is the requirement. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. MR. ROBERTS-I wonder what their reasons were? MR. CARTIER-Reasons for what? MR. ROBERTS-I wonder what their reasons for the variance? MR. BAKER-Granting a variance? I do not recall. The variance was granted a number of months ago. Perhaps the applicant Can answer that. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-The County Planning Board approved this without comment and it was also approved by the Beautification Committee. Letter from Warren County Department of Public Works, to Lee York, Senior Planner, dated August 24th, 1990 (attached) Letter from New York State Department of Transportation, to Lee York, Senior Planner, dated August 10th, 1990 (attacheq) CAlMANO-Could I make an addition to that(referring to NYSDOT letter), too Mr. Chairman, and that's the fact that I've learned this week, in spite of what we did last week, that there are no plans, ~ plans for a traffic light at Glenwood and Quaker. MR. ROBERTS-There are MR. CAlMANO-None. MR. BAKER-We spoke with Roger Gebo, from Warren County DPW, last Friday, and he has stated that the only locations for Warren County to be installing traffic lights, right now, are at LaFayette and Meadowbrook and those are the only places. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I suppose those two lights will, somehow, effect the traffic at Glenwood, too, maybe give you a little more time to get out. MR. CAlMANO-That's not to say a private light couldnlt be funded. I'm just saying that the County or the State has no plans to. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, okay, that's interesting. MR. BAKER-Also, I have found the variance application file for this project and I have the motion of approval right here, if you'd like to hear that. MR. CARTIER-I would. MR. BAKER-Okay. "Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 111-1989, Tiernan, Bernstein, and Pinchuk, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This would allow the construction of a bank that would be 41 feet from Quaker Road, rather than the 75 feet required from an arterial road. The proposed retail space would be allowed to be situated within the 75 foot setback. The applicant has shown that there have been three dozen plans pivoting the bank several different ways. The uses available to this parcel in a Highway Commercial 47 '--' '-'" Zone are; an important aspect to be considered, a bank is a more suitable use. We ,are concerned about the visual impact. This can be addre;ssed by Site Plan Rev1.ew. We hope the Planners are concerned with the traffic around the ATM. Now, this plan would improve the site because the existing building is unsightly. It is unfair to deny the applicant reasonable use of the property. It seems to be; boxed in by the sewer lines. 11 And it was approved by a vote of five to onè. MR. ROBERTS-Let's turn it over to the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Mark Schackner, an attorney with Miller Mannix and Pratt, an attorney repre;senting the applicants 73 Quaker Road Associates. As Mr. Martin says, the development team is here and we're; here, not to bore you with details, but we did, really, bring our entire project team which, collectively, has put lots and lots of time; and effort into deve;loping, what we think, is a very sound project and one that we think applies with all the applicable regulations. This is not just an overnight thought. As was just indicated, ~'ve be;en to the Zoning Board of Appeals, quite a few months ago, with a plan. Welve now sharpened our pencils, crossed our T's and dotted our I's, ~ hope, and I just thought I'd mention who is here and what their areas of expertise are; so that, hopefully, between us all, we can address any questions or concerns. In addition to myself, ~'ve got Dave Klein, here, our project engineer. We 1 ve got Drew Bernstein and Neil Pinchuk here who are principals in the applicant client. We I ve got Larry Levine, our project traffic engine;er; Peter Pifco, our project architect; Bob Sears, the project realtor and Jim Houston, from the LA group in Saratoga who is here to discuss stormwate;r, if those issues arrive. I think I've covered everybody and one of my colleagues, Sandy Allen, is here, also, from Miller/Mannix. We probably have a lot to go through. I can tell you, I think, as much as you want to here or more, about what's proposed, or maybe we should just start to address the; comments and questions that you folks have and that Rist-Frost has and that Staff has. Let me just mention one piece of correspondence that I think is in your file, but 11m not sure, but we have worked very closely with Paul Dusek and Karla Corpus, the; Town Attorneyls, about the first issue that's me;ntioned in the Staff memorandum, that's the issue about the fence and gate and guard rail in the area of the; Town's easements to the existing dam and brick wall structure. Are; you all familiar with what I'm talking about? This is the first issue mentioned in the Staff memorandum and the issue is the d am impalement and brick wall structures on the north side of Hovey Pond, over which the Town has, and wishes to maintain, easements for access to clean out this area, have control over your whole Hovey Pond Recreational Reclamation Plan and all that. So, we've met, in addition to me;eting with John Goralski and Pat Collard, at the Staff level, to discuss many aspects of this plan, in addition to meeting with Fred Austin, by the way, to talk about the traffic aspects of this plan, which I assume we'll get into later, we I ve also met with Paul Dusek and conferred with Karla Corpus to come up with a proposal, Which is re;ally their request, of the applicant, to which the; applicant has agreed, to allow and facilitate access, by the Town of Quee;nsbury, to this structure. What we've agreed, and it's codified in a letter from the Town At torney's Office to, I belie;ve, myself, but 11m not sure, and Ms. Corpus can elaborate on it, if it's not in your pile of materials, but what welve agreed to do is, leave the existing gate, here, on the east side, intact, so that you can come in from the e;ast side, to get to the east side of the structures. We will provide a gate on the north side of the impalement structure, Wiich is the south side of our property, for you to come in from this direction, and you can use our property to do so. We will also provide; a third gate entrance way on the northwest corner of the structure; for the Town to come in for your annual maintenance and clean up operations and Paul Dusek and Karla Corpus and I have been through this, through several mee;tings and discussions and Harry Hansen, from the Récre;ation Department, has also been involved and has e;ndorsed this concept and I don't know if the letter is in their packet or not, but maybe Ms. Corpus can just confirm what I've just indicated. /! MS. CORPUS-That's correct. I handed that to the Board membe;rs this evening. Basically what Mark said is correct. There will be a fence/guard rail combination put in place along the south line. I'm not too sure where it is on that particular site plan, but, it IS about right there? MR. SCHACHNER-It's right here at the southern most end of our road, here and one of the requests from the Town Attorneyl s office was that we put the fence guard rail system right on that border, so that you would have the; maximum width in your easement and we've agreed to do that. MS. CORPUS-Right, ~ requested a clearance of eight feet on the northwest corner and five feet on the northeast corner of that brick wall and the three gate openings 48 "--- -- are correct. The two new ones will be at least 20 feet in width. The existing one will remain as it is and we I ve agreed that paving will be allowed in the easement location, now. Again, I'd just like to stress that this was discussed between Harry Hansen, Paul, and Mark. It does vary, slightly, from what the Town Board approved, in its original resolution, to have an easement negotiated between the parties, that easement was never signed. It does vary, slightly. The original easement jutted out, in sort of an M fashion. What we're doing is we're cutting off the top points of that M. This will be brought before the Town Board for its review and approval, but, again, after speaking with everyone, we don't believe that there should be any objection to these particular arrangements. We just request that, if the Board gets to the approval stage, these particular requirements be made part of the approval. MR. CAlMANO-I have a question and then a comment. My first question is a very, very basic one. What is the burning need for this in the Town of Queensbury? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess, from the standpoint of the applicant, I'm not sure that we have to justify a burning need for it and 11m not sure I can respond, meaningfully, although we do have people, here, including the realtor, Bob Sears, Who I think I mentioned, and, if you want, you can hear something about what the marketing capabilities have been and what the response has been, so far. There have been very favorable responses, so far, from possible, prospective tenants. Obviously, nobody can make any firm commitments because this is all pie in the sky, until it gets appropriate approvals. I can It, necessarily, indicate that there's a burning necessity, from a community standpoint, but it's clearly a marketable and we've got very, very good feedback from potential tenants. As far as the zoning, I mean, as far as this location, it's zoned Highway Commercial Plaza. MR. CAlMANO-That's not my question. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, you're not getting at that. MR. CAlMANO-And this Board is a philosophical Board of accumulation of things, right? We have a lot of square feet of retail space that are doing nothing. We have a shopping center up t he corner of Quaker and Route 9 that's dying on it's feet. We have all kinds of things, so I was just curious as to what the need was and whether you already had tenants. My second is a comment and I don't know whe.re the rest of the Board is going to go. My concern is, basically, the traffic one because, I'd probably be like that governor and stand on the school house door before I let traffic go out of there and turn left onto Quaker Road, that's suicide, but I may be wrong. So, that's my concern. My biggest concern is the traffic. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. We assume that that's the biggest issue and that we'll focus on that and we'll do that right now, if you'd like. If I could back you up just a step, Mr. Caimano. If you want to just here more about what we perceive the need to be, in terms of the tenants and all that, weill be glad to address that, in more detail. MR. CAlMANO-l would, if the rest of the Board wants to hear it. MR. HAGAN-No, I'd like him to address the comments, first, before we get carried away. MR. CAlMANO-Right, fine. MR. HAGAN-lid like to hear what you have to say about Staff's comments. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Any special ones or right on down the numbers? MR. CAlMANO-Letls go down the numbers. MR. HAGAN-I think you've taken care of Number One. MR. SCHACHNER-Right and Number Two is traffic. Do you want to jump right in on that one? MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's probably good. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, basically, as, let me just, this isnlt really, specifically, commenting on traffic from the Staff standpoint, but, notice that Mr. Goralski, in preparing the comments, does mention, in the very first sentence, that there 49 ---" is severe limits to the design options and notice, in the second sentence, he talks about the constraints of the site. When we; were in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the County Planning Board, we've been asked numerous questions about different configurations, if you will, of the site and, principally, relating to the traffic function and the traffic issue and welve pushed this around a hundred different ways and we I ve got a traffic study that's been submitted to the Staff I don't know if it's reached the Board or not, that demonstrates that there hav~ been four traffic studies done on this Quaker Road corridor, and that, at least three of the four indicate current ne;ed for traffic signaling on LaFayette, Glenwood and Country Club. Now, we've met with Fred Austin about this and, Mr. Hagan, I assume you're referring, principally, to the traffic issue of Quaker Road, not the internal traffic issue? MR. HAGAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Because John Goralski mentions, in the Staff Comment, "Internal traffic circulation is adequate." So, I'm focusing on Quaker Road. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and when we met with Fred Austin, Which we did once in person and I've also talked to him several times about this by telephone. His feeling, I think, was reflected in Mr. Caimano's comment, Which is that, from the County standpoint, I don't know how to accurately phrase this, maybe you did it the best, he didn't seem very anxious for the County to fund a traffic signal in addition to the LaFayette;, Which is already being signalled as you mentioned, but he was certainly receptive to the possible need for a signal on either Country Club Road or Glenwood or both and we've got two memoranda, by the way, from Mr. Austin, to that effect and I kind of have the impression Staff may not have seen the and I donlt know why because they're both, neither is directed to my attention. Their both from Fred Austin to Steve Borgos and I'll be glad to give them to you if you want, but Mr. Austin, in both instances, indicates that, from the County DPW perspective, if the; traffic needs warrant signalization, they would find a signal appropriate at either Glenwood or Country Club and that's reflected, in writing, in these memoranda from Mr. Austin, which anybody is welcome to. I would have made copies if I knew you didn't have them and I guess that's, you know, our basic issue is the Quaker Road traffic situation. It looks, to us, as if therels signalization warranted, certainly, on one of those two intersections.· We have, looking at Glenwood first , ~ have contacted the other immediate users of the Glenwood/Quaker intersection, to ask if they're intere;sted in a shared participation in cost. Notice Mr. Goralski also mentions that. On the second page of his comments he specifically says, "Perhaps all of the businesses located at this intersection could share in this cost", referring to the Glenwood intersection. We I ve gotten no positive responses at all. From the standpoint of the applicant, the applicant has to look at its return on its dollar investment, obviously, and from the standpoint of the applicant, it's probably preferable to have signalization at Country Club, rather than Glenwood, but, basically, Wè are also interested, obviously, in input from you folks, as to what you perceive the traffic need the;re, in terms of signalization. MR. HAGAN-Well, don't ask for mine because, originally, Quaker Road was established as an e;xpress way between Hudson Falls and Glens Falls and all this development and traffic lights is defeating the original purpose of that highway. MR. SCHACHNER-As is the zoning. MR. HAGAN-Right, Wèll, there was a suggestion about not having an exit or entrance from Quaker Road. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that's one of the; options that Mr. Goralski mentions, along with two others. I'm not being facetious, Mr. Hagan, in my adding on. MR. HAGAN-Neither am I. MR. SCHACHNER-No, I know that. MR. HAGAN-I've lived here for almost 60 years. MR. SCHACHNER-When I say, as is the; zoning, adding on to your comment, I mean, it I S zoned Highway Commercial/Plaza Commercial. If it 1 S really inte;nded to be a four lane expressway, without stops, then the zoning is completely inappropriate and you know, as well as I, that the Town just went through a very, very hard look at revising it's Compre;hensive Zoning Regulations and this property is zoned 50 ---' Highway Commercial/Plaza Commercial. So, the uses that are permitted, as of right, on this parcel, are the uses that, by definition, rightly or wrongly, require people to stop their car, get out of their car and spend their hard earned buck. I understand your comment, from a traffic and engineering standpoint, and we do have one here to address this in more detail, if you like. The key concept to signalization, in this area, would be that they're coordinated. Obviously, you can't have signals that close together that are willy nilly, going off, you know, you go 10 feet and then you have to screech on the brakes to stop at the next red light. They've got to be coordinated properly. MR. CAlMANO-Excuse me, you mean like the two that are on Aviation Road going by the Mall? It never happens. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, my impression is it doesn't work too well, there. MR. MARTIN-No, I think what he's referring to is the signalization that occurs at Shop-n-Save and Bay Road and Quaker. Those are extremely close to gether. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, both are, Mr. Caimano's example. They're both close together. All I can say, I'm not a traffic engineer. We'll present one to discuss this if you want., but we did meet with Fred Austin and he was absolutely receptive to that and he said, obviously, they've got to be appropriately timed and that's critical. If it doesn't work at Aviation Mall, I can I t tell you why. Let me just add one thing about Shop-n-Save that I s an important distinction, I think. The Shop-n-Save traffic light, if you think about it, there's no public street, thoroughfare, intersection, Where the Shop-n-Save traffic light is, so that the Shop-n-Save traffic light, clearly, serves only the one private function. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And my understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, you folks know, you're the deciders on this, but my understanding is that that light, for that reason, is owned by Shop-n-Save, that IS, literally, a private signal, which, our traffic engineer whispers, that's the problem and he may be right. What is contemplated here is that, and, again, Mr. Austin mentions this, in the two memoranda, or one of the two memoranda 11m referring to. He says that, if there's a need for a signal here and a developer is going to pay, or at least contribute to payment, it's not just for that private applicant. It I S really to facilitate public use of the those thoroughfares. I agree with your comment, it better be done right. MR. MARTIN-Well, What we're getting into, though, is there has to be a judgement call made as to, obviously, \\hat is enough signaling on Quaker Road. We're in thè procèss of absorbing two more, right now, that we don't know how, in practice, thèY will work and now you're proposing increased signaling. My question is, What is the impact, on your project, of John Goralski's first option of no road cuts on Quaker. I guess we'll start there. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. I think the impact is really of a very high magnitude, perhaps, devastating, and others will speak to this with morè of an economic slant than I, but your talking about Highway Commercial/Plaza Commercial zoning. You're talking about what we certainly hope is a relativèly high visibility or high profile, in the positive sense, commercial retail plaza and you're talking about the major thoroughfare that goes by it. This is an important point. In terms of level of service, this project will not generate traffic levels that will have a significant impact on the Quaker Road corridor, in terms of level of service, in other words, the number of additional cars on Quaker Road, is not a significant increasè, in terms of level of service, that, obviously, is not the only constraint that goes into traffic design. You also have to talk about stopping. MR. HAGAN-With businèss, then? that statement, how can I don't understand. you say youl re going to genera te new MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you hope that a lot of the people already on Quaker Road come in and shop in your place and 11m not saying no increase. I'm telling you we did a very sophisticated traffic study, \\hich Mr. Levine will discuss, if you like, that shows no significant increase in level of service. Not, no additional cars, just not to the point of changing the level of service. So, it's sort of a combination, Mr. Hagan. First of all, you hope that a lot of the existing traffic usèS your facility. Second of all, you have increase in traffic, but not sufficient to change level of service requirements. 51 '--- ~ MR. CAlMANO-Let .me ask you an alte+native question to the problem to Mr. Goralski. Instead of cutt1.ng off your Quaker Road, what if there was a planter from Country Club to Glenwood, in the middle. MR. SCHACHNER-A median. MR. CAlMANO-A planter, something nice, something that would prevent, A. this traffic from moving over here, but B. this traffic from going up there. MR. SCHACHNER-Yês, a pretty mêdian. I understand. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, but would that be better for you? LARRY LEVINE MR. LEVINE-You mean an actual, you would have to put in a median barrier. You couldn't put in a plantêr. MR. CAlMANO-Well, Whatever. Put in cops. the traffic from going across. I don't care. Something to prevênt MR. LEVINE-A physical barrier to split the traffic? MR. CAlMANO-Yes. MR. LEVINE-My name is Larry Levine. I'm a traffic engineer out of Ballston Spa. You'd have two problems with that. I think that Roger Gebo and Fred Austin would have major problems with it because of the dêsign of Quaker Road. It is designed to have a median down thê whole road. It I S not a limited aCcess expressway. It's an arterial route, but it's not limited access, truly, in any fashion at all and it wasn't designed to bê that way and it would constitutê a real departurê from the design, but, besides that, you have a left turn slot, here, and a taper length and the distance between Glenwood and Country Club is such that I don't know that you could do that without disturbing that, as well. It's possib1è. It is possible, but you'd almost have to do it all the way down the road. MR. CAlMANO-If you'rê familiar with this arêa, you'll look on the other side of Routè 9, \\herè Burgèr King and Mobil comê into Aviation Road, that's what I want to prevent. If I'm going to be involved in it, that's what I want to prèvent. I want to prevênt people coming out of Burger King, or there, turning lèft across all that traffic, at high speed, and going that way. MR. LEVINE-Whèrè you're coming from is what I discovered when I first started the study. I went out thêre. There had been a signal warrant study done, by Sear/Brown of the whole corridor, to say where thêY should put signals or where it warranted signals and the traffic counts used in that study were taken, I think, January 10th, of this year, either during, or whatever, in a snowstorm, I don't know, but Warren County had a study of traffic vo1umês which was done, èar1ier. C.T. Male had a study of traffic volumès, evên beforè thê increase in thè road design and I had traffic studies done and the traffic warrant signal study, the traffic vo1umès arè, pèrhaps, 40 to 50 percent lower than all the other studies and, I don't know why, but that's the situation. So, they came up with a signal at LaFayette and what we were told by Fred Austin was, it's becausê there's a firê house there and that's the reason for that signal at LaFayette. LaFayette is a T-intersection. I looked at it and I said, well, gêê, there was a study before thê Sear/Brown Study. Searl Brown Study for the signal warrants did not takê into account accident history. They make a blunt statêmênt, no accidents werê considered. So, I lookêd at the accident history. There's accidents at Glenwood. Wê all know that. There's accidents at Country Club. MR. MARTIN-It's a Grade E intersection on the DOT sca1ê. MR. CAlMANO-Is it? MR. LEVINE-And, gUèss what, aftêr they widened thê road from two 1anês to five lanes and made it 85 fêet long, low and behold, there's continued accidents at Glenwood and Country Club and, at LaFayette, there weren't too many before, and there aren't too many now, okay, but therê's still a lot of people going across G1enwood, going straight across 85 feet of pavêment and when I looked at thi s and I said, gee, therê was a signal warranted here before they built thè road and after they built the road and thêre was a signal warranted here and, even in the Searl Brown Study, Wiich was 40 pêrcent lower than the existing traffic 52 -.../ that's out there, they said that they said, you better look at the traffic closely because, even with their low numbers, they said, you need a signal, here, at Glenwood and you need a signal at Country Club, now. Think about it, and the only way that this is going to work, with a signal at LaFayette, is if, basically, you have a si gnal all the way through here and theyl re coordinated because, other wise, you know what I'm saying, making a left turn out of there is, you said it, it's a tough movement, a very tough movement. So, v.e looked at that, Wien we designed the center and we came up with this scheme, here, because of the Glenwood option, first, and then we've also looked at a Country Club connection, directly across. I, personally, like the Country Club connection better, mere we'd put a signal there, at this point, because it would eliminate a lot of the movements from the center. All the conflicting movements on to Glenwood would be eliminated, then yould eliminate all the left turns, again. See, you'd have one movement instead of three, or two. Two, I'm sorry. MR. CARTIER-Run that by me again, please. MR. LEVINE-Well, v.e were looking at a connection at Country Club. Therels a signal needed at both, okay. You can warrant a signal, let me put it that way. You can warrant a signal at both because of the left turns out of Country Club and we've looked at a plan to connect through, directly into the Center, here. MR. CARTIER-That's ingress only, or egress also? MR. LEVINE-That would be a signalized intersection, ingress and egress, and it would be coordinated with the LaFayette signal. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LEVINE-And the advantages of that are not just for the owner of the Center, but all the traffic, internally, here, instead of coming out on to Glenwood and having to cross traffic, here and then having to cross traffic, here, at the Quaker Road intersection, W'uld just have to come right out, here, at a signalized intersection. We would have our own entrance and it would be controlled and cut down on the traffic, here. MR. CARTIER-That would also eliminate the entrancelexit you have on Quaker, now, corre ct? MR. LEVINE-Yes, you wouldn't need that, right. That would be gone. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LEVINE-It would eliminate all three of these. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LEVINE-Because there's a truck access, v.e're showing a truck access, here. What we'd do is this would be closed, this would be closed and there would just be a signal at one intersection, but that's one option. The other option is at the Glenwood, for a signal, but that I s when we met with Fred Austin and he said, v.ell, I'd like to see, at our discussion, as I understood it, he'd like to see it at one or the other, either one was acceptable to him and, looking at our traffic counts, he had no problem, that the signal was warranted. MR. MARTIN-What does a center of this size, typically, generate or do you forecast it or project it? MR. LEVINE-Yes, I've projected the traffic going in and out of each entrance and in the traffic study I've got the exact figures. I don I t have them on the top of my head, right now, and then we distributed it, basically, based on the existing traffic distribution. MR. MARTIN-And what's the standard of measure? Is it hourly, cars per hour? MR. LEVINE-Based on the type of use and the square footage, in this case, v.e were able to reject, there's an institute of traffic engineers that has published trip generation rates and so forth, Wiich I've used, and we came up with a trips per hour for each development, for the peak hour of the highway and for the peak hour of the generator itself, because they may vary, and the critical time was found to be a Friday evening. We counted Friday. We counted Saturday and we counted a weekday, okay, for all three intersections. I had people actually out there 53 -- counting and what we found was, a Friday evening was the worst time and we took the worst traffic volumes, on the highway, the peak hour there, and we superimposed on them the worst traffic that we would expect from the center and then we took those nwnbers and put them on the intersections and, based on the geometry of the intersection, ~ came up with capacities and Level of Service. Level of Service is really a measure of the delay. It's the delay to the vehicle. Depending on whether it's signalized or unsignalized, people are willing to put up with different types, lengths of delay. MR. MARTIN-On the peak time of the week, Wtich is the Friday evening, and the peak time of use for that center, Wtat is the increased impact on those areas? MR. LEVINE-Well, based on the traffic that I had out of here, I can get the exact nwnbers if you like, the Level of Service, the delay, at any of these particular intersections would not change because of this center, at all. There just isn't that many cars coming in or out of there, and you're looking at Quaker Road. The capacity on that road is really quite high, no matter how you cut it. The problem on Quaker Road, right now, is that the signals are not coordinated. They are too far apart. There was no planning done to have them coordinated, initially. Their just thinking about where to put them, now and they're spaced a certain distance apart and it IS supposed to be 40 miles per hour, but you're stopping at one of the other signals because there's no progression of the traffic on Quaker Road, a good progression of traffic, for the different time periods of the day, because one part of the day the traffic I s all moving one way and in the evening itls moving back the other way. It's a commuter highway. The signals don't change, necessarily. Some of them are actuated, so they do, somewhat, but not as much as you'd like. You don't have any platooning of the cars, it's called. They're not bunched together. By the time the cars are in between the intersecti ons, W:1ich are sO far apart, they're spread out and that's why nobody can get out of the intersections or out of the driveways. It's very difficult to make a left turn because there's always one car or two cars that are going one way or the other on that road, nobody's bunched together. They spread out too much. MR. CARTIER-Do you understand the difficulty of getting all those light synchronized? MR. LEVINE-Yes, I did Sunrise Highway, down on Long Island and several others. It IS quite difficult, but it can be done and there's ways to do it. MR. cARTIER-No, Wiat I'm talking about is the fact that there are four different jurisdictions involved on all of those lights. You have State, County, Town, and private people to get together. MR. LEVINE-Well, that's true, but, even so, each of these controllers that's used for these signals can be attached to a time base coordinating unit, \\hich are very good, now. They don I t even have to have radio control, anymore. It can be done and it's not something that costs a lot of money. Itls something they're looking into, as a matter of fact. Gebo and Austin are looking into that. MR. MARTIN-My concern with any curb cuts on Quaker Road, and it gets back to the zoning issue. That's right, this is a Highway CommerciallPlaza Commercial zone, but, from the standpoint of a Planning Board, ~ have to consider, not only this project, but, ultimately, Wiat may happen on all of these lands going up and down Quaker Road, if developed to their fullest potential, under the existing Zoning Ordinance and that I s a very tough thing to do, given, but we have to be very careful as to how many cuts we grant on that road because there's going to be somebody in here, next week, across the street, or down the road or up the road. MR. LEVINE-I think I can answer that, to some extent. In my discussions with Fred Austin and Roger Gebo, \\hen they designed this road and the nwnber of lanes on this road, this road has the capacity, and the design was based upon, all the zone districts being fully developed and that was the basis for the design of this highway, otherwise they didn't need four lanes and a turn lane. So, they did take that into account. MR. CARTIER-Run that by me again, just that last part. MR. LEVINE-Okay, the zoning was taken into account, just like I said that I took an lTE, an Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rate for this Center. Okay, the way they designed this rÖad, they knew how many pieces of land they had that were developable along this road and they came up with a projected traffic volume that this road would have to handle when these were totally developed. 54 MR. HAGAN-Based on how many driveways, exits and entrances? MR. LEVINE-Regardless of the driveways, just the number of Cars generated by these developments, how many could be handled on the road. The driveways is a detail which you have to address for each Center, as far as the safety concerns go and thatls why we're here, but that's, basically, how they came up with four lanes. MR. CARTIER-Are you aware of a traffic study that Was done that also predicted, and I'm not sure of the year involved here, but, by the year 2003 or year 2006, which is not very long away, that they were talking about Quaker Road having to be six lanu? MR. LEVINE-I understand that Mr. Austin had designed the road, or Mr. Gebo said he designed the road to accommod ate six lanes. He has enough room out there to put another lane on each side, if it ever came to that. MR. CARTIER-What does that do to your, are you saying that does absolutely nothing to you? MR. LEVINE-Well, it wouldn't effect our site. All he's asking us, at the time he said, if you want to have a right turn in and a right turn out, to put a curb, he'd want to see a curb along the edge of the shoulder and that I s what he's planning. If he went to a six lane design, he would have to have a curb on each side of the road and a smaller shoulder and it was designed to encompass that, but as far as I understood it, the zoning that exists, now, was handled by the five lanes that you see there, now, but, of course, there's going to be more growth in the area. MR. MARTIN-I assume that the present Site Plan, with the curb cuts as shown, represents the optimum design, based on the traffic study that you did and those Trip Generations Per Hour you were talking about? MR. LEVINE-Well, there's two options involved, two optimums, let us say. If the Board would like to see a signal at Glenwood, for whatever reasons, then I would say that I feel comfortable with this design. If the Board would prefer to see a signal at Country Club, then we have another layout (referring to map). MR. MARTIN-Well, just, narratively, describe it. MR. LEVINE-It's a very tough site because the access points are restricted by the distances from your property lines and your setbacks, the width of the shoulder area. As you can see in thi s green area, here, you see how narrow, ~'re very close to the road because of all the constraints on the rear of the site. Everything had to be shoved close to Quaker Road and Quaker Road, ~ found out that the utility poles were shown on the Warren County plans as being off the property line, with a 10 foot strip, but, in actuality, they're on our property, on the developers property. The pavement is right to the property line, so, What shows on the plan is not what's, necessarily, out there. So, there's less for us to work with than we thought, initially. MR. SCHACHNER-What we flipped over is just the layover version showing ~ proposed access with signalization on Country Club. I guess I just wanted to try to focus this on two of the important points, from the applicant's standpoint. First of all, just having consulting, again, with the realtor, my use of the word devastating is not an exaggeration. For the clients, or the tenants, I guess it would be, at the Commercial Retail Plaza, theyl ve got to have ingress and egress off of the major thoroughfare, there, \\hich is Quaker Road. The second point is, this would be, if we need signalization, this would be our preferred alternative. Although, I don I t want to disagree with what Mr. Goralski stated which is that Glenwood's a possibility. The problem is, again, from the applicant's standpoint, in terms of financial return, is, there's been no cooperation, frankly, no response, from the other users at the Glenwood intersection. MR. CARTIER-I've got a problem with your devastation, here. corner, the Antique Emporium, Whatever itls called. We have, on that MR. SCHACHNER-You're on Glenwood, right, Mr. Cartier? MR. CARTIER-Glenwood, I'm talking about and we also have MR. SCHACHNER-Northern Homes. 55 ~. ...-" MR. CARTIER-Thank you, both of which do not have access directly to Quaker Road. They all access from Glenwood, okay. So, I'm not sure I can accept this idea that they are going to be wiped out, here, if they do not have access directly from Quaker Road. MR. SCHACHNER-Awfully different kind of business, I think, in both examples, very, very different kind of business. We're talking about a Commercial Plaza that's got to be a lot higher profile than either of those two things. 11m not a patron of Bob Tyrer's business, because I don't have sophisticated enough taste, but everybody knows about that business. If you're into antiques, I think there's quite a business there and that's a sole establishment and you know where it's located and it's also not right on Quaker. Correct me if 11m wrong, be he doesnlt actually have frontage on Quaker. MR. CARTIER-A very small amount. MR. SCHACHNER-Tyrer? Okay. Alright, certainly he doesn't face onto Quaker, let me put it that way. I wasn't sure if he had frontage or not and, again, in the Northern Homes example, real big outfit, very, very well known, everybody knows where they're located, knows what's happening. I don't think they get, or plan on a lot of walk in trade, if you will. MR. CAlMANO-They have a retail store, the Saw Horse. MR. LEVINE-I think that I might be able to help on this one. If they were to have an aCCess driveway onto Quaker, if I'm not mistaken, it would be very close to the intersection. MR. CARTIER-Well, Northern's got an exit only, onto Quaker, further down. MR. LEVINE-Okay, I can understand an exit only. MR. CARTIER-Let me ask one more question because it kind of ties in with this. MR. LEVINE-The reason for the right in, right out? Therels a reason for that, is that it made them go right, turn right in, turn right out, forced the traffics to do that. If anyone goes out at Glenwood, there's no signal there, right now, and, even if there were a signal, it's still, they've got to cross 85 feet of pavement. It's a big road. So, Wè were trying to get them in, off of Quaker, and back out and there's no conflict. Therels no crossing movement of cars, where you can have an accident. MR. CARTIER-Doesn't the applicant have the property all the way over to LaFayette? MR. SCHACHNER-The ansWèr is, the same entity owns another parcel that's partially contiguous to this parcel, not completely contiguous, and does have access on LaFayette, commonly called the Mallincrodkt Building, Mallincrodkt parcel, that's a separate parcel, separate use. MR. CARTIER-But it's owned by the same person and it's next to each other, correct? MR. SCHACHNER-It's owned by the same entity and it doesn't share a complete property boundary, but itls partially contiguous, yes. MR. CAlMANO-The carpet place, Gavida's place. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, Northern Tiles, Flooring? MR. CAlMANO-No, Northway Floors. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. But just backing up step, Mr. Cartier, to your comment about the devastation, I guess I can't think of any way, I mean, the most simply, direct answer is there has been significant contact with prospective tenants, no Quaker Road access, no tenants, I mean, period and the realtor will be glad to speak to that issue if you want here it from his mouth. Rei s the guy that's contacted them, not me. From the tenant perspective, it's got to have ingress and egress off of Quaker, that's the major thoroughfare. DREW BERNSTEIN MR. BERNSTEIN-I'm one of the principals. 11m Drew Bernstein. I've had significant contact with the tenants, too, and I think, when we were in the zoning mode, one 56 ,_/ of the things that we tried to convey to them is the type of tenants that we were going after is what we call, high credit tenants. We're not looking to, necessarily, put every type of store into here. We've been talking to, mostly, Wlat we call, national stores, people that have stores that we think are going to be useful in the community. These type of tenants absolutely need access onto Quaker Road. I don't think that they would give this one ounce of consideration without that. I've talked to numerous tenants, right now. Some tenants ~ have tentative agreements with, pending getting our approval and such. I know, possibly, you've seen some of the articles in the paper that's been written about it. All of this is contingent, obviously, upon getting these approvals. I would say, without the access on Quaker Road, the ability for uS to ~ tenants for this would virtually be nil. MR. CAlMANO-Well, of course, that brings us back to my original question which was, again, a philosophical question and that was the need because now, if the need is critical or semi-critical to the Town of Queensbury, then there's reason to go doing things that we might not ordinarily do, but just to accommodate a retail shopping center and cause major traffic problems for no particular reason, Wiy are we doing it? MR. BERNSTEIN-Well, I think you're talking about two different things, here. One, you're talking about a need. A need, to me, if I can find tenants that are willing to locate to this, I think that fulfills your requirement for need. I think I've done that, okay. What you're talking about is putting significant restrictions on how this property is to be used, if you deny an access onto Quaker Road, Wlich, really, is what's going to devastation that need. I mean, you may have a need for something, but if you have no way to use it, then it doesn't fulfill your need. I mean, if you have to go to the bathroom, but the door is locked, I mean, you have the need but you can't use it. MR. CARTIER-I understand. MR. BERNSTEIN-That's the same analogy, here. If they have a need to be in this location, itl s a very high profile location. It fulfills the need to a lot of retailers, but if you deny them the necessary access that they need to that MR. CARTIER-Understand that this Board is not here to satisfy a bunch of retailers, okay. MR. BERNSTEIN-I ùnderstand that. MR. CAlMANO-That's Wiat I'm saying. sO far, survived without this Center. that. I'm saying that the Town of Queensbury has, We may be better off with it, I'm not saying MR. LEVINE-I think I've got to come back to something here. There is a signal needed at Country Club and Glenwood, yesterday. For safety reasons, Number One, there's accidents there, already, years of accidents there already, okay. It's a fact that the numbers prove, in three out of four studies and, even in the fourth study, it's border line, that a signal's been warranted there for a long time, okay. You said, yourself, it's almost a suicide trying to turn left there. ~ll, to get across the street's the same thing. MR. HAGAN-Not today. It was before they put the increased lanes in. MR. CAlMANO-I disagree. MR. LEVINE-I would have to disagree. I sat out there and watched, for 12 hours. MR. HAGAN-I travel Country Club Road every single day. It's the way I come back and forth. MR. LEVINE-Well, but, Wlatever, by law, there are certain warrants, in the New york State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is the DNT Law. There are certain warrants for a traffic signal and certain criteria by which you gauge when a traffic signal is necessary. It includes accident history. It includes traffic counts and so forth. Both of these intersections warrant a traffic signal, at this time. I have the accident history. I got it from New York State, for five years. I have it in the report and I have the traffic counts, as ~ll. Now, the thing is, 11m looking at this as a traffic safety engineer, that you have a developer, here, Wio is willing to put up a signal, one or the other. A signal that is needed, regardless of whether a shopping center is approved at this location or not. The shopping center, itself, will not generate enough traffic to make any bit of difference, as far as the delays go, on this road. 57 --- MR. CARTIER-I can't buy that, but go ahead. MR. LEVINE-Well, it's like another driveway on the road, okay. to effect the capacity on the road, itself. It's not going MR. MARTIN-See, that's where I get back to my issue about what I said about the development along Quaker Road. It's going to minimally, or negligibly effect traffic on Quaker Road, right? MR. LEVINE-Right. MR. MARTIN-But, over time, the cumulative effect of development occurring on, we have to make sure that we give everybody their fair share of curb cuts and don't give too much to one, so the next guy, down the road, is going to have a problem. MR. LEVINE-Well, what I would suggest you look at, and this is a suggestion, from me, is that, on most situations where this becomes a problem is that there's too many curb cuts, or too many small, chopped up pieces, okay? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LEVINE-This is a group of stores, looking at, in this particular scenario, one entrance, a signalized entrance, opposite to an existing road that already needs a signal. The signal will really be servicing the traffic coming out of Country Club because the Country Club traffic is much higher than anything you'll every see coming out of the shopping center. So, that I s really, this signal is going to service the Country Club traffic, but this is a situation where you can control it to one access point for a long stretch of road. The trouble comes in with the safety point, with all these other,. and the capacity problem, where you have one, two, three, four, five, right next to one another, like Wolfe Road and so forth. You've got driveways allover the place, if you can control it to as few as possible, that's the best of all worlds. MR. ROBERTS-We understand that. Welve tried to do that, over the years. MR. LEVINE-And that's what we're trying to do with these different plans. MR. MARTIN-That was exactly the concern of DOT when I talked to them a couple of years ago. They were afraid of Quaker Road becoming the Wolfe Road of the North Country. MR. LEVINE-Right, and I've talked to the people at DOT about what we're doing here and they like the concept where you can take a lot of stores, a large frontage, and concentrate to one access point and if you can, if you have enough businesses to be able to do it, you couldnlt put up a signal if you only had one store, here. You're talking $60 to $100,000 minimum. You've got to have a fairly good sized development to be able to even talk about a signal. So, this is kind of an opportunity to get a signal that I S already needed, it's a recognized need by the County, for an intersection that needs it and to control the aCcess point to right across from an existing road. MR. ROBERTS-That scenario makes a lot of sense to me. MR. LEVINE-I like this scenario, myself. MR. ROBERTS-We'vé always tried to minimize road cuts. We zoned it Plaza Commercial so we would have fewer road cut s. We even talked Earle Town into, you know, we accomplished something with a lateral access, down there which we hope to continue. We don't have that opportunity everywhere, but maybe we've got an opportunity to get down to correcting an existing problem and eliminating a couple of other access points, here. MR. LEVINE-Right, ~ll, this is the ideal, from that standpoint. MR. CARTIER-If this is the ideal, ingress, \\hy are we being presented with this as Plan B? MR. LEVINE-At the time we had spoken with the County, initially, they were very insistent that they wanted one at Glenwood and I think the reason was, there was a stop gap measure. 58 '-- ~ MR. CAIMANO-The County wanted one? MR. LEVINE-Well, yes, if they have one at G1enwood and one at LaFayette they figured well, for awhile, we'll be okay at Country Club. MR. CAlMANO-But Austin writes a letter, here, June 26th, 1990, that says his figures don't substantiate any need for a G1enwood Avenue light. MR. LEVINE-That was before we had the meeting and I talked to him about our numbers and he had a study from Sear/Brown that was done in January of this year and I showed, the Warren County study had higher numbers than the SearlBrown study, and that was done two years earlier, before the road was even built. MR. SCHAŒNER-If I could just add to that, Mr. Caimano, I'm reading, I'll hand this to you right after I read it. I'm just reading it for the record. 11m reading you two memoranda from Fred Austin to Supervisor Borgos that, evidently, have not been made available to you, Which, if we had known, we would have done so. The first one says, in pert and in part, "New traffic counts and warrant investigations by a developers traffic engineer, indicates a traffic signal may now be warranted at Quaker and G1enwood", is the first one. Second memoranda, follow up, states, in pert and in part, "As the traffic consultant and our office (meaning Fred) explores the engineering aspects of this situation, it is possible the proposed light may be at Country Club Road. Perhaps Paul (meaning Dusek) can word the maintenance agreement, which is being prepared for some easements, in a manner that will leave the specific location open." So, we met with Fred Austin, in our office and, as Larry said, frankly, I disagree that they were particularly adamant about it, but Fred, initially, ~s more focused on G1enwood than on Country Club and we discussed this with him. We sat down with him and his feeling was, to be honest, his initial feeling was, like you said, Mr. Caimano, the Countyl s not really interested in paying for an additional signal at either of those locations, but his feeling was that this project seemed sotmd1y based for the existing zoning and that comes to your issue, Mr. Martin. We're sensitive to your comments and I think you understand the existing zoning issue. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, fair comment, but he said that it really could be at either Country Club or G1enwood and I won't re-hash. W¡?¡IV¡?¡ ta1k¡?¡d to th¡?¡ oth¡?¡r peop1¡?¡ about G1enwood. Theyl re not int¡?¡rested in participating, financially and, from our perspective, it makes more sens¡?¡ at Country club. MR. ROBERTS-It I S too bad, ~, probably, could have gotten Fred here, tonight, if weld thought about it. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you're welcome to r¡?¡ad these, if you like. MR. LEVINE-This is a very, very tight site, very difficult to work with and we went back, with the fax machine, 10 zillion tim¡?¡s with different scenarios for how to layout the parking because you can mov¡?¡ it one foot this way, but then it IS on a sewer grade. You can mov¡?¡ it one foot that way, but it's over, you know, it IS very tough. MR. CAlMANO-If it IS so difficult, What makes it sO attractive? MR. LEVINE-It's a fantastic location for a retail center and it's a zoned site. MR. CARTIER-Okay, Mr. L¡?¡vine, you've brought up a qu¡?¡stion that I wanted to ask. This sit¡?¡ is max¡?¡d out, okay. We've squeezed in as much as possibly can be squeezed into this site and ther¡?¡in 1i¡?¡s th¡?¡ problem. It seems to me a considerable amount of problems could b¡?¡ solv¡?¡d by the horrible words, shrinking th¡?¡ buildings. MR. LEVINE-We a1r¡?¡ady did that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LEVINE-I think that Dave can addr¡?¡ss that b¡?¡cause this is considerably reduced from the original concepts that hav¡?¡ been there. MR. CARTIER-But, ~Ire still at 31 percent perm, only. We still have, as far as I'm concerned, parking problems, internally. We seem to be changing gears, here, and I think those things need to be addressed. When I see, and I'm looking 59 '-.-' at the two comm~nts, Items thr~~ and four, wh~n I s~~ th~ word "ad~quat~", that IS not gr~at. It's lik~ saying, how was your brain surg~an. W~ll, h~ was ad~quat~. Or, how was your pilot today. H~ was ad~quat~ and I think w~ may n~~d to addr~ss som~ of those things, in t~rms of, maxing this out, that's why I brought up th~ issu~ of, don't you own prop~rty oV~r to LaFay~tte Stre~t and, som~how, we got off onto som~ oth~r ar~a, h~r~. MR. SCHACHNER-W~ll, weld v~ry much lik~ to address thos~ issu~s, Mr. Cartier, very, very important. First, let me make an editorial comment. In my ~xp~ri~nce with the Town Staff, with all due respect by Mr. Goralski included, I don't recall a lot of times seeing their recommendations glowing, effusively, and saying, this is a wonderful plan for anything. I think ad~quat~, as I understand Town Staff, adequate is, basically, almost, a 10, on a scal~ of 1 to 10, but n~xt point, Mr. Cartier, very important, as far as this maxing out. This was a big issue in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals b~cause, as you folks I 'm sur~ know, one of th~ criteria for getting Zoning Board Ar~a Variance is, the minimal variance n~c~sBary, as opposed to maximizing dev~lopm~nt. In all fairn~ss, that I s simply not th~ case. You're right about th~ perm~ability. There's a lot of constraints, on that Bit~, about what can and can't be paved and w~ still m~~t th~ p~rm~abi1ity r~quirement, although not by any great str~tch. Parking, we're actually thre~ over th~ r~quired amount and, most importantly, as far as maxing out development, we're only at 51 p~rc~nt of maximum coverag~. I mean, lit~rally, half of maximum coverag~. This is far from max~d out. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Wh~re does that 51 percent come from? MR. SCHACHNER-From an allowabl~ coverag~ of approximately 56,000 square f~et and an existing cov~rag~ of approximat~ly 28,000 square fe~t. MR. MARTIN-He's talking about buildings. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, this is not p~rmeability, right, this is buildings. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-You're overly maxed out because you had to g~t a variance for s~tbacks. MR. CAlMANO-Right, you had to get a variance for setbacks. MR. ROBERTS-You wouldn't have needed the variance if yould have shrunk your buildings and mov~d them back a little bit. MR. S~ß. NER-I s~~ what you're saying, but you understand that, from the zoning perspective, in terms of allowable d~nsity, on this siz~ parc~l, 56,000 square feet of building would b~ allow~d and we're at half that. MR. CARTIER-On~ of my conc~rns with internal traffic patterns, h~re, is, we hav~, if I'm correct, 20 foot wide lanes, okay, between parking slots, correct, 20 feet wide? DAVE KLEIN MR. KLEIN-Twenty foot length and ten foot wide, yes. MR. CARTIER-That's the individual parking slot. I'm talking about th~ lanes, the driving lanes, 20 feet? Okay. W~ have, already, a problem with the three slots or four, I can't rememb~r, now, wh~re th~y're going to be blocked by people waiting to go through th~ drive-thru bank. Those are going to be inacc~ssibl~. If I'm sitting in my car, \\Uiting to get out and there's 10 cars behind me, I can I t get out. Where are you going to put snow, in the winter tim~? We have snow up here. It piles up, six, ~ight f~et high in parking lots. What do~s that do to th~ numb~r of parking slots available? What does that do to traffic flow, in the winter time, through here, okay? So, those are my concerns when we talk about maxing out a site like this. MR. LEVINE-As far as the parking slots, here. These are intended as reserve spaces for bank employees and we had discussed this already. 60 '-' -' MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Are they going to live in that bank 24 hours a day? They still have to get out. As far as I'm concerned, it's sloppy pl~nning, in terms of traffic flow, through a parking lot, Where you have cars blocked in by a standing line of vehicles trying to get through a bank. MR. LEVINE-Well, it isn't that unusual, in a drive-thru bank, to see this type of thing. MR. CARTIER-It is in the Town of Queensbury. We don't have any like this. MR. LEVINE-Well, okay, but the turnover in a bank, and I've just done a thorough study for Adirondack Trust Bank where we looked at, I think, five other banks and we looked at ten locations, throughout, well, it was in Ballston, Malta, Wilton area and so forth, at the turnover and how many cars actually are sitting at any one time and for how long and, even at the busiest branches, if you see, for a ten minute period, a back up of five cars, you've seen a lot, except at the very, very heavy branches, downtown, mere they just use the dri ve-thru exclusively. On an area like this, the turnover, I think, WiS 1.06 minutes, turnover, average. You'll have a few that will take two, three minutes, but that's the odd one. Usually, people come in, one transaction, and they're done. Otherwise, they drive in and park. MR. CAlMANO-Excuse me for a minute. Could I just digress for two seconds, here. It is now, ten minutes to t\ælve. There are two other applicants here. This is very important. They are no less important. Just to take eighteen seconds, here, and find out what we're going to do. This is important to continue this conversation. They're important, too. What are we going to do, here? Are we going to continue until one in the morning? Can we ask for a special meeting and if we're going to ask for a special meeting, can we ask let those folks go home. I think it's ridiculous to have everybody sit here until 1:30 while we discuss this, mich is important, but theylre important, too. I'm willing to come back. MR. HAGAN-Those are the breaks, Nick. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, I just wanted to hear what the Board had to say. I'm willing to come back, next Tuesday night, for an hour and a half and if we're going to do that, then we let these people go home. MR. ROBERTS-The public hearings have been called for tonight. ~'d probably have to, ~ couldn't advertise it for next week. MR. CAlMANO-I'm just offering alternatives. I don't even know if they want to do that. I'm just saying it's late. MR. CARTIER-These people are here to give us a presentation. Maybe, \\hat they need to hear is what we want to see. I understand their point and they're selling a package, here, but there are things that need to get ironed out. You've got a valid point. MR. ROBERTS-I wonder if it would be productive to shift gears, here, for a minute and address the other two applicants. MR. CARTIER-Well, I don't know. Maybe we can move this thing along. ~'ve been offered two different plans, here, tonight. MR. CAlMANO-And we haven't talked about Tom's engineering problems, yet. MR. CARTIER-As far as I'm concerned, those are things that can be worked out between them, now that he's brought the comments up. I don't know. Where do you want to go? MR. CAlMANO-I just want to move it along and I don't want the other applicants to sit here forever. MR. BAKER-Well, it seems to me the applicant has provided a couple of different optimal scenarios for traffic ingress and egress on Quaker Road, from their standpoint. I think the Board needs to give them an idea which of those scenarios you'd prefer and then they can address the Planning and Engineering concerns, based on whichever access scenario you feel is most appropriate. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, we'll demand some redesign, if we go with this plan, I guess. 61 ~ MR. SCHACHNER-Wêll, can I givê a 20 sêcond rêsponsê to that? MR. CAIMANO-Surê. MR. SCHACHNER-I think thê enginêêring is, substantially, idêntical. Wê kept that in mind when Wê prêsêntêd thê oVêrlay. Thêrê' s no significant differêncê in thê ênginêering on thê site. It's not a big dêal. Itls not a big changê. Our clêar prefêrêncê is thê Country Club. Wê don't ViêW this as prêsênting you with an A and a B, and throwing it on your laps. I mean, Wê' rê opên to input from you, but our clêar prefêrêncê is Country Club and thê only othêr thing I wanted to add, again, mostly for Mr. Cartiêr's bênefit, is, we actually went to thê Zoning Board, twice, and Wê' Vê significantly dêcrêasêd thê siZê of thê buildings, to the bottom line, whêrê we actually prêsentêd to thê Zoning Board thê dollars and cênts proof that thêY rêquired for a hardship variancê, to show that Wê nêêdêd this square footagê to makê it a profitablê vênturê. Wê rêducêd the SiZê of thê buildings twice. MR. CARTIER-I hêar you. I'm saying, howevêr, is, numbêr of parking slots it already. I don't haVê a problêm with what you'rê saying. What thê siZê of thê buildings caUSê you to rêquirê a cêrtain and Wê' rê filling a site that has sêVêrê limitations on MR. SCHACHNER-Understood. MR. CAlMANO-And, by thê way, nobody did ansWêr what you' rê going to do with thê snow. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, yes, bêcausê you mêntionêd going on to thê other application. MR. CAlMANO-I donlt want to go any furthêr. Mr. Chairman, also, we haven't opênêd thê public hêaring on this, to sêe if thêre's anybody in thê audiêncê who MR. ROBERTS-No, we havên It, but we havê a qUêstion on thê floor. Do Wê want to addrêss snow? MR. CARTIER-It dOêsn It havê to bê addrêssêd tonight, but at some point in thê rêvision procêss, I would apprêciatê a commênt on how snow is going to bê dêalt with and so on. MR. LEVINE-I can do it in fivê seconds or lêss. Thê back parking lot or rêmOVê thê Bêcond onê. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minutê, you're going to put it in thê back parking lot. Youlre going to stack it up in the back parking lot? MR. LEVINE-On thê back parking lot. Thêrê IS plênty of grêên arêa on thê sitê. There's drainagê basins locatêd MR. KLEIN-They havê êxtra pêrmeablê arêa on thê othêr sitê adjacent to it. MR. CARTIER-Whên you Bay, on thê parking lot, you mêan off that parking lot? Youl re not going to pile it up in that parking lot and now that parking is no longêr availablê, is that what youlrê Baying? MR. LEVINE-You may losê Bomê parking spaces, it's a common practicê. havê to unlêss it was a real big storm. I mêan if YOU'Vê got six on thê ground, you might havê to losê a fêW spacês, but, I think down at Colonie Cêntêr, too, but it can bê handled on sitê. You wouldn't fêêt of snOw they do that MR. ROBERTS-You could also park in bêtwêên that parking lot and the chain link fêncê. I suppose thêre is somê room to push it down in through hêrê, so it'll run into Hovêy Pond. MR. LEVINE-If you don't want snow on sitê, we can remoVê it with trucks. MR. MARTIN-I know Northway Plaza rêmovês thê Bnow vêry efficiêntly and that's a much largêr arêa. MR. CARTIER-GoOd, we got onê thing answerêd. MR. ROBERTS-Alright, on Country Club Road. about that. we I ve hêard you say you rêally prêfêr putting thê light in How do we fêel about that? I guess I fêêl prêtty strongly 62 -- --' MR. MARTIN-I like the idea of this, here. Therels no truck entrance and it reduces the number of curb cuts, a no truck entrance on Quaker Road, and it reduces the number of curb cuts from three to one. MR. CARTIER-On Quaker? MR. MARTIN-On Quaker, yes, the curb cuts on Quaker. MR. CARTIER-Again, does that mean no cuts onto Glenwood if you go with this, we'll call it the Grey Scenario? MR. LEVINE-You would still have the two curb cuts on Glenwood. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. LEVINE-But you would have fewer cars going out of Glenwood. MR. ROBERTS-Sure, yould probably want to use the light. MR. LEVINE- Ye s , you would have the li ght there and you wouldn I t have to go to Glenwood. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think that's a substantial improvement and it will help an existing problem, as well. MR. CAlMANO-If you're going to approve the project, I think that one is the better one. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I agree. MR. CAlMANO-Ild still like to hear, if we open the public hearing, if therels anyone else here that has other comments. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BARB SEELEY MS. SEELEY-I'm Barb Seeley. I live opposite the new plaza or the proposed plaza. I'm particularly interested in a light. I don't care whether it's at Glenwood or at Country Club, as long as it alleviates some of the traffic problems. I, for one, have been up in the middle of the night, tending to people in the middle of the road. I've watched kids on bicycles get hit because the bike trail's directly across the street, so, if they're going to put one at Country Club, I'd like to see some kind of a connection for the bike trail to alleviate the problem of the kids crossing at Glenwood. I've also seen the traffic backed up past my driveway, Wiich is directly opposite your lower entrance on Glenwood. I also would like to see the plaza there because it's an eyesore. we've had everything over there from Warner Prytn1s, Wiich burned and scattered ashes and had to hose down my house to keep it from burning, too, and a lot of changes. The brook used to be open and now it's all covered over. There's a culvert under there. I don't know who got permission to do it, or didn't, but they did it anyway. I would also like to see the pond project, something done with that. Queensbury was supposed to bê doing something with that and it sure doesn't look too terrific right about now. So, I'm all for it, but I'd like to see a light, someplace. I donlt care where. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, thank you. Anyone else? MR. CARTIER-Can I assume that, Wien these lights go in, we're going to talk about all these lights being synchronized? MR. LEVINE-Yes. MR. CARTIER-When this light goes in, all of the lights will be synchronized? MR. MARTIN-Who has jurisdiction over that? MR. LEVINE-That would be, ~ll, the County has quite a bit of say about it. They've already spoken with me, if we go to a design of signals, that they now have an idea of exactly the signal configuration of the controller that they want. 63 '-- --,' MR. CARTIER-We're talking about from all the way up at Aviation, all the way down through, correct? We're not just talking Quaker Road? MR. LEVINE-You won't see that. This location will be a controller that would be interconnected, hard wired to interconnect. MR. ROBERTS-With LaFayette? MR. LEVINE-With LaFayette and with the possibility to go to Glenwood at some time. It would be impossible to coordinate all of them, the way they're set up, right now, without, they'd have to do quite a large study and it would have to be an addressed issue, a large addressed issue. They are considering radio controllers, now. I guess they considered hardware, but itls too expensive and there are time based coordinators which are clocks. MR. MARTIN-Who would be responsible for the cost of the connection to LaFayette? MR. LEVINE-Your just talking hard wire connection, here. MR. ROBERTS-~' re a little sensitive to this because we got burned down at the Shop-n-Save. We were convinced that it was going to be synchronized, those two lights and it never has been. MR. LEVINE-The actual synchronization, itself, now I'm not talking about the equipment, okay? The equipment is part of the controller box. It's just a little box that attaches, like a computer module. The actual synchronization, itself, of the signals, w:>uld have to be the responsibility of others, w:>uld have to be the responsibility of the COtmty, I imagine, because they would have to be able to control all of them and you'd want something like that. You'd want them there to control it. MR. ROBERTS-I think thatls something we'd like to see or get some kind of commitment that those two lights, at least, LaFayette MR. LEVINE-Yes, for the equipment part of it, but you'd have to, you don't want the si tuatian like Shop-n-Save because, there, they don't have the ability to do anything, as I understand it. They can't just get into that contro1ler and do what they want. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, and, as I said, \Ie were sold a bill of goods that that was going to be taken care of and it never was. I'd like more proof this time, then I got last time. MR. LEVINE-That's a very good idea. controllers, themselves, and then make sure they get the right thing in there. Mr. Austin, wants a different controller they know what they want, now, and the are going to be very much standardized from the Shop-n-Save incident, too. The State has gone so far as to buy developers buy them from them, to make The County, from what I understand from configuration then the State. They have, signals that are going in, such as this, from this point forward and they learned MR. MARTIN-So, we can make it a stipulation, then, that the equipment used be to County speci fications? MR. LEVINE-Absolutely. That is absolutely the way you should do it and give them absolute control over it. MR. ROBERTS-We have some letter in the file from Fred Austin. MR. MARTIN-Make it a part of our motion. MR. ROBERTS-It would be an attempt to do this, at least. MR. cARTIER-I'm looking at the letter from Roger Gebo, dated August 24, 1990, his Item B. ..~ strongly object to any left turning movements from the proposed plaza onto the bounds of Quaker Road." Am I assume correctly that, if we're talking about a light, here, at Cotmtry Club, that statement doesn't apply? MR. LEVINE-It would not apply, no. He was looking at the other plan and he was saying, gee, you've got a right turn only, how are you going to make them go right turn only and you hope you can with signs and so forth, but this would be the safest, most efficient, best way to do it. 64 '---' ---" MR. BAKER-Mr. Lèvinè, was Warrèn County shown this proposed access across from Country Club? MR. LEVINE-At thè mèeting that Wè had, it was not èxactly thè samè, but Wè talkèd about thè options at thè mèèting. Wè had a concèpt skètch similar, it wasn't to this much detail, but thèY Wèrè awarè of it. MR. BAKER-In my convèrsation with Rogèr Gèbo, in fact, it was a convèrsation bètwèèn thè wholè Planning Staff and Mr. Gèbo, Wè Wèrè givèn no indication that hè had really discuSSèd the Country Club access way as an altèrnativè, actually, as thè optimal, I should say, altèrnative from your viewpoint. MR. SCHACHNER-Our only rèsponsè to that is, again, Wè, Pèrsonally, sat with Mr. Austin and mèt with him and discussèd that concept and I'm rèading to you from this mèmorandum from Frèd Austin to Stevè Borgos which says, "It is possiblè that a proposèd light may bè at Country Club Road." MR. CARTIER-But that dOèS not mèan that thèY havè approvèd this, that Warrèn County Planning has approvèd this, okay. MR. LEVINE-They haven't Sèen it in dètail. MR. CARTIER-Stu has a good point. I think what Stu is suggèsting, or about to, is that Warrèn County Planning has to look at a vèrsion of this, Plan B, whatèvèr you want to call it. MR. ROBERTS-Stuart, did you mèan thè Planning Board, whèn you wèrè talking about, you mèant thè Planning Board or Warrèn County Dèpartmènt of Highways? MR. BAKER-I was talking about Warren County DPW, but thè point is, as Wèll, that thèY would nèèd to go back to Warren County Planning with this. MR. ROBERTS-YèS. MR. SCHACHNER-That I diaagreè with, from thè standpoint of law, in that, always or frèquèntly, on any projèct of any significant magnitudè, thèrè arè finè tunings and minor adjustmènts and minor modifications madè. MR. CAlMANO-That's not a minor modification. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it dOèsnlt changè the èngineering at all. MR. CARTIER-No, lèt's not argUè this. YOU'Vè got to go back to Warrèn County Planning bècausè this Board is saying it's a significant changè from what Wè startèd with and it also has a significant County impact. So, lèt's not debatè, you don't havè to go back to Warren County Planning. I think it's a valid point that Stu was bèginning to makè, that you nèed to go back to Warrèn County Planning. MR. ROBERTS-Or ask thèm if thèy want to Sèè it again. MR. BAKER-I'm sure they'll want to sèè it again. Warrèn County has callèd projècts back for thè smallèst changè. I'll cèrtainly givè thèm a call tomorrow. MR. SCHACHNER-That's not fair. Now Wè' rè having a cart and horsè problèm. Wè wènt to thè Warrèn County Planning Board. Wè did not discuss any option castè in stonè. Wè spècifically told thèm that Wè wèrè mèèting with thè County DPW Pèrsonnèl and thèy said, almost verbatim, well, \\hatever Frèd Austin and thè Town Planning Board says is finè with us. MR. BAKER-As far as this approval that Wè havè from Warrèn County, they approved thè Sitè Plan Numbèrèd 68-90. As far as Wè know, and as far as you're tèlling us, thèy rèvièwèd thè Sitè Plan that you ShOWèd us, thè first altèrnativè you ShOWèd us, Plan B. ThèY did not approvè Plan A. ThèY approvèd Plan B. MR. SCHACHNER-No, I don't agrèè with that statèment. I think that's an èxtremèly undo, narrow intèrprètation of what went on. MR. BAKER-Wèll, it certainly isn't rèflèctèd in thèir approval shèèt, hèrè. MR. SCHACHNER-With all dUè rèspèct, we Wèrè thèrè and you weren't there, okay. I don't mean to bè prètèntious about it. 65 '--' -..-/ MR. HAGAN-All we have is what's on the paper and that's all he has. Now, if you want to argue the point, ~'ll take your Plan A, or the other plan and we'll disapprove it and then you can come back in and start allover again. MR. ROBERTS-If youlve got the right feel for this, then they'll certainly be willing to sign off and you wonlt have to go back to them again, but we're going to have to see a redesign, here, and you'll have to come back to us, anyway. We're not going to lose any time over this thing. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that's our concern. it. Our concern is the time. It's not that anybody would disapprove MR. ROBERTS-Well, do you really expect to see this done in one month's time, a Site Plan of this magnitude. If you thought you'd come in here with a full approval, tonight, youlre whistling dixey. MR. CAlMANO-We couldn't even do a SEQRA, tonight. MR. ROBERTS-I don I t think we 111 take the time to do the SEQRA, tonight, until we see the final plan. MR. CAlMANO-Even if we could, it would kick it to a positive and he would be in real trouble because we can't get by the traffic thing, tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I'm not suggèsting we but we also have a September problem, as I of our own and no fault of your own, ~'re submission deadline for a September agenda. thought we'd, necessarily, tonight, understand it. We, through no fault faced with a two 01 clock, tomorrow, MR. CARTIER-Maybe this will help, correct me if I'm wrong, you can come back before this Board without having gone before the County, first? MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. ROBERTS-Not normally. MR. SCHACHNER-That's exactly where I'm confused. Let's explore that. (END OF SRCOND DISK) 66 '-' ----' MR. ROBERTS-Normally, undðr Sitð Plans, Wð arð not aupposðd to addrðsa Sitð Plans until thð County has aððn thðm. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Cartiðr, YOU'Vð framðd ðxactly thð issuð of our concðrn. MR. CARTIER-We just did that with somðbody, too. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, thð, I don't think I'm mistakðn, but conditionally approved Site Plans, basðd upon County approval, in the futurð. this Board has to bð obtainðd MR. CAlMANO-At lðast twiCð. MS. CORPUS-Pending, conditional upon that, and, obviously, if that approval is not obtainðd thðn this approval would not go forward. MR. ROBERTS-Finð and they may sign off, anyway. MR. SCHACHNER-That dOðS hðlp thð concðrn and I apprðciatð that, Mr. Cartiðr. MR. MARTIN-I think it' a a wiSð step to take, but I just think it' a procðdural stuff, in this caSð, but it is wiSð to takð, nonðthðlðSS. MR. CAlMANO-What? Go to County? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CAlMANO-Yðs, just in casð anything happðns down thð road. MR. ROBERTS -As far as thðm gðtting back on in Sðptðmbðr, I don't Sðð how that's possiblð, ðithðr. I don't know what wð'rð supposðd to do about that. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's up to thð applicant. I don't think Wð havð to dðbatð whðn thðsð guys arð going to gðt on, if thðyl Vð got to go through thð shufflð again and rðvision and rð-apply and so on. MR. SCHACHNER-What would wð havð to do, othðr than submit thð revision that shows thð Country Club accðss? MR. CARTIER-You havð ðngineering concðrna to addrðss. MR. SCHACHNER-And can we do that, I mðan, \Vß should bð ðntitlðd to do that right now. I don't mean to harp on it, but itls not our fault that it's midnight, or a spðcial meeting or something. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to requðst a spðcial mððting? MR. CAlMANO-To bð very honðst with you, I think it dðsðrvðs it. MR. MARTIN-To be fair to thð othðr applicants tonight. MR. CAlMANO-That's right. lid bð pðrfðctly willing to comð back and liatðn. I actually think thðse folks should comð back for a special meðting, not thð other two applicants. MR. SCHACHNER-If you folks would bð good ðnough to schðdulð a spðcial mððting, soon, weill come back. We'll lðt you move on to thð other applicants. I mðan, \Vß'rð not hðrð to takð up your wholð, weð hours of thð morning. MR. MARTIN-Wðll, I think it' a bððn especially useful to you. Now you have the written comments of the ðngineðring. MR. SCHACHNER-Agreðd. MR. CAlMANO-And thðrð's anothðr dangðr, too, and the othðr dangðr is, the latðnðss of the evening causes things that don't need to happen and that's ridiculous. Whethðr Wð approvð it or not, ~'rð trying to gðt somðthing accomplished, here. MR. CARTIER-If we arð going to have a special mððting, Wð also nððd to sðt up a submission deadline for that special meeting, if they arð going to submit a rðvisðd plan. 67 '--' '--'" MR. BAKER-And, Mr. Cartier, be such that it gives us a meaning the DPW, and it also of any engineering changes. adding on to that. The submission deadline should chance to get in touch with the involved agencies, needs to provide adequate time for engineering review MR. CARTIER-How much time are we talking about, realistically? better than we do how much time that all takes. You guys know MR. BAKER-Realistically, well, it depends on how quickly they can get the engineering changes done. MR. SCHACHNER-One week. MR. HAGAN-I hate to say this, but, what are you going to tell Jim Weller when he finds out about this? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I know. We're opening a can of worms, here. MR. CAlMANO-He left here pretty upset. MR. CARTIER-He didn't ask for a special meeting, that's the difference. MR. ROBERTS-Well, if we're going to have a special meeting, we could add a couple of other hold overs onto that special meeting. MR. CAlMANO-We might do that. MR. ROBERTS-To clear our dockets, Which are getting a little bit backed up. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, we could do that, but I don't know what engineering aspects, my intent was to have a special meeting, and I don't want to belabor thi s, to just continue on the discussion that we're having now. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, you've not allowed the applicant to, really, delve into the issues that we're brought up as our concerns for the Board to consider. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-I really can't tell you, at this point, how they intend to respond. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-I think it's reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can address the issues that we've written for them. MR. CAlMANO-Me, too. MR. SCHACHNER-We'll also be glad, if it helps the Board, we'll be glad to meet with Rist-Frost, separately, before that. MR. MARTIN-Given the magnitude of the project, that would be very wise. MR. SCHACHNER-We'll be glad to do that. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, how about a date, and a time, and a place. MR. ROBERTS-This would be a special meeting where we could actually give a final approval. We're not just going to MR. CARTIER-It's possible, if we see a final revised plan that we like and that all engineering concerns have been addressed and you can go through SEQRA. MR. ROBERTS-How about advertising this? Keep the public hearing open? MR. MARTIN-I can't emphasize enough, the more thorough you are early on MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. BAKER-I think we're looking at, at least from a we need, at least, two weeks before a special meeting. get any changes they're going to do, done, a week for the Board members and to the Engineering Staff and for the involved agencies. Planning Staff viewpoint, It gives them a week to us to distribute them to us to get in touch wi th 68 ~ -......-' MR. ROBERTS-And try and figure out how we'll handle the County. MR. SCHACHNER-Possibly, with the contingency that Ms. Corpus mentioned. MR. ROBERTS-Possibly. MR. CAlMANO-Possibly. MR. BAKER-I could get in touch with the County, tomorrow, and see if they'd be willing to hear this at their next meeting. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe theylll sign off on it. MR. SCHACHNER-Or first ask if they feel the need to. MR. BAKER-If they feel the need to, of course. MR. SCHACHNER-Stuart, I'm sorry, did you say two weeks from today, or two weeks, roughly, is What you said? MR. BAKER-Two weeks, roughly, yes. MR. CAlMANO-It's a lot better than two months. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-You've got a four day week coming up. MR. BAKER-Taking that into account. MR. CARTIER-Fifteen days from tonight? talking seven days? No, that's, When you say weeks, you're MR. MARTIN-Two weeks from tonight, two weeks, total. MR. SCHACHNER-Which would be, it's a Tuesday, right, the eleventh? We're talking about Tuesday night, the eleventh, is that true? MR. CAlMANO-That's fine with me. MR. ROBERTS-I guess so. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's fine with me. MR. sCHACHNER-One of our consultants is asking if there's any possibility of Monday night, the 10th, instead of Tuesday night, the 11th, but, it's up to you folks. Whatever time is your pleasure, here. MR. CARTIER-One word of caution, here. Carol won't be here in September. I don It know about Bud. I won't be here the 10th or 11th. I'm out of town. So, you're down to four people. MR. CAlMANO-Then we've got to go another day. Welve got to have five because we may have to have an override. MR. ROBERTS-When would you be available, Peter? MR. CARTIER-From the 6th to the 15th, I am flat out, but that doesn't it can't happen. Let's not hang it up just on me. MR. SCHACHNER-We have a suggestion, if it's okay. Without inconveniencing Mr. Cartier or anybody else, \\hat about the possibility of picking the day of your first Planning Board, regular Planning Board meeting, but, maybe in the afternoon of that day or something so that youlre already all gathering as a Planning Board, so we don't inconvenience you too much. MR. CAlMANO-You mean, instead of meeting for seven hours, we're going to meet for eleven? MR. SCHACHNER-Good point. We were really just trying to think of when you were already together, but, yes. 69 ~ ~ MR. CAlMANO-I'd rather do it with a clear conscience. How about the 13th? Can we do it on the 13th? MR. SCHACHNER-Thursday, the 13th. MR. CARTIER-Is that a Thursd ay? MR. SCHACHNER-Thursday the 13th. MR. CAlMANO-That's fine with me, also. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-I like it better than Monday. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. No, I'm sorry, I really can't do that. Just count me out from the 6th of September to after the 15th. I'm buried with stuff and I just wouldnlt have time to do sites. MR. CAlMANO-What is the 15th? MR. SCHACHNER-That's a Saturday. MR. CAlMANO-Well, you want to go for the 17th, then, that's a Monday night? MR. ROBERTS-We've probably already got a meeting on Monday. Is that the third Tuesd ay of the month? MR. BAKER-Itls a Monday evening. MR. CARTIER-No, Monday. MR. ROBERTS-It's a Monday. MS. CORPUS-The first regular Town Board meeting, and the only one scheduled, is September 10th. MR. CAlMANO-No, Planning Board. MR. CORPUS-That Tuesday. MR. CARTIER-When is Bud going to be up and about? MR. ROBERTS-We don't know. MR. CAlMANO-We can meet with four people, except if we have to have some kind of an override, then we'd be in trouble. MR. CARTIER-Well, theoretically, you will not have gone to the County, by then. MR. LEVINE-The County's the 12th. MR. CARTIER-The County's the 12th, so you will have gone to them. MR. SCHACHNER-Only if they see the need to go back to them. MR. CAlMANO-Pick a date. MR. BAKER-The applicant should be aware that, to get the information to County, ~ would need it, at the latest, a week from tomorrow. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. CAlMANO-When is our first regular meeting in September, the 17th? MS. CORPUS-That Tuesday. MR. SCHACHNER-The 18th. MR. CAlMANO-Why don't we meet the 17th, the night before, or the day before, the afternoon before, Whatever. 70 - MR. ROBERTS-If we're going to do that, shouldn't we add a couple of those other items on, as well? Of course, that's only one day early. MR. CAlMANO-It's only one day early. MR. ROBERTS-We're talking Monday, now? MR. CAlMANO-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-We couldn't do it in the afternoon, could we , does that complicate things? MR. CAlMANO-How about 7:00, 6:30? Would that be easier for you? MR. ROBERTS-If it's going to be in the evening, 7:30 is early enough. MR. CAlMANO-7:30? MR. ROBERTS-7:00. I was thinking 7:00. MR. CAlMANO-7:00? MR. ROBERTS-Alright, shall we try it? MR. CAlMANO-Monday the 17th, at 7:00. MR. CARTIER-I will try, I make no promises that I will be here. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you very much. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, this would require a motion by the Board. MR. CAlMANO-For a special meeting? MR. ROBERTS-To set up a special meeting, we have to have that an agreement of, at least, four Board members. MS. CORPUS-Well, this is a tabling of this particular application until that date. MR. ROBERTS-To table it until that date. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 68-90 73 QUAKER ROAD ASSOC. C/O TIERNAN, BERNSTEIN, AND PINCHUK, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: The proposal for a new shopping center including a restaurant and drive through bank at 73 Quaker Road until 7 0' clock, September 17th. Submission deadline to be September 5th at 2 o'clock. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. SCHACHNER-If you need applicant consent for the tabling motion, the applicant consents. SITE PLAN NO.. 69-90 TYPE: uu.ISTED UR-10 ANDI/EW D.. TELLIEa miNE.: SAME AS ABOVE SUNSET AVENUE BE'l1ŒEB IIATBAN AND (OOLlDMBIA STEET FOR CONSTRUCTlm OF A mE STORY, HANOI STV-E, 'NO FAMIL'i DtllPLEX FOR. RENTAL AND miNE. OCCUPIED PURPOSES.. TAX MAP 110.. 117-5-4.2 Lar SIZE: 0..48 ACRES SEcnœ 4.020 E ANDREW TELLIER, PRESENT STAFF INPur Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) 71 >-- -- EIIGlBEERIBG REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Do you have anything yould care to add, as the applicant? MR. TELLIER-No, the only thing I would suggest is, we would certainly be willing to meet with the engineer to find out what he has in mind, concerning erosion control during construction, and comply with it. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, I think all you need to do is to distribute hay bale dikes at the base of all your disturbed areas and make sure you get the temporary vegetation reestablished by using a rye grass or something like that. If it's winter time construction. You just need some asphalt binder and straw mulch, itls very simple. MR. ROBERTS-That's standard stuff. Conservation Service. If you need more help, go to the Soil MR. TELLIER-No problem. MR. MARTIN-I just have one question. Maybe I missed it. Was there ever a variance granted for this? MR. TELLIER-None was ever needed. There was one asked for, to build four family apartments and we were denied by the MR. MARTIN-This is a UR-10 zone, correct? MR. TELLIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, the permitted use is a single family dwelling. MR. BAKER-Duplexes are allowed, under Site Plan Review, I believe. MR. MARTIN-They are? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-As long as he doubles up on that's UR-5, so he'd have to have 10,000 square feet. MR. MARTIN-Alright. MR. ROBERTS-Any other big questions, or shall we jump into SEQRA? We need a Short Form SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-We need a public hearing, first. MR. ROBERTS-We'll open and close the public hearing, since nobody's here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERIIlNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION NO. 69-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: the construction of a one story, ranch style, two faaily duplex for rental and owner occupied purposes to be owned by ANDEW D.. TELLIER, Sunset Avenue, between Nathan and Columbia Street, in a UR-IO zone 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 72 -- RESOLVED : 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. YARMOWICH-I'd like to add that, right now, in looking at the plan, the applicant should be required to modify their sewage disposal system detail. Again, \02 have the same detail where someone's using a trench that's too wide. If they simply use the 24 inch width trench, it will comply with the standards. There's no other problems with the septic system. You can add that to any motion you might be inclined to make, to approve the project. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAlMANO-The applicant understands? MR. TELLIER-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 69-90 ANDREW D. TELLIER, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: With the following stipulation: That the applicant should use 24 inch width maximum leachfield trenchs and erosion control measures should be provided in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN NO. 70-90 T1fE II VR.-IA MlœAEL AND TRUDI Q\LABJlESE cnlfER: SAME AS ABOVE SEELE ROAD. CLEVERDALE, BOJtDERIIIG VAINER BAY TO REMOI7E EXISTING HIP IIOOFED BOATHOUSE AND TO OONSTRUCT A 14 Fl.. BY 40 F'I. L(ØG SUNDEQ( OVER EXISTING BOATSLIB. (W/!\RREN CX>1JNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 16-1-14 Lor SIZE: 0..689 ACRES SECIIŒ 9.010 JOE ROULlER, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) 73 '- --" MR. ROBERTS-The County Planning Board said, No County Impact, but I don't know whether they approved or disapproved. They said No County Impact, so that takes care of it. MR. HAGAN~I think that means it's approved. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think so, too. This will require no SEQRA. Do you have anything to add? MR. ROULIER-I'm Joe Roulier, for Michael and Trudi Calabrese. Regarding the County approval, the prior filing that was turned down by this Board was approved by them. MR. ROBERTS-That's right. MR. ROULIER-So, I think that they just have no issue with this particular one. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. ROULIER-As you can see frOOl the plan, we've modified it from the full extent of the dock, Which was, approximately, 58 feet, back to the Ordinance of 40 feet and we have the existing hip roofed boathouse that we talked about, extensively, before. We've altered that down, now, so that, visually, at least in my opinion, it has significantly less impact than the combination of the two. So, I think the combination of that reduction and the reduction back to 40 feet is cert ainly sufficient to meet the requirements of the Board. At least I'm hoping that it will. I do have one question and there is something that isn't clear to me, and it was brought up at an earlier discussion, I can I t really understand why the County requires that the staircase be brought down on the deck or onto the dock because, visually, it seems to me it offers more of a blockage, here, through it, rather than if it was up here at the approach, but that's my own opinion. MR. HAGAN-Well, they're contention or they're reason for their stand on it, as I understand it, is that they do not wish to encourage people with small lots to be able to extend land use over the Lake and, by having the access to the deck, from shore, directly, really extends their Lake frontage, use. MR. CARTIER-It sounds like a blanket disapproval kind of deal, on their part, that theylre just not going to allow a dock, a set of stairs, to go from land to the deck. They want it from the dock to the deck. MR. HAGAN-So that it I S entirely separate from the land, t hat 1st he reason that they want it. MR. ROULIER-That I s right, but I just want to question you as to one thing. I've seen this happen a lot, up there, is that the way t he staircase is, right here, I mean, one of your big concerns is visual, that you donlt obstruct the view of the neighbors. We went over that several times before. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. ROULIER-I can't tell you how many times I've seen the area underneath the stairs turned into a closet. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. ROULIER-I mean, it happens at 90 percent of the boathouses up there. The next thing you know we have a closet there. So, now we're increasing the obstruction. So, I think there's pro and con, regarding where you want to put the staircase. In this case, there's no expectation or, at least, immediate plans, for a closet there, but I'm just offering it to you as a suggestion. MR. ROBERTS-Would you be willing to put it at the end of the dock, farther back? MR. ROULIER-I can't really do that because therels a wall, right here, and it would be too confining, in this area, for the people that I'm building this for and in this case, here, the way it extends out over the, this is a wider portion of the dock and then it tapers in. It really lends itself, a lot easier, to put it here, but there is no closet going in here. I can assure you that. MR. ROBERTS-Let's stipulate that, perhaps. 74 --- MR. HAGAN-I just have one concern. This drawing, if you want to take it for exactly the way I interpret it, that deck is extending out over the dock 40 feet, but not measured from the shoreline. MR. CARTIER-It should be measured from Mean Low Water. MR. ROULIER-Okay, I just want to explain that, alright? MR. HAGAN-Well, all I want to do is make sure that we specify, specifically, that this deck cannot extend more than 40 feet from the natural shoreline, as measured at the Mean High Water mark. MR. ROULIER-I can explain that. MR. CARTIER-Mean High or Mean Low? MR. HAGAN-Mean High, I think it is. MR. CARTIER-It's Mean Low. I think it's Mean Low. MR. ROULIER-The Mean High Low Water mark, it I S referred to as, that's what they say at DEC. MR. CARTIER-Anyway, you were going to explain it. MR. ROULIER-This, right here, there's a sea wall, there's a masonry sea wall. MR. HAGAN-I don't care what it is, I want it measured fram the shoreline. MR. ROULIER-That is the shoreline. MR. HAGAN-Because what happens, and live seen it right up in my neighborhood, Wiere people build a wall out into the Lake and start measuring that as the natural shoreline, and it's not. I want it insisted that itls measured frcn the natural shoreline, not frcm any sea wall or stone wall. I want it measured frcn the shoreline. MR. ROULIER-I don't know if I can do that. MR. HAGAN-Well, then we can't approve your plan. MR. CARTIER-"No dock shall extend more than 40 feet off shore frcm the Mean Low Water mark." So, ~'re talking about Mean Low Water. Now, if you have a vertical wall, there, leading in the water, extending into the water, Mean Low Water and Mean High Water are exactly the same. MR. ROULIER-Okay, ~ll, this is the problem that I have, Mr. Hagan, in the fall of the year, that water is just before the bottom of the masonry, I mean, by six inches. MR. HAGAN-Okay, then shorten the dock at the end, I mean, shorten the cover out at the end, then. I just don't want it more than 40 feet from the shoreline, period. MR. CAlMANO-But I don't understand what you mean? MR. ROULIER-Okay, well, in the fall, it's out here, okay? MR. CAlMANO-Yes, okay. MR. ROULIER-In the spring time, if this wall weren't here, it's back here, okay? MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. ROULIER-So, the Mean Low Water mark is a point that's, approximately, at the sea wall, right now. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's good enough, isn't it? MR. ROULIER-I'm not extending this out any further than that. MR. CARTIER-Well, Mr. Hagan is saying to you it should be measured 40 feet frcm Mean Low Water. 75 -- MR. MARTIN-That's where he's got it. MR. ROBERTS-I think that's Where you've got it. MR. ROULIER-And I agree with that. MR. CAlMANO-That's Where he says he's got it. MR. ROULIER-And that's Where I do have it and I could take him, in November, and show him that there's sand, ri ght here, wi th the wa ter at thi s point, and in the spring, if this wall were eliminated, how the water would be back to this point. MR. ROBERTS-I think we're alright. Let's not complicate it. MR. CAlMANO-We make the motion just that way. MR. ROBERTS-It's the way the Ordinance says. You just read the Ordinance. MR. ROULIER-That's right. That's also a regulation with Department of Environmental Conservati on. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think so. MR. ROULIER-And, I believe, Lake George Park Commission. MR. ROBERTS-Probably so. Okay, do WI?; have any other questions? no SEQRA necessary, we're ready for a motion. I guess, wi th MR. CAlMANO-Do WI?; need a public hearing? MR. ROBERTS-I guess WI?;'ll open and close the public hearing since no one's here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO OOMMENT PUBLIC HEARING o.OSED MOTION TO APPJIOVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-90 ØlœAEL AND TRUDI CALABRESE~ Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To remove an existing hip roofed boathouse and to construct a 14 ft. by 40 ft. long sundeck over existing boatslip as measured from the Mean Low Water mark. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. ROULIER-I just want to say something to you fellas because a lot of your work deals with the septic systems up around the Lake and I do most of my work up around there. There are these high efficiency toilets and I don I t know if you've seen them, yet. There's toilets that are used in 1~, 1.6 gallons of water. MR. HAGAN-Yes, I've got two of them. MR. ROULIER-And I III tell you something, if the people could start going over to them, maybe make a motion that, with the new systems, they start going to these ultra efficient toilets, it would really save on the waste runoff. MR. ROBERTS-There's been a lot of talk about that. MR. HAGAN-I believe it already is. MR. CAlMANO-Is it? MR. HAGAN-On new construction. 76 -- MR. ROULIER-I haven't seen it yet. MR. ROBERTS-I don't know. MR. HAGAN-In New York State. MR. ROBERTS-Not to that extent. I think theyl re down to four gallons. Theyl re not down to one and a half gallons. MR. ROULIER-On the 1.6 gallons? MR. YARMOWICH-Not the one and half gallons. MR. HAGAN-Itls going to be 1.6. MR. YARMOWICH-It will be, in four years, they're going to phase it in. MR. ROBERTS-Is that right? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. Right now, it's 3 gallon flush, maximum, for volume. MR. CAlMANO-Thank you. I appreciate it. Are you going to get into this amendment? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CAlMANO-Before you get into that, just one second. I'd like to read something into the minutes, just sO that we know it's there because it bothers me. On our little situation with the Quaker Road Association, on the general partnership, the place up on Quaker Road we're arguing about, ~ had a Town person, tax payer, come up and speak on behalf of the applicant and I think that it should be noted that she's suspect, as far as I'm concerned. MR. ROBERTS-The neighbor? MR. CAlMANO-Yes. That neighbor, currently, runs, in a Residential zone, a full fledged repair and welding shop, in which there are 40 foot lowboys backing into the driveway of a residential area and they don't abide by any laws of the Town of Queensbury and I found here comments just insulting, especially when she started to jump on the Town of Queensbury. She and her husband don't want to abide by any of the laws of the Town of Queensbury, so, just so it's on the record. MR. ROBERTS-Do we have any problem with the Town Board's attempt to amend the Ordinance? MS. CORPUS-Does the Board have any questions? I could answer them. MR. ROBERTS-I guess you can tell us, quickly, ~at theylre trying to do, Karla? MS. CORPUS-They just want to eliminate junkyards and closed batch plants from all Light Industrial areas and stick them in Heavy Industrial, of which there really is, actually, only one, in the Town of Queensbury. MR. ROBERTS-However, ~'ve got a lot of batch plants and junkyards already in the Town. I don't think thatls going to render any hardship to anybody. MS. CORPUS-They would be grand fathered . nonconforming uses. They would be considered preexisting, MR. ROBERTS-Yes. They might have a little trouble expanding, however. MS. CORPUS-Right. It would effect their licensing, licensing procedure and weld have to do a, probably, a phase out and things like that, as far as licensings for junkyards go. MR. ROBERTS-And this was done, primarily, to appease the people near the Light Industrial zone out on Van Dusen Road, as I understand it. MS. CORPUS-Off of Corinth Roadt right. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MS. CORPUS-There's a moratorium, currently, over there, for these type of uses. 77 -..-/ MR. ROBERTS-Right and this, apparently, will ease that situation. I think we all kind of agreed that we wanted to see that re-zoning. MR. CAlMANO-Do we have to fill out a Long Form SEQRA on this? MS. CORPUS-The Town Board does. MR. ROBERTS-The Town Board does. All we have to do is to send our recommendation, so if anybody wants to make a motion. HECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECIION 4.020-N AND 4.020-0, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MS. CORPUS-One final thing, Mr. Chairman, is the meeting, tomorrow. Did you want a motion to postpone it, cancel it or what are the Boardls thoughts on that? MR. ROBERTS -I guess we've decided we wanted to cancel it, didn't we? We're short handed, plus the fact yould like same more lead time, I think. MS. CORPUS-I would like a formal agenda and I'm sure the Zoning Board would, too. MR. MARTIN-I think we should state in the motion the reasons for the cancellation. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. Go ahead. MOTION TO POSTPONE THE JOINT PLANNING BOARD ¡ZONING BOARD MEETING THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 29TH, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 78 ~ LOCATION MAPS August 28tb, 1990 Queensbury Planning Board Meeting NEW BDSIllESS: Site Plan No. 63-90 Wayne and Dawn Viele (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No. 64-90 Bob Northgard (See Staff Notes attached) \ \ I I I ~ N ~~r,,"' ~ f ;; , ~ , t"t ~ r i 'E.)c"~ \~ ..:. .I ':.~..¡.~~ . ~ .- l --j Site Plan No. 65-90 James M. Weller, P.E. (See Staff Notes attached) Off Premises Sign No. 1-90 George Pfeiffer Flowerland (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 66-90 John and Barbara Lynch (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 67-90 Barbara L. Read (See Staff Notes attached) c: ~...e~ ~'1 f' \v ~ ~ ~ / ~< LOCATION MAPS August 28th, 1990 Queensbury Planning Board Meeting NEW BUSINESS: (Cont'd) Site Plan No. 68-90 73 Quaker Road Assoc. clo Tiernan, Bernstein and Pinchuk (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No. 69-90 Andrew D. ,Tellier (See Staff Notes attached) J ( ~ ... <~ ¡ ~ 1.J .., ~- ~ ~ -t ¡: ~ \11 1" ,. ~~ ~ ~ :r ~ To -~ WIl R1J Site plan No. 70-90 Michael and Trudi Calabrese (See Staff Notes and Map attached) ;¿ . - '>...-/ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pJ_nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- FIt E copv By: August 20, 1990 John S. Goralski Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Area VariaDce U_ Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdiftsion: Sketch. PreJimm_- ~ - - -I' ^ Site Plan ReYiew == Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetJaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 63-90 Applicant's Name: Wayne and Dawn Viele MeetiDg Date: August 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ The application and the EAF indicate that the lot is 2.1 acres. The tax map indicates that lot 126-1-30 is 8.51 acres. I have the following comments with regard to the development standards outlined in Article 5. 1. This lot is in a Light Industrial zone. As the area develops in this vein, facilities of this kind will become more and more necessary. The existing building will house the restaurant and there is ample parking supplied. Because this'is an 8.51 acre lot, there is sufficient property for this use plus additional facilities in the rear of the lot. Since this will be a "family" type restaurant, the existing pool is of some concern. The fence around the pool should be of a material that will deter children from even going near the pool. Perhaps a solid stockade fence or a chaiDlink fence with slats. The gate should be locked at all times. The proposed spotlights, especially the one at the front of the building, should be directed away from the road. 2. This site is very close to the intersection of Stephanie Lane and Corinth Road. I recommend eliminating the road cut on the east side of the lot. 1 of 2 " 3 Site Plan No. 63-90 3. Although there is sufficient land for parking, the layout presented does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A five foot buffer is required around all parking areas. The handicapped parking spaces should also be as close to the main entrance as possible. If the front door is to be used as the main entrance, the handicapped spaces should be at the front of the lot. 4. There are no pedestrian walkways shown on the proposed site plan. Also, the handicapped ramp should be on the parking lot side of the building. 5. Drainage facilities will be reviewed by the Boardls engineer. 6. Sewage disposal facilities will be reviewed by the Board's engineer. 7. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 ft. buffer zone between a Light Industrial zone and a Residential zone. Because this is a preexisting structure, a tree buffer zone is impossible. In order to comply with the intent of the regulation, no construction should take place within 50 ft. of the east property line. Since no natural vegetative buffer exists, the Board may wish to require some additional plantings on the east side of the building. 8. There is adequate emergency vehicle access and there is a fire hydrant in fron t of the property. JSG/sed Z of Z 'I ~ AIST·FIIOST AIIOCIATEI. P.c. CONSULTING ENGINEEAS ARCHITECTS SUAVEYOAS POST OFFICE BOX 831 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793.4'48 518 .793-4141 filE COpy .~ ...,..-, . ~~~1!~ August 21, 1990 RFA #89-5000.063 I.ANNING . ZONIN' "I!PARTMENT Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: W.,ne and Dawn Viele, Site Plan 63-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following coments: 1. The existing septic system should be certified by a professional engineer to be adequate for the proposed use. Existing system design and construction data should be the basis for verifying the adequacy of the system for the proposed use. Grease trap details should be provided. The flow assumed for the proposed use does not include the existing residence. Itis presumed the building will not be used as a residence. 2. The plot plan shows an estimated 14,500 s.f. of parking. The drainage calculations must be revised to agree with the plot plan. Calculated void volume of drywell fill typically is based on no more than a 4~ void ratio. If ponding is to be an element of the stormwater management approach, a grading plan will be necessary t~ demonstrate. 3. The handicapped access to the building should be near the handicapped spaces provided. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~ow-t Thomas M. rmowich, Project Eng neer TMY/cmw ec: Town Planning Board Members @ GLENS FALLS, NY.I.ACONIA, NH .--- ~ · '--" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION FilE COP' Robert L. Bddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 To . (x) Warren County Planning Board (x) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Applicant Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 Date. 8/6/90 .. Re. Site Plan #63-90 Wayne and Dawn Viele Corinth Road We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance, ~) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. \ ( ) Approval (x) Disapproval This application has been disapproved by our Committee as data for landscaping, screening and plantings for the above applicant for a Site Plan Review or Variance has not been submitted or is incomplete. Would you please, therefore, refer the applicant to our Committee for approval of its plans prior to granting the application pending before your Board or before construction permit has been granted. You and the Building Department will be notified just as soon as plan~ have been approved by us. ~ Respectfully Submitted, ~fff~ Chairman . -: b ---------' . . ',)i" >'j !l~[i~~ _~ AUG 2 (1qQf) "'-' t.ANNING . ZO...H I'tEPARTMENT ( o p y SITE PlAN RMaVID. {J -q ð Richard R. Seeley 1 Stephanie Lane Queensburg, N.Y. 12804 August 25, 1990 Town of Queensbury Site Plan Review Board Queensbury, N.Y. Dear Members of the Review Board: Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed restaurant operation that has been applied for at the Corinth Rd. location just west of Stephanie Lane. Please consider this as my letter of opposition to this proposed commercial operation as a neighboring property owner. My home is located directly east and bordering the property where this restaurant is proposed to be. Quite literally in my back yard, I might add. I do understand that under the new zoning ordinance, this prior residential location bordering my property is now zoned "light industrial". Ms. Pat Collard, your zoning administrator, has informed me that this type of operation is now a permitted use. If I am forced to accept this type of commercial establishment operating out of my bedroom window, I would ask that the following restrictions be made as conditions for permitting this use : 1. That the restaurant property owner be required to install a buffer zone of trees between our properties. 2. That all venting of cooking odors and grease be restricted to the west side of the restaurant structure. 3. That all delivery trucks be parked on the west side of the building. There is currently a narrow single lane driveway between the existing house and my property , some of which is now paved across my property. This driveway is to narrow to accommodate any delivery trucks. 4. That all handicapped parking also be on the west side of the building for the same reasons. 5. That there is to be no new use to the east and rear sides of the structure. 6. That all rubbish containers be restricted in location to the rear west side of the property. 7. That all lighted signs be restricted to the west sid. ot the building. 8. That the proposed restaurant be limited to operational hours of 7 am. to 7 pm. 9. That all spot lights be located on the west side of the building. Furthermore, I would ask for the following clarifications regarding this proposed operation: 1. Will additions be allowed to the existing structures on the property? 2. What is to be done with the existing inground swimming pool? 3. What is the proposed future use of the existing garage? Thank you for your consideration in these matters. I will be attending the pUblic hearing scheduled for Auqust 28, 1990. Sincerely, ~~~ . , - r ---... 7 '- TOWN OF QUEENS BURY --.-/ COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION Robert L. Eddy. Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbu17. II. Y. l280¡ To. (X) (X) ( ) (X) Warren COuza'ty PlanninIJ Board Que.Debar" Town Plann1ng Board Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals Appli cant Mrs. Arthur J. Seney. Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury. N. Y. l280! Date. 9/10/90 Re. Site Plan #63-90 Wayne and Dawn Viele d/b/a Rib Cage Corinth Road We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance. ~x) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval The revised plan was submitted showing handicap parking near the handicap ramp which has been changed to the west side of the building. Other parking has been moved farther from the curbcut which has been changed to the west of the building to replace the existing one to the east. The previously planned parking area nearer the highway will now provide a wider curbcut and will provide space for a grassed area in it's place. Flowers will be planted in front of the building on either side of the handicap ramp. The dumpster will be at the rear of the building and will be fenced. On the east and west property lines existing trees will be retained augmented by additional trees where necessary. 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 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. ~ctfuI1Y submitted, <. £" Á-.L1 Rob rt L. Eddy, Cháilman .. ~ ~ I I 1\ j ) J \ I ) t.... .,...._ .., " .-...... '...'. t"'¡ ;: " .....--...4,_ n__ '~_'." f ~ ',t...;- , T1' ~"~ ,t'l~::-:I ~ ,; 2-Y.íL.J (v" ~./ ,\ / /, ,II) 1.. 01/, I J . . '" "(11 L(. I . -~" -. - .- \ , ~ I I 1\ I' I \. I. \ '0 , ,,\ . i. '" Î., .J 'I I \..i\ ¡ I I ~_._,_.. ,.~. - } .' L . \" \' " " , I :j r . , , ,--. J ' ' j I L i I r 1_... .~ , \I' I ..--...... .... \;;1" \..,.1 \:..,) " >, '->, , .', 0'" "- . , '-..' ~ ) I , I / '~j .,-.. -.-; .... ¡ (, '.u··~-,-.~~-··l ¡ , ll~ i ." I , '" ',,> , \ 0.\ :\-'; ',' ¡ !. I ;. ¡'. I' ¡ >') --- / ./ (!.., I \t ~' . I 'l/ / Ii/, ".' .. ">' >_ ", ") '> ' .J i\ ". I""· "-" .1 I I ; i f ! I 1· ¡ ','>,,,/ r ..'-....-...........-.' I I .,. i'" ¡__.~~ i .I /, / / "> '\" " ,,'., ,,\. ", . 'ì " ''''''i .. . ......_...._-*- . ·-r ~. ,;\- 1\ I I , .)1 ',"1 r . ~- / " .... ---.. - . , I L ..) " " , > . ¡' , ~. .. . I , '¡ (\ /1 1/ ')1 .~ j/~/ ,~//~/1 ~ -- - '...- -....--.. .{1' i " I r ... I I f ¡ \ <", \....~.) 'r , : I , I.,. .f 'I II ; I ,-¡ { ,) ~J l I I' ¡ /' ,OJ" . I~ " ,¡ v ! , ¡.- .. i I _'" " I I I ~-- ) ! .-- ,0>- . r-." ,.- ¡ , l..>'·-¡_: ~ '" ì .' ' .. " '.. . "". "'-, ,'¡.J::: '"",- :~, .;,. ,) I' ('t·..' I_I: " <_. -- , >, .-...- .:11 ", '> I ">\',,' '" ¡ ¡ "-..-. -- - I >~ e 'Z./'/ ;=(.. X ,~ " .".1 .../ I - ~-:;.. ~'::'''- t;,. -~-'~--_.. I ¡ I I I , , ( , () I IV L :.¡ 1 'j 'I ., ( .I" J i. t. i. '. ! 'I l-; , . I' '1 .i' I ; ,.) I ~ ~ I \ 'I .j .'. ,j- , . i ..'...... '. i +. '1 1/ ¡. ... ;/ / 'V .{.: .,. 1 ~4 '-' '- ~~ I I ':. , l .. ( '·k V') \." .. ¡ , , ' I A; t ~ " í ¡ .' .,..,+" ~ ~. - .__.a.- -. ..." -- ._- ~ - ~_.- -- .----------..-- t tv!<Jv~~~ £. R' /' .... 'I IIZ) 12 0 186.56 º Wi' ~~ cr. III) ~ ~l ~-:z. 33 ª 1>1 " 0 I .J t- 0-' 4 18565 - I 91 I~ ~____ 0 (10) Q 34 I~ 8 35 _I!? eo '4G.7G no~O - - .- ~.. - ---- .=------- 1-87 (,.'I~ JOß." ('8 I r , ~ 19112 1\6) œ 0 16 0 ~ º º 8 ~ (151 ~ I Z4A( IS) \67.4 7 206 15 ~9.~O z t-O 14 (14) 'c,() ..1 ~_ 0 -¡'~8. '39 - . ..- -. -..-.-- '3 (13) o º 100 zoo ,n ~ ~If ~ I , - ,I _ ~__ ~oo 10 <Ó.S A( ., ICI CD ;)~ CJ) 4.IOAC II ri 'D I .. \ .--- --------..-- , ~ ~ .r o 2 - -- - - o (9)0 N þ ~ v ~ ~111 '- 9 183.82 (6) o º o º 8 u o 7 18¿ ·111 2 34 3.23AC. 36 5>25 AC \ ., .- -- - ---- ~lSla ----- ...-. 1!1 1 .34 I i 1 . ',I'. ,.: t", '- ~~ Jl .... . - ... ..-.-" -...--.' ,.E~i -- J8 . . .', ~ I' llll '0. 115 .J-:J;,Òfir;;¡jJ! -- -- -- ------ 192 36 ()~I o º 28 .----t ---19\45- .._- 8 129 29 ¡ 19054 (J o o 30 ¡ 8 16963 (3 31 ~ 188.13 (3 32 rl 1 185.09 o º 36 -ï«TØ" ~ 37 1832 38 183.31 39 181.41 40 180! 41 181.3! 42 241.04: In I'- 20.15 1.13 Þf,:.,(S) 11\ '.:: {J A ,( tJ ¿ A rJ D 'Y:II v.J rl v: e. \ e 1£ "- -- . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI.ftfti-. Department F J L E COpy -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: August 22, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area VariaDce U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce - IDterpretatioa SuhdiYiaioa: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary. X Site Plan ReYiew - - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit FiDal Other: Applicatioa Number: Site Plan Review No. 64-90 Applicmat'a Name: Bob Northszard MeetiDa Date: Auszust 28. 1990 ............................................................................................. The request is to construct a 2 family home on I. 183 acres in an MR 5 zone. The location is the corner of Minnesota and Central Avenues. The property already has a two story frame structure on it. The applicant has sufficient land to put up the rental structure and potentially another structure in the future, according to the zoning. The "mortgage lines" on the plan indicate that there may be some anticipation on the part of the applicant in doing this. The applicant would be within his rights in doing this, but it ultimately negates the ability of the Board in reviewing the total layout and design." I w~uld recommen' that the Board request a concept plan for the buildout on the site. The plan should describe the maximun potential for the site under the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. This would then give the Board the opportunity to make any design modifications on the total concept. I have reviewed the site plan with reference to Article 5.070 E and have the following comments: ) The structure t"ill be in a densely developed neighborhood. The density is allowable by zoning. This particular unit will be larger than most -)- I, '- --....,/ of the single family units in the area. rental units of this size it might be character. If the lot is further developed in inconsistent with the neighborhood 2) There is adequate traffic access to the site. 3) There is adequate parking on the site for 4 cars. 4) There is a pedestrian walkway from the parking area to the residence. 5) The applicant has submitted a statement which says grading and stormwater management will be maintained by a gentle sloping of permeable sandy soil to the rear and east of the duplex. The engineer will address the adequacy of these remarks. 6) The duplex will be on town water and the engineer wi 11 address the adequacy of the septic system. 7) The applicant has made a statement in the application which says 96% of the lot will be permeable. The Board may want to discuss screening and p1antings with the applicant. 8) There is adequate fire access. 9) The construction. applicant should maintain erosion contrö1 measures There are no other concerns about flooding or ponding. during LAY/pw .----- I I i I I /~ ~ AlST·'AOST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING eNGINEEFIS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFice BOX 831 21 BAY STREET GLENS F Au.s NY 12801 FAX 518 .793·.n.e 518 .793-4141 , ~ftwr~1 r ¡ l .: ~ AUG 2 a 1990 '...! ~.. f.ANNING a ZONIH" ".ItMTMfN'" August 22. 1990 RFA #89-5000.064 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Bob Northgard, Site Plan 64-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following cOllll1f!nts: 1. A 2 foot trench width is the maximum allowed in design. Therefore the required trench length needs to be increased. 2. Eros ion control measures should be prov ided as necessary in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 3. Stormwater management does not need to be addressed for a residential site plan. However, if land is subdivided in the future a stormwater plan with calculations should be required for the entire 1.183 acre site. The stormwater management narrative indicates that 961 of the lot will be permeable, however, since dirt or gravel drives are considered impermeable, approximately 901 of the entire site and approximately 76% of the site within the mortgage ,line is permeable green space. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~ ,... ~~w".A Thomas M. y,rmowich, P.E. Project Enq1neer TMY/c_ cc: Town Planning Board Members @ GLENI'AUI. NY.LACONIA, NH . .'; t 13 ~ ~, - " -..-/ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY f t L E COpy PIltftftiftg Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Au.e:ust 27, 1990 Stuart G. Baker By: Area Vai8Dce U. Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpntatioD Subdi.œioa: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, X Site PIaD Re-riew - - Petition for a ChaDge of ZoDe - Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit Other: AppJicatiall Number: Site Plan Review No. 65-90 AppJicaDt'. Name: James M. Weller MeetiDg Date: Au~ust 28, 1990 FiDal ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing the construction of a single story, 13,600 square foot steel frame building for use in truck repair and heavy eQuipJ'llent sales. I have reviewed the application in accordance with Article 5 of the zoning ordinance, and I have the following co~ents: A.) The proposed sifln should be set back 15 feet from the front property line, as per Section 6.101 of the Sign Ordinance. B.) Lighting near the front property line should be directed away from Quaker Road. c.) Signage should be provided at the roadcuts on Quaker Road indicating one way access. (i.e. exit onlyldo not enter, no exitlentrance only) D.) Truck display could be arranged in the side parking areas in such a manner as to provide adeQuate visibility to traffic on Quaker Road. Such an arrangenent would have less of an aesthet ic impact than the proposed truck display area. E. ) The proposed access way in the rear of the parce 1 should have a drail1age culvert. The drainage ~'ay at the rear of the property appears to drain stormwater from other properties to the east, and should remain in use. -1- t I ¡II ---- -- F.) The slopes on the edges of the exist ing fi 11 should be cleared of rocks, graded and seeded for erosion control and aesthetics. Any improvements on the fill slopes within the Quaker Road right-of-way should be approved by Warren County. G.) Warren County DPW has approved the proposed Quaker Road roadcuts. SB/p\-l -2- .--- l ~ ;5 ~ RlST.FAOST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSUL TlNO ENGINEERS ARCHiTeCTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-41q 518.793-4141 '-' --../ Î L ~ L August 22, 1990 RFA #89-5000.065 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: James M. Weller, P.E., Site Plan 65-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following connents: 1. Test pit data should be provided indicating depth to seasonal groundwater, bedrock or mottling. 2. The separation distance between the stormwater retention basin and the absorption field should be a minimum of 50 feet. 3. Stormwater management design calculations should be provided showing runoff, design of basins, including infiltration capacity if app 1 i cab 1 e, emergency overflow sp ill way des ign and outlet culvert sizing. Release from site is not to exceed 50 year storm flow at predevelopment conditions. A note regarding maintenance and repairs of the structures should be given. 4. Calculations for the design of the proposed culverts at Quaker Road are required to demonstrate adequacy to convey 25 year storms. 5. Erosion control measures in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control should be provided. 6. The driveway at the south end of the property is too steep as is. A maximum grade of 10% or less is recommended, otherwise delete the access. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, ~~ Thomas M. Y rmowich, Project En eer P.C. - it P.E. TMY/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members $ GI.INI FALLS. NY.I.ACONIA, NH ! I , i I I /~ -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY --./ OOMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION FILE (OP? Robert L. Eddy. Chairman 11 Owen Avenue Queensbury. M. Y. 128011 To. (x) Warren County Planning Board (x) ~eensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) APplicant Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury. N. Y. l280! De. te. 8/6/90 Re. Site Plan #65-90 - Barrett-Hertz/PenSke Quaker Road We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance, (x) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (x) Approval ( ) Disapproval Plans presented by J. M. Weller Associates with several questions asked about maintenance of grassed areas, mulching, species of maple trees, and screening dumpster. The Committee asked for two trees out front near the corners of the property. Shade Master Locusts were suggested. Jim Weller agreed to discuss these questions with the owners. 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 attaahed 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. ~~tfullY submitted, ~ -¿ &v44 Ro ert L. Eddy. Ch~rman -------. 17 l , '--- . - .........-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P'lSIInni"'g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: August 28. 1990 Stuart G. Baker By: Ana Variance U.. Variance - Sip Variance == mtel'pl'etatiœ Subdi.œoa: Sketch, Prelim· - - mary, Site Plan ReYiew - Petition far a Chuge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal -L Other: Off Premises SiRn AppJicatiOD Number: Off Premises Sign No. 1-90 AppJicaDt'. Name: Geor~e Pfeiffer - Flowerlanrl MeetiDg Date: AU9:ust 28. ] 990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is applyinp, to erect and maintain an off-premises sign at the corner of Glen Street and Glendale Drive. This application is before the Planning Board because Section 6.015 of the siRn ordinance states "permits for (off-premises) signs shall be subject to the approval of the Town Planning Board." (see attached) The proposed sign does not conform with standards set forth in this section. "Advertising messages shall be prohibited. II This application was not reviewed by the ZoninR Administrator unti 1 today. The applicant was informed by Mrs. Collard .df the need for a variance for this sign. The applicant requested to remain on the Planning Board agenda, and has indicated that the changeable copy port ion of the proposed sign wi 11 be eliminated in order to bring it into conformance with the sign ordinance. Mrs. Collard has also requested that the sign be located at least 15 feet back from the two front lot lines on the Russell property. A revised sign desi~n and site plan should be submitted for approval. SGBlpw ¡ I ,. Ii --- s. Hotel., motel., golf clubs, ski areas, boat storage, amusement centers and other substantial facilities in all zones shall be permited 2 signs of 50 .q. ft. maximum each. 6. Roadside stands in all Ecmes shall be permitted 2 signs: 1 for identification and 1 for current p:oduC'ts for sale; each sign not to exceed 32 sq. ft. 1. Apartment complexes in all zones shall be permitted 1 sign for each entrance on a different street or hiRhway. each sign not to exceed 50 sq. ft. ApartMent complexes shall also be permitted 1 sign, to include changeable text, not to exceed 6 sq. ft. CCTION .104 Height: 1. No free standing sign shall exceed a.height greater than the followinl; a. R zones 12 feet b. C and H zones 25 feet The height of such signs shall be measured (rom grade level or entry level of the building or structure. whichever is lower, and shall :E8:0N J.IOS include supporting structures. Off-Premises Directional Sign: 1. Signs for the convenience of the general public "nd for the purpose of directing persons to business, activity, service or community facility lIay be erected in any zone. providing such sign d~es not exceed 10 sq. fl. area per ustabll~rnIC"l, not to exceed a total of 100 sq. (t. 2. Text shall be limited to nalle or identification; arrow or direction; distance. Advertising messages shall be prohibited. ). PenaiU for such silns shall be subject to the approval of the Town Planninl Board. 4. Such .iaRa .hall be ltaited to ..jar and collector .treet.. .----- - ~ I~ ~- . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PJ9ftfti"'IJ Department [' L '- ( 0 ~ .. WNOTE TO FIL'Ew Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Augus t 24. 1990 Lee A. York By: Area VmiaDce U. Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretatiOD Subdmsioa: Sketch, Prelim· _ _ _ DUII'J, X Site PIaD ReYiew - PetitiOD for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: Applicatiœ Number: Site Plan Review No. 66-90 Applicaat·. Name: John and Barbara Lynch MeeÛIIg Date: August 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is to expand a single fami 1y residence located in a WR-IA zone. The total lot acreage is 15,235 square feet. The plan shows a master bedroom addition wi th a proposed deck. The applicat ion states that the addition will add 549 square feet to the existing structure which, is 1,274 square feet. When I scaled out the addition it appeared that the master bedroo~ would be slightly ~ore than 655 square feet. The proposed deck would add another ±267 square feet to the ho~e. This would bring the total proposed addition to .±922 square feet. If this is addedjro the exist irig structure there will be ±1,929 square: feet home with a ±267 square foot deck on a third of an acre lot. The Lynch's received a variance on the shoreline setbacks (~otion attached) on July 25. The testimony given before the Zoning Böard of Appeals indicated that the Lynchs would be abandoning the current septic system and putting in a Wisconsin mound septic system. The application before the Planning Board (pg. 3, number 21) states that the applicant plans to utilize the existing syste~. The Board may wish to clarify these items. Lake George and its environs was declared a Critical Environmental Area. There was concern over stormwater and T,lastewater entering the lake and a ~oritoriu~ on new home construction is currently in force. The Board ~ay want to consider this fact. Attached is a page from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which has the findings of the DEC Task Force about Lake George. -1- i c2ø ~ I have reviewed this application with regard to Section 5.070 E: I) The lot is one third of an acre. The home is currently 1,274 square feet and will be expanded to +1,929 square feet with a ~267 square foot deck. The current zoning is one acre. The purpose of the zoning is "To protect the delicate ecological balance of all la1tes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be determenta1 to the visual character of the shoreline." An expansion of this size on a small lot would impact the visual character of the lake and potent ially add to the stormwater and wastewater streams which currently enter the lake. 2) Traffic circulation is not an issue. 3) The proposed driveway is sufficient for parking. 4) Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5) Stormwater drainage facilities are not detai led. There is 78% permeability on site, our Ordinance requires 65% in a WR-IA zone. Since stormwater increase is an issue around Lake George the Board may want details of the stormwater drainage submitted by the applicant and reviewed by our engineer, or ask the Lake George Park Commission for a review and comments. 6) The sewage disposal system and water su~p1y adequacy will be addressed by our engineer. 7) Adequacy of plantings is not an issue. 8) Emergency access is not an issue. 9) The Board should stipulate that appropriate erosion control measures are provided during construction. LAYlpw ,:2/ '-- - . '- The Hu~son River has not experience~ the ~evelopment activities as extenslvely as in other ..ction. of Queensbury. but it is an important scenic river corrldo~. It i. ....ntial to pre.erve and enhance the appearance an~ character of ~he ~:ve~ corridor. Th. veeetated area. along streams an~ rivers are important to maintainin. .table bank. and clean waters. They act to !ilter seë~~en~ ë~r:~i .prine runott and at times ot tloodine. ,. La.kes and Pond. The major lakes and ponds within the Town or Queensbury include: Lake George. Glen Lake. Ru.h Pon4, Lake Sunnyside. Dream Lake, Round Pond. Hovey's Pond. M~ë Pond (near the Q~eensb~ry Landtill), M~d Pond (between Glen Lake and Round Pond) and Bear Pond. Lake Geor,e Nearly one-th1rd ot the Town ot Q~eensb~ry lies. within the Lake Georee Park. ~he park is a .pectac~larly scen1c and internationally renowned 300 square mile a~ea ot mountains. p~re waters and 1slands. Approximately 14 miles of shorellne :5 within the Town ot Q~eensb~ry. The major tindin,s ot a DEC Task Force as presented in the tinal plan to the Lake Geor,e Park Commission in March. 1987 show: · Inadeq~ately controlled land development on sites with environmental and other limitations. " . · World renowned scenic q~alitie. ot the shoreline and mountainsides are beine diminished by prominence ot .tr~ct~res on the natural landscape. · The q~al1ty ot the Lake's renowned p~re waters is deter1orat1n, at an alarmine rate. · Intra.tr~cture capac1ties (espec1ally wa.t. water treatment tacilitie.) are not adequately considered in the development process. · Althouch Lake Geor.e 1. a publ1c r'so~rce. opportunities tor p~bl1c ~se throUCh the development ot vatertront parks. beaches and public open space alon, shoreland. has not b.en act~al1zed as a result ot inadequate plannlng. · The qual1ty ot the recreational experience tor boating and other water activities i. creatly threatened by overcrowding and increa.ingll un.afe conditione on the surtace ot the lake. · Land ua. plannin¡ reculation. are exercised unevenll by state agencies and local .overna.nt. and are inadequate vith respect to meetine present needs. 11 ø? ~ f . ! ! _. MI. SICARD-Who de.i¡ned the mount, the Wi.con.in Mount? Ma. LYNCH·Ji. Hutchin., who'. done a lot of work, here, in the Town of Queenabury. Ori.inally, I think, he wa. with Mor.e? Ma. IAXD-Ye., he wa.. MR. LYNCH-And, when we originally hired him, he waa with Morae and then he started off on hi. own. MR. TURNER·Okay, any further que.tion. of the applicant? MR. KELLEY-The porche. that are exi.ting, now, are they going to remain aa porche. or are they going to be converted, in thia renovation, a. living apace? MR. LYNCH-Mo, unfortunately, becau.e of the re.triction., we had to incorporate the front portion of the hou.e in order to have that a.' living apace and that's a bi. rearet on my wife'. and my part becau.e that I a been one of the joya of our live. i. the front porch. MR. KELLEY-So, I gue.. that I. why you propo.ed to have a deck out there. Then you'd have .0.. kind of an outdoor .pace to put a chair or anything. MR. LYNCH-Ye., right, exactly. MR. TURNIR-Okay, let.. open the public hearina. P1JBL1C IIU.IDIG OPDID HO u.Maun- l'UBLIC .... .T1II: a.oøaD CD~aa Warren Coœ tY Plannina Board ju.t .aid Mo Coœ ty Impact 8'DØ unr Mote. frea Stuart G. Baker, A..i.tant Planner <attached) Ma. TUIIID-Do ,.. have an up4hted up or did you pick it up? Ma. DAILY·W. have .ubllittecl..our application. AlIo, Mr. Chairun, a. a .upple..nt to the application and to addre.. the four poiute in the Zonina Ordinance, we have prepared a..findina'. Ma. TOUD"Do .. have the upcl.ed up, Jeff? Ma. ULLU·Io. .... t1JIID..Do you have any upcl.ed up. I could take a look at? It kind of .bow "re t" parkina and tta ..ptic will be. __ . AlP... MIA 9A11A11Ca HO. 55-1'" .1...1. AID .......11.& I. LDaI, Introduced by J.ffrey Kelley *0 IIOved for it. acloption, .econded by Theadoft Turn.r. . Tuti_y ha. been aiven that ttar. are .pedal circ_atance. apply1nl to the property. Thia houe. .xiated and .. in exiltence prior to tb. Ori1nance. Th. 75 foot .bor.lin. ..tback would be iapractical. Th. r.a.on be1nl 75 f..t frea tla abonUn. would place any addition to th. .xtr.. r..r of thl .xi.tinl buUdinl. In ._ pl.ce., any add1tiOD would ha.. to be a "p.r.t. buUdinl. Strict .ppUcatiOD of tta diMnaional r.qu1r..nta 1IOuld d.ny thl appUcant re..OD.bl. u. of tt. property. Any. ottar arcbitectural plan could prove to be ..1abUy .ad would d.tract frea tla a..thetic. of thl property an. be .xt~ly .zpenli... If t"" .dber.d to all thl ..tb.ck., it woul.'t 1.... aucb .pace for t" 1ut.UatiOD of a n.w ..ptic .y.t. or ..,1. parkinl facUiti... Thia wouldn't be "trWntal to tb. purpo.. of t" Oriinance. It'. 1It.u- r.Uef nece..ar,. to reU... tb. practical difficult,.. The apecific v.riance 1IOu1d be a r.Uef of 41 fMt. Lookinl at the nort.aat corn.r of t. pro,o... ".itiOD, tla d.ptb 1IOu1. be 27 fe.t froa t hi .bor.Une rat"r than the 75 feet required. PubUc faciUti.. and ..nic.. 1IOu1dn't b. ad..r..'" eff.ct.d. Th.r. baa been d1acu..1OD _I Bo.rd Mab.ra ----.- J3 . . --.-I about future planning. Should a garage be proposed in the future, by granting thit variance, it would allow for the proper area for a garage to be built that would conform with all the setback.. There wa. no neighborhood opposition. Duly adopt.d thi. 25th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES, Hr. Kell.y, Hr.. Eggl.ston, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOIS, NONI ABSENT I Mr. Ca 1'1' A~ VA8IAIIG MO. 57-1990 un II .-lA TIHar.~ IABa o..a. sœ A1Q) DltS ID8IID JAW IDAD, GL. LAD ,. UPAIIIICII t1I IXIS'fIIIC aS1DDa. aq.S'rIlIC DLI. ~ SIDI AID SB~I" snAtS 1BQ8I"lIts. (..... cx).T~ PLAIIJIIIIC) TAX KAP ... 43-1-15 Lor SIZI. 14.400 SQ. n. SlcnCII 4.020 - D. 7.012 TIH BARBER. PRESENT MR. TURNER-I've got a question for you. How bad is the present, seasonal dwelling? MR. BARBER-Th. present seasonal dwelling has no perman.nt foundation under it. Th. hou.. is. approximately, over 50 years of age. I'd like to submit some pictures that are of the structure. HI. TUlMII-How bad is it, internally? HI. BARBII-Internally, the structure. the rafters are HR. TURNII-Is it salvageable or not? HI. BADEI-No. it's not salvageabl.. sir. It would have to b. coapl.t.ly autt.d and r.ltructured on the inside. the raften and also the floor joy. and . lot of the stud memb.rs. HI. TURNEI-And the lot is. Wbat. ZOO? How big is that lot? HI. BADEI-Z25 by 65. I beli.v.. HR. TURNEI-Z25 by 64. HI. BADII-64. HI. TUDEI-Why would you not consider t.arinl it down and movinl it back. so you can ...t th. .hor.liD. ..tback? HI. IADII-We are conaid.rinl t.arinl it d01lD. we are not con.id.rin, movinl it back b.cau... if VII mov.d it back. it would hinder the vi.w of th. Lake. All oth.r ~e n.xt to it are .ith.r clo..r or at the s... poiot at th. start of thh .xi.tin, home. If VII IIOv.d it back. VII would not b. able to ha'l' the vi.w shared by oth.r. of the Lake. HI. TtlDll·You· d have to IIOve it back 30 f..t. KI. IAlla·lxactly. KI. TUIIIa..I. that an 8 or a 5. that's. 5. 30 f..t. . .1. .AIIO-..... HI. TtlDOooQuy. anyoD' el.. have any question.? KI. .AIIO-Could I sublait th... pictur..? KI. TUllO-Sur.. . .1. .Alla"I hav. a coupl. of l.tt.n froa..ne1gbbor.. h.re. Th.re'. a picture of the ,.... there. Th. 0 hOlM has ..v.r.ly lack.d ...inteDaDC' over th. ".1'.. ",0" can t.ll. HI. TUllO""'.. it n..d. . new roof ad .v.ryth1D,. KI. .AIIO-Th. lumber'. badly dry rott.d througbout. 32 I ~ d'f ~ AIIT·I'AOIT AUOCIATU. P.c. CONSuLTING ENGINEEA8 ARCHITECTS SUAVEYOAS POST OFFICE BOX 831 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12101 FAX 518 .793·4148 518 .7i3-4141 '- -..-/ -............... .. fjLE (opy AUG 2 41990 ¡I; -- .....1.I..IQ a ZOf.~f ....,.. August 15, 1990 RFA #89-5000.066 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: John and Barbara Lynch, Site Plan 66-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following cOlllllents: 1. The proposed sewage disposal system serves addit iona1 1 iving space (bedroom) and is a new system due to expansion. The proposed system does not comply with the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance Section 3.030 B. Fill or built-up systems are not allowed within 200 feet of Lake George. The site cannot support on-s ite sewage disposal for expanded use with in the Sewage Disposal Ordinance regulation. The site may be able to support a conversion of the existing use to a year round residence. 2. The proposed structure does not conform to setback requirements. 3. The septic system design should address: two perc te~ts, soil absorption rates of the natural soil under the mounds, pressure dos in9 vol umes and frequency cons istent with absorpt ion bed volume, floatation of structures inhJgh groundwater; separation distances from water and sewage fa~i1ities on all adjacent lots. . . 4. Erosion control measures should be provided in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~~~~{, Tho..s M armowich, P.E. Project E ineer TtI:f/c_ cc: Town Planning Board Members @ QLINI'AUI. NY-t.ACONIA. NH " t ;(.) . -- Jown 0/ Queenjburfj RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ~ )~-. DATE: ~/ ~ fS' /90 TIME: q. : ~O C-M BETWEEN: ---SJ-U JC,.r\L ~"'e..r, À~S l s.~ Pft:i'f\ e r (ç.Ær~j I A-~~bl~ ,:ol"+ r~s\d!J1(- SUBJECT: $Jte... 8c- f""\ ~ ~ - % \.T-,*,'" ~ &rb:..n:- L~ nc..~ ". ~ HI:.... . I I ;. , . ,!!fJ1 ·It- . : '~'~'~.~',-, .... ,.....,. ~- -~-~-":""'~..." - - , ~ ~ -, . ,"f'Qr1Y'\ f-h!. ~Icr,,,\~ ~ t:hJ-: ~~ a~ç h~ to ta._ - þ(QM~l. e¡¡Y.n.<"I('¡í). Aljß CI"J\~l ~ _hr~ (\0 Q!.JEENSBU~ Y TOWN OFFICE BUILDINO --------" j I \ . ,. 1 ;).b --' IJa 'I})sI - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ptSlnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: Aup.ust 22. 1990 Stuart Baker Area VariaIIce U. Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpntatiOD Subdmaioa: _Sketch. Prelim· _ 1Darf, X Site Plan ReYiew - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: Applicatiœ Number: Site Plan Review No. 67-90 Appliamt'. Name: Barbara L. Read MeetiDg Date: AuStust 28. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant wishes to construct a deck roof over the existing U-shaped dock. There appear to be some slight discrepencies on the plans submitted for review. The profile vie\.¡ from the lake shows the height of the roof at 7 ft. The side profile shows the height at 7 ft. or 6 ft. 6 inches. The side profile indicates that the roof will extend to~he end of the existing dock. The site plan appears to indicate that the roof will extend beyond the dock into the lake. The site plan length of the roof + dock scales out to be 44 ft. (indicat ing a 4 ft. overhang). These dimens ions should be clad fied, and in no case should the dock and roof extend more than 40 ft. into Lake George without a variance from the-Zoning Board of Appeals. I have reviewed the application according to the criteria listed in Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, and I have the following comments: A) The proposed addition a9pears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the current ordinance. B) As impact the shoreline. George must with most roof additions to existing docks, this addition will scenic character and aesthetic enjoyment of the Lake George The cumulative impact of the continued development along Lake be considered. -1- ;;.7 '-- ---' c) The location, size and design of the proposed deck roof appears to be compatible with the existing house and the covered dock on the property to the north. D) There should be no impact on boat traffic. E) Pedestrian access to the deck is provided from the land. The Board should consider requiring that access to the deck be provided from the dock only. SB/pw -2- . $ ... ~)s.1 - -- -..-/ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pt_nni"8 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: August 28, 1990 John S. Goralski By: Area VaUDc:e U. Variance - Sip Variance - IDterpntatiaD Other: SubcImsioa: Sketch, Pre1im. - - mary, X Site Plan Re.ïew - Petition fQl' a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal ApplicatiaD Namben Site Plan Review No. 68-90 AppUaøt'. Name: 73 Quaker Road Assoc. MeeâDø Date: August 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ This proposal has received three variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. One allows the proposed bank to be 41 feet from the front property line. The others allow the proposed retail building to be 50 feet from the front line and 20 feet from the westerly property line. I have reviewed this proposal with reference to Section 5.070 (E). 1. The proximity to Hovey Pond, Halfway Brook, and the fact that this property fronts on two roads severely limits the design options on this site. The variances have helped to alleviate this problem. Given the constraints of tbe site, and the applicants desire for maximized exposure on Quaker Road, the location of the retail building is probably the optimum location. The proposed bank is set back far enough from the intersection so that it will not interfere with the site distance along Quaker Road. If the bank were moved back eight to ten feet, the right hand turn into the exit lane could be made a 90 degree turn, and therefore, easier to negotiate. The applicant proposes to construct a guard rail and fence within the Town easement :around the Hovey Pond spillway. This would make it impossible to get heavy machinery to the spillway to perform maintenance and repairs. Nothing should be constructed within the easement. The Board should require the applicant to file a new deed with the County Clerk's Office reflecting the relocated property line to the west. A copy of the new deed should be made part of the Planning Board record. z. Even after the recently completed improvements to Quaker Road, traffic remains a concern. Letters from the WalTen County D.P.W. and NYS D.O.T. are on file. There are several ingress and egress scenarios that would minimize the impact on Quaker Road to varying degrees. 1 ;2.9 '-' ~ One option is to prohibit any roadcuts onto Quaker Road. All traffic could be funneled to Glenwood Avenue and across the applicant's adjoining property to Lafayette Street. This would disperse the traffic and minimize the number of vehicles in the intersections of Quaker/Country Club and Quaker/Glenwood. A turning lane should be constructed on Glenwood Avenue between Quaker and the northern entrance. This would allow a free flow of traffic down Glenwood Avenue. A second option is to eliminate the exit to Quaker Road near the center of the lot. This would minimize impact on the Quaker/Glenwood intersection and would eliminate the danger of a stacking problem if a light is installed at this intersection. Turning lanes should be constructed at both entrances. Finally, if the Board chooses to allow the roadcuts as cun-ently proposed, I would recommend several modifications in an effort to mitigate some of the traffic impacts. First and foremost, a traffic light should be installed at the intersection of Quaker and Glenwood. Perhaps all of the businesses located at this intersection could share in this cost. Turning lanes should be constructed at both the entrance and exit on Quaker Road and at the northern entrance on Glenwood. 3. The onsite vehicular circulation is adequate. The loading areas are separated from the main parking area and employee parking is in the rear. The drive-thru at the bank may be a problem. There is stacking distance for approximately 10 cars. On a busy Friday afternoon, the adjoining parking spaces will be inaccessible. As stated above, the exit onto Quaker Road after leaving the drive-thru is difficult. If the bank cannot be moved, the exit from the drive-thru should be a left turn only. 4. Pedestrian circulation is also adequate. Some separation between the parking spaces and the walkway along the front of the building should be provided. A note on the landscape plan notes that movable planters will be provided. Planters should be approximately 10 feet on center as has been done at other shopping centers to provide this separation. 5. Adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities will be addressed by the engineer. This facility will be connected to the Quaker Road sewer. 6. 7. The landscaping plan is well thought out and will be attractive if it is maintained properly. --"-- 8. There is adequate emergency vehicle access to all sides of the buildings. 9. No buildings will be constructed within the flood zone of Halfway Brook. JSG/sed 2. ~ · ~ "T.'~ ASIOCIATEI. P,C. CONIU\. TlNG ENGINEEAS ARCHITECTS SUAVEYOFlS POST OFFICE BOx 131 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12101 FAX 51' .713·41... 51' . 713·4141 -- .-- ¡. .' Lv ......... . . !JpWf!:1l¡ ~ AUG 241990 '1.; August 21, 1990 RFA #89-5000.068 '.ANNIMCI a ZONIN' ".'ARTMIN"f' Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: 73 Quaker Road Associates c/o Tiernan, Bernstein and Pinchuk Site Plan 68-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following cOlllllents: 1. Parking adjacent to the bank drive through area will be blocked by cars waiting in that area. 2. Engineering justification that addresses the immediate vicinity and downstream impacts of the stormwater management concept is necessary to evaluate the stormwater management proposal. A site plan showing subcatchments and reaches should be provided along with the drainage report to clearly show how the stormwater is managed on the site. 3. Flows expected through the separators should be given and capacity should be justified. A detail of the oil/water separator should be provided. 4. Coordination with NYSDEC regarding discharge of stormwater into Halfway Brook may be required. 5. Due to the intense development of the site and proximity of Hovey Pond and Halfway Brook, a comprehensive erosion control plan should be provided. 6. A traffic report should be provided showing the effects on Quaker Road and Glenwood Avenue. 7. Grading rev is ions are needed to comply with a 35' vegetative buffer strip from Hovey Pond per Zoning Ordinance 7.012 A.I. 8. Handicapped parking at the proposed bank is in a depressed area subject to water and ice accumulation. A drainage grate in such Ii GLENI'ALL8. NV-LACONIA. NH 31 ~ ~ ~ Town of Queensbury Attn: Mrs. lee York Page 2 August 21, 1990 RFA #89-5000.068 a location requires special design to protect the safety of users with crutches, walkers, wheelchairs, etc. It is suggested that the handicapped parking be regraded and the stormdrain inlet relocated. 9. The proposed bank floor elevation should be at least one foot above the 100 year flood plain. 10. Connections to existing sewer manholes should be specified as core drilled with flexible rubber seals. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~~. ., Thomas M. armowich, P.E. Project Engineer THY/c_ ee: Town Planning Board Members .. -; 3.2 -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION Robert L. Eddy, Chairman Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 17 Owen Avenue 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbul"J'. R. r. l280~ Queensbury, N. Y. 1280! To . (x) Wane C8uatJ' Planning Board De. te . 8/6/90 (x) Queeftsbul"J' Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Applicant --- r ' ! - r,... - .. , . J :' Re. Site Plan #68-90 - 73 Quaker Road Associates Tiernan, Berstein & Pinchuk We have reviewed the request for.( ) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the fOllowing recommendations. (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval David Klein of North Country Engineering presented planting plans in a very colorful drawing which the Committee approved as presented. This proposal appeared very much neater than the previous proposal in that the bank building is shown squared to the streets, rather than being at an oblique angle and the commercial building shaped like an "L" with a connecting atrium. The parking was questioned, but a satisfactory answer was given, especially regarding pavement right up to the canopy as it is intended that planters be installed to bring color to the parking area and to satisfy requirements to funnel pedestrian traffic in Section 7.071 Off-Street Parking Design in the Zoning Ordinance. The Committee was disappointed that the previous request for a walkway around the pond from this property to the Town Recreation property had not been provided. The Committee wishes to go on record that it prefers installation of a traffic signal at the Glenwood intersection, rather than at Country Club Road, if there is a choice. ~ In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wlshes to fo on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming s gns, 2. Plastlc or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving th. above (or attaohed plans). the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the appli'cant 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. ~tfully submitted, ~-t~~ £:¿¿~ Ro1)ert L. Eddy, Chai~an 33 '-' ..., . It l' I'~!~ ~ :"1. 'H,ý. - If -..-.~;~'.- w; i ~ ~l.,\K REVIEW 110 6 r- 9a S,.ATE OF NEW YORK DI~A~TMENT 0' T"ANS~O"TAT(ON 84 HOLLAND AVENUE ALBANY, N.Y. 12208 JOI'IN I. TAYL.O... ".1:; "'(lIONA!. CI"ICTO" Auqu.1: 10, 1990 Hrs. L.. Yor~, Senior Planner Town of Queen.bury Planning Commi..ion Bay at Haviland Road Queen.bury, New York 12804-9725 ""ANICLIN !:. WHITE COMMISSIONI" Re:Quak.r Plaia Dear Mr.. York: We concur with your le1:1:er ot 8/1/90 g..i9natin; the town ot Queen.bury Planning Board a. the SEQR Lead Agency tor the Quaker Plaza review. Although this 27000 sq.tt. comm.rcial project i8 not to b. 10ca~è4 on a atat. hi9hway, it. trattic g.n.ration potential and clo.. proximity to NYS ROU~. 9 make impact. on that tacility likelI. We request that the.e potential impacts b. q1ven due con. deration 1n any traffic impact study that 1. done a. part of the SEQR proc.... I have enclo.ed a copy ot NYSDOT'. quidelin.. tor traffic impact studi... . Thank you tor th. opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, 7~~ Xen Carl.on s.nior Transportation Analyst cc:R.Carl.on,Oirector Reg 1 Planning and Program Hanaqement H.st.ttin.,Warren County Re.ident Engineer F.Au8t1n,Warren county B1;hway superintendent AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/APFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 2'd tt ~3èI NO I1t::1lèK)dSNt::I~ 6S: H 06, 9t 9f'1I::1 I 31 -- --- WARREN CouNTY DEPARTMENT OF PuBLIC WQFI(S WMAEtmP MCFFŒII 211 MaIn Swe.t W~.NY1" reI. 518-823-4141 518· 781-8568 . FAX 518-823·2772 $uperlntMdllnrl OffIce Highway Dlvlllon PIIIca and Rendon Airport Adminlltratlon Eq&ipment MaIntMance E~ Hatchery Administration MUNICPAL CENTER OFFIÒES l.ake George, NY 12845 Civil Defen.. and Natwal Ct... ==~:; ~li©ÌfiW~1I~~:= . '~EN COUNTY AfFORT ROGER GEBO· AUG 2 "( 1990 --rei. 518-792-5995 Dep. Sùpt. PubIc Works 200 R Queenabury Ave. \.ANNINO . ZONIN( Oueenabury, NY 12804 "EPARTMENT AUgust 24, 1990 Queensbury Town Office Building 531 Bay Road Queen.bury, NY 12804 Attn: Lee York, Senior Planner RE: CR70 - Quaker Road Quaker Plaza Dear Mrs. York: The Warren County Department of Public Works reviewed the proposed Quaker Plaza plana prepared by North Country Engineering and we offer you the following comments: A. We will not object if the Queensbury Planning Board chooses to limit any access from the proposed plaza onto the bounds of Quaker Road, since there are other alternative patterns of ingress and egress. B. We strongly object to any left turn!ng movements from the proposed plaza onto the bounds of Quaker Road. ' C. We will require one ingress and one egress for cara, etc., and one egress for trucks with right turna only from the proposed plaza onto Quaker Road. If there are any questions regarding the above, please advise. Very truly yours, \\.- ~ . Roger Gebo Dep. superintendent Warren County DPW RG:lb cc: Pile ~ 3S ,,~ -" Aption of how to find th _ ' e property: p:nwood Avenue I southWest corner of Quaker Rœ.d \ .._ Lø.I'IOS NOW OR F')Rt.lERLY OF JOSEPtl ø.. OJ''''' rø. & FREDEP,ICK ø., t1UHø.RO BOOK 520 pø.GE 432 ~ ý :J 'l ----...' - - - 'N or,' :V~O" E .. - -.-- / - .. .. . \ \~ b . ~' -)~ . -' - - .....- ~..¡.. .,.-<. .... '" -.:, -:..::- ~ \ - - .... ><:'" .,-.-. .". ' '- , .' ,"., . / ~ . ~~'.' "-... ",,,,->,,,," ,., ".'-.: '. <'. '-, '.:-.. '- "-' <', " .. ,', .,,' '" LOø.OlN ø.R 16(,' \ '\ \ .1/ .. \ \ \ \ \ \ I. ~~~~1 - 1,-\:rí,.--~1 I T (].~,¡ I I ( \ \ I \ I " I I , ' N-"' \ \ I , \ I \ \ \ II " [~--.~ ". ~~ .___;K---- \_09~ l ~ -c-!f~ - ~. '''~' \\ ~ " 0) ~ \~~. / I ~\\ l ' :\ " \ '\ II , \ ,\ o c þ ^ rl _." ::u ¡¡; ,:;::u ¡;:oO ~~þ XI '% CJ :-'0 r;;."-.J ..0 -- I ~cn1 en"" -4....0 ~cn1 c:CÞO ,Out ~:,.'" Z-4" -4' "'", GI ,...' ",cnO -4CÞ'" ~OO r=. en ""'" -t" -J UI , , ~ '. 4"-9~ " . .' vof, " .J" "- "- "- / 50' -- .-Þ--- 19, ' 140' _----~r"~ ./ \ \ \ , _.i .. - - Jo W1 "W' ",00 ...01 ~.O -out ro· '" ~O . (jj -!' \ [~~ ~ ~ -=- t-=-~ r \- \- _ _ r· \-' \~ - - -- ¡:..-- , .~ .E'rŸF .:.,~ ~~ ,_·....71-<...r ,- . -" '''-40/.0.-'''' - - . .'-. , , I ¡---- _ _ ,/ 1- -l I' I - - ,i - '- ~ _ {r /-' - t ' , --"7 . .. I - '- ' ..;j \ 5 -'- L' " 1', ,..,;..;..: Iotc ,..,.. ~ '/4 ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. .....,....... --... ..... .. / \ \ \ \ \ \, ,. .,-- I -. ."-.-- - \ ' "_ _ ....-.....-,,-J. ~ ----- .. ....- , -....~................ \. .___ l'().~..._ ..---- -.....- ----... "---... .. , ._ I .. ..,,- ..,.... .... ..- ._~--.... 'IP \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ", I.OUNTRY CLue ~OA - -_._~ -- ...-- \ "" I \ \ \ , '", 1 I i I I \ \ I \ \ \ ..~...~.. ~) . QyAt(e/- C/ô 1iNtNl',tJ¡ f2.òf)D ~S<)Oc. , 6C{¿ N )\e., ~" A-^ í) P : V\cC, u t( -" -- . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY fILE COpy piSftft;"1 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: AUF-ust 27. ]990 Stuart G. Baker By: Area VU'iaDce U. Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretatiaD SuhdiYiåoD: _ Sketch, _ Preliminary. X Site Plaa Reriew - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: AppUcatiaD Number: Site Plan Review No. 69-90 AppUcant'. Name: Andrew D. Tellier MeetiDg Date: Au~ust 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ The ap~licant is proposing the construction of a one story ranch style duplex on Sunset Avenue. The plan submitted has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, and is in com91iance with the requirements of the zone. I have reviewed the application in accordance wit\-¡ Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, and there do not a~gear to be any planning concerns associated with this project. The proposed duplex should help to improve the appearance of this neighborhood, and should fit in well with the residential character. SGB/pw .----- 37 - ~ "','AOIT AIIOCIATII. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEIAI ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 831 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12101 FAX 518 .793-4148 518.793·4141 ',-- - f J i. L l u r r.. ..,.,.. - - U\I188II1 a ZONIN' """--,,, August 15, 1990 RFA #89-5000.069 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Andrew D. Tellier, Site Plan 69-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following co..-nt: Erosion control measures should be provided in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. .j"" ~'^^-~~ Thomas . Yarmowich, P.E. Project gineer .. THY/c_ ec: Town Planning Board Members e ~ FALLa. N't-LACONtA. NH 3'( .--- - ~ VJfII - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pw-nni"R Department .- ..... -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: AU2US t 24. 1990 Lee A. York By: Area VariaDce U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == IDterpntatioa SubdiYiåoa: Sketch, Prelim' - - mary, X Site Plan Reriew - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Other: Applicatioa Number: Site Plan Review No. 70-90 Applicaø.t'. Name: Michael & Trudi Calabrese MeetiDø Date: Au~ust 28. 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is to remove an existing boathouse roof and construct a new roof with a sundeck. The Structure would be 14 feet by 40 feet. According to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, "No dock shall extend more than 40 feet offshore from the mean low water mark" (Section 7.012-2). The applicant has indicated that the boathouse will be 'built over an existing dock that will meet this requirement. The applicant does intend to cont inue ut ilizing the remaining preexisting nonconforming blockage wh ich extends 57' 9" into the lake. The is allowable because of its pre-existance. I have reviewed this with regard to Section 5.070 E: I) The properties in the neighborhood have boathouses with decks on them and this request is in line with the zoning. requirements. The factor which the Board has to consider is the cumulative impact of expansion on a designated Critical Environmental Area. 2) Vehicular traffic has not been hindered in the past by the 57'9" dock which is preexisting. 3) Off street parking is not an issue. 4) Pedestrian access is not an issue. -1- ---- ¡ i I t, 3~ '--' 5) Stormwater facilities are not an issue. 6) Water and sewage facilities are not an issue. 7) Vegetative screening is not applicable. 8) Fire access is not applicable. 9) Susceptibility to flooding and erosion is not an issue. LAY I pw -2- --" t¡o It .ø¿. ~ to. ~,~'--~ , 0- 7 ,:::;z. Y~~" ~ . ~--~ ,-;:.1"... ~ ~ ~ ..... ';',..", 1-;. ~~ ¡ I .¡., ,- I f I, i f 1 ( ~ ¿t.¿..... · , , ~. " .' - - (' I I '/ ~I ;,~ ~ I ,-.::I' I .,1/':'" . : '. ~ ~.- : /',:1 ",,/ .:,. ,. , ·.....W (~' ( " ; ~~. ,'\ ,. - !'\oj" r, 1\ ! !. 1 . ~ - '. , , ....:. I(' _,:,'.: ,-. ,...". ·'f,~;;; . ,& 1 , , ." <C>u \,q l F~ rcp C' THE NC~lO "':oo'lt,,',ht 19~6 J 0 FI~. ..- M '\ l. ~ ~ e... \ <:\- \"'R \J f)'¡ ( i<\ \ 1'\ þy -e ~ ~ Ifl