Loading...
1991-05-28 '--- -- o ./ ~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 28TH, 1991 INDEX Site Plan No. 86-90 Arrowhead Equipment, Inc. Owner: William J. & Catherine Ehlert 1. Site Plan No. 27-91 Site Plan No. 28-91 Site Plan No. 29-91 Site Plan No. 31-91 Off Premises Sign No. 2-91 Site Pl an No. 32-91 Site Plan No. 30-91 John P. Matthews 6. Robert R. Clark 14. F.T. Collins 16. Nigro Real Estate & Empire Video Superstore 25. Magic Automotive, Inc. as a franchisse of 38. Meineke Muffler, Inc. Karen J. Witte 38. Regan & Denny Funeral Services, Inc. 41. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '-' -- QUEENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 28TH. 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO EDWARD LAPOINT JAMES MARTI N JAMES HAGAN DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLANNER-LEE A. YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 23rd, 1991: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 23RD. 1991, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. OLD IIJSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 86-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA ARROWHEAD E~IPMENT, INC. OWNER: WILLIAM J. I CATHERINE EHLERT NORTH OF WZERNE ROAD, JUST WEST OF NORTHWAY OVERPASS FOR SALES AND SERVICE OF HEAVY E~IPMENT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 93-2-4 LOT SIZE: 3.75 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N DAVID COULTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Site Plan Review No. 86-90, Arrowhead Equipment, Inc., May 13, 1991, Meeting Date: May 28, 1991 "The appl icant has submitted a letter addressing the items indicated in the motion of November 27, 1990. If the Board feel s these items have been adequately addressed, the items should be shown on the site plan. (i.e. location of crushed rock pit, location of truck parking, etc.)" ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 23, 1991 "We have reviewed the project application, the applicant's letter dated April 25, 1991 and have discussed the project with the applicant. We have the following engineering comments: 1. Intentions by the applicant to control and prevent release to the env.ironment from petroleum product and lubricant leakage from vehicles to be temporarily stored outside appears to conform to acceptable management practices. De minnimus losses and leakage onto paved areas should be able to be properly and promptly cleaned up. The same appears to be the case for truck maintenance operations routinely scheduled inside the maintenance building. 2. The applicant's verbally stated intentions with regard to washing of customer equipment is understood to include limited services for removal of normal road grime and occasional internal cargo area cleaning. The Arrowhead operation is geared to provide routine preventative maintenance services to trucks of the semi-combinati on and uni t del ivery type. Heavy vehicl es such as constructi on equipment is not maintained or washed at the site. Engine degreasing is not an offered service. The appl icant uses a pressure washer and does not have steam cleaning equipment. NYSDEC, the collection of washwater into a filter pit before disposal by infiltration appears suitable for the type and amount of washing anticipated. A detail of the filter pit planned by the applicant should be provided." MR. CARTIER-Okay. What you're saying is basically that in his letter he has satisfactorily addressed any concerns you have, but you're looking for a diagram of the pit. Is that correct? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. 1 -- MR. CARTiER-ûkay. Would the applicant care to comment, please. MR. COULTER-My name is David Coulter. I'm the General Manager of Arrowhead Equipment, and at this point we haven't done anything with the pit, in that, we need to understand what we need to do. In other words, what kind of pit we need to create, size, depth, whatever, and that oil, because of the cleaning that we do, that oil and petroleums aren't part of it. We weren't sure if the pit was necessary or was not and if so, what the dimens ions woul d be and we'd be gl ad to conform to whatever you wi sh on that. MR. LAPOINT-I'd just like to make sure it's lined. Your intention is not to dig into the earth and put crushed stone into an earthen pit and allow oil to drain through the earth, is it? MR. COULTER-Oil, as far as we're concerned at this point, doesn't even enter into this. As far as oi 1 di sposal goes, we drain the oi 1. It's kept in bul k tanks and taken away by Safety Cl ean Servi ces which is a service that we rent. So, that's drain oil, as you see it. As far as any other oil, the leaking of such, you're talking tablespoons and things like this. You're not talking quarts and gallons and so on and if a truck were to have a leak, it's coming in there to have the leak fixed and goes into the shop to be done. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but you intend to have this lined with earth, in other words, yes, no? MR. COULTER-Do you mean for a wash pit? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. You say crushed stone, I mean, what's lining the crushed stone pit? MR. COULTER-Nothing, to my knowledge. MR. LAPOINT-Just earth. MR. COULTER-Dirt, yes. MR. LAPOINT-Just earth? MR. COULTER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I would find that unacceptable. I think you'd need some type of concrete or impermeable surface down there so you could dig out the oil. MR. COULTER-Okay. We weren't sure of that because we sat through a meeting in November where another appl icant simply said that he would put crushed stone in a pit and it would be washed into that pit and periodically take the stone away and that was agreed to. MR. LAPOINT-With oil in it? MR. COULTER-He was just steam cleaning or pressure washing his vehicles and that was accepted by the Board, so we naturally figured that that would be acceptable for us to do. MRS. PULVER-I have a question, here, basically, the question came up, I was kind of looking at the minutes and I apologize for not having enough time to go through them, but you're steam cleaning the vehicles inside, correct? And the question originally was raised, well, the oil and stuff from the vehicle, where does it go, it goes into a pit, but they actually don't drain oil and stuff in there. MR. COULTER-And we don't steam clean oil off the engines. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-You pressure wash. You don't steam clean. MR. COULTER-Well, or we're not pressure washing oil off the engines. What we're essentially doing is cleaning the vehicles for the people, much the same as cleaning your car on a Sunday afternoon. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-So, are you actually degreasing motors and things like that? MR. COULTER-We don't rebuild engines on site, typically, and for situations where we have a grease or an oil situation, we have rented, from Safety Clean, a unit that's portable and goes right to the site, in other words, the engine itself. MR. MARTIN-The parts involved. MR. COULTER-The parts involved. There's a stationary one that sits and we can take the small parts over it, but if it's like the side of an engine or something like this where it's large, hard to handle, this unit can go right over, underneath it, and the unit can be cleaned, right there, say a fuel pump which can be Úis large on a catapillar engine can be cleaned right there, attached to the engine, all goes into the Safety Clean pan and it's taken away with, then, when they process. 2 -- MR. CAIMANO-So the pit is only waste water from a truck wash? MR. COULTER-Exactly. MRS. PULVER-Yes. think it almost appears that we're making them or wanting them to do something more than really is necessary for their business. They've already taken precautions to get rid of any oil. They're already paying for that. MR. LAPOINT-Well, no. It just wasn't clear to me that they wouldn't be putting oil down this. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-If my memory serves me correctly, I think the reason this question came up, when we made a site plan visit, there was a vehicle being cleaned. MR. CARTIER-Outside. MR. HAGAN-Now, I can't state that it was steam cleaned or high pressure, but there was residual grease or oil coming from, you know, like they get build up on frames, sides of trucks, and it was being deposited right on the ground, and I think that's what started our question. MR. CAIMANO-That's correct. MR. COULTER-Okay. I don't know, because I wasn't with them at the time, but I don't want to use that as an excuse. It's possible that road grime does have enough residual to create this effect and so this is what has created this situation with us. MR. HAGAN-Residual grease. MR. CAIMANO-Well, my question to you, is this crushed stone pit an acceptable filter, at some depth. MR. YARMOWICH-It depends mainly on the components which it's going to receive. Granted, there can be small amounts of grease and oil. I mi ght make a suggesti on to the Board if they shoul d have some questions about this, as part of any approval, that they may ask that the appl icant contact the Department of Environmental Conservation. I've tried to do so, unsuccessfully, in the middle of last week, and haven't been able to since. They mayor may not have some requirements for washing. It depends a lot on the Department of Environmental Conservation's view of whether or not this is a commercial operation, an operation for an individual, the types and volumes of vehicles washed, the amount of work that's being done there. I think that DEC can probably lead this applicant into a proper facility for the kind of operation that he's proposing. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. COULTER-If the appl icant can ever get a hold of them either. We are prepared, because we don't see this as a great environmental hazard. We are prepared to simply throwaway the pressure washer and just take it down to the car wash down the road. If it makes things a lot simplier for everybody, we can do this. MRS. PULVER-That particular day that we were out there, it looked to me that you were washing one of your own vehicles, you know, maintaining it as you would normally do to any vehicle that you had to use out on the road. MR. COULTER-Right. We would be apt to do that because we clean our own as well as commercial vehicles. Typically, customers want their trucks to look clean and not have road film and so on allover them because that is their form of advertisement and so that's what they like to see us do. That's part of our service. MR. LAPOINT-I do have the Used Oil Reg's with me and it's just my concern that if oil were to make it to that pit, that that would be considered improper disposal, via the State rules. MR. COULTER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-So, I guess in terms of pressure wash that is not a waste oil, I believe you're okay under the Used Oil Reg's. I was just concerned that waste collected in a pit filled with crushed stone and rock, when saturated, you know, I pictured saturated with oil will be removed, and if it's saturated with oil and there's earth beneath that crushed stone, that earth, indeed, would be contaminated with oil. MR. COULTER-Saturated as well. MR. LAPOINT-So that's, again, when saturated, it depends on whether it's a soapy detergent, whether it's particulate matter, road grime, that type of thing. MR. COULTER-Not only that, but if you're talking saturated with oil, now you've got a judgement call. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MR. COULTER-This is not good. 3 -- MR. LAPOINT-Again, if your intent is to take the stone out of the pit for disposal, if you have a lined pit, you're more or less all set unless you're generating a tremendous amount of water. MR. COULTER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Now, if you're generating a tremendous amount of water with oil in it, you're going to pass it right to the environment. MR. COULTER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-So, if you don't have the problem with the water, then a lined pit ought to suffice and when it's dirty enough you take out less, when you took out the crushed stone. MR. COULTER-Yes. Well, that's what I need to know. If what we're doing, the cleaning of the vehicles, is there enough petroleum there to even warrant the pit? MRS. PULVER-That was kind of my question. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we're going to get to that point anyway. I mean, you're at a point now where you're opening the bottom of the tops of your cans to find a place, sooner or later we're not going to be able to wash our own cars. So we're getting to that point, but I don't think we're there. I think we're just beating a dead horse here. MR. CARTI ER-Okay, but we do have a comment from Staff Engi neer sayi ng he'd 1 i ke to see detail s of a pit and if you want to move this along a suggestion simply is to condition the approval based on the provision of those details. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. COULTER-Well, okay, do we need a pit? There's no details if I don't need a pit. MR. HAGAN-I think we can put words in the approval. MRS. PULVER-Tom, knowing what we know now about their business, do they still need to have a drawing of the pit? Is that absolutely necessary? MR. YARMOWICH-I think the Town ought to follow the requirements of the Department of Environmental Conservation in this matter. MR. CAIMANO-Which says? MR. YARMOWICH-If the applicant would agree to pursue this with DEC to get a determination as a condition of the approval, I think that should satisfy the concerns of the Town. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, why don't we do that. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. COULTER-Okay. Do you want me to call DEC? Okay. Do you have their number? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. CARTIER-While he's getting a phone number, let me finish up a public hearing, here. I know the public hearing was left open. Is there anyone who'd care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Okay. We did not do the SEQRA on this, pending the information that's been provided, and we still can't, which means we cannot approve this until we have those details. MR. CAIMANO-Well, can we do the SEQRA in the same way, with a contingency? How can we do that? We can't do it without, if DEC is going to be involved, then we can't do it. MR. CARTIER-We have an environmental review process that we have to go through, that basically what this boils down to is we need the answer to the unanswered question at this point, before we can do that review properly. MR. CAIMANO-Karla has something to say, here. MR. CARTIER-With your permission, can we table this until that's provided? 4 ----' MR. CAIMANO-Jim Hagan, Karla has something to say, but Jim Hagan also thought he had a way of getting around this. MR. HAGAN-I'm trying to think up the words. MS. CORPUS-I don't believe that DEC is an involved agency for the Board at this point. However, if the Board feels that it can't answer a particular question because it doesn't know how the potential environmental effect will be mitigated, then, yes, you could table this. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It boils down to Cl, Existing Air Quality Surface or Groudwater quality or quantity. MR. HAGAN-How does this hit you? May I read these? We could give approval providing the applicant does not degrease vehicles without providing acceptable means of disposing of created residues. MR. CARTIER-But how does that get us around the SEQRA process? MR. HAGAN-Well, if it's there, we can say it's been addressed. MR. MARTIN-I don't see why we can't simply, the applicant claims that he does not degrease vehicles period, except in the cases of where you're doing limited components of the truck. I don't see why we can't just say he can't degrease vehicles period. MR. COULTER-I'm washing my car, only it's bigger than yours. MR. YARMOWICH-There is a distinction from the regulatory bodies when an individual conducts an activity and where they usually make a distinction is whether or not it's a commercial activity and then they look into the particular pollutants in question and the volumes of the activity. It's known to me that there are public facilities in this County and in this Town where DEC has required certain systems to handl e washing and thi s is not necessari ly engine degreasing. There are al so other faci 1 iti es that they have not required this. So I think it's a call that DEC has the authority to make or the Town, if they deem it to be certain critical concerns that DEC doesn't have. I think DEC, in general, will issue a decision on whether or not they require. you know, it technically can be considered a discharge. if DEC so deems it and I think they're the only ones that can make that decision in this case. MR. CARTIER-All right. Well, maybe you just answered my question. My question was going to be, is there any way the applicant can get through this process without involving DEC? Can he design or have designed something that will satisfy our concerns? MR. YARMOWICH-The answer is yes. Something can be done. DEC does in fact allow facilities that do extensive washing that includes numerous pollutant components. So there are systems that, in fact, will meet the requirements of the Deparment of Environmental Conservation. MR. CARTIER-But he's, in effect, tell ing us he's not going to put in a pit. Does that el iminate the problem, or do we still have the problem, in terms of potential for contamination? If you el iminate the pit and you wash vehicles in there, where does the water go? MR. COULTER-Out to the ground. It would run off the pavement and downhill onto land. MR. MARTIN-But why can't we require the pit with the crushed stone lining and the pit detail be supplied to the Town Engineer for review and approval and simply tell him that he can't degrease vehicles on site? MRS. PULVER-Well, I'm thinking, why can't we just give him approval and say you can't degrease vehicles, period. Then he doesn't have to do the pit and if he wants to degrease vehicles, he's got to come back in. MR. MARTIN-I think the pit's a necessary component. It's a good safety measure, given the level of. MR. CAIMANO-Well, that was just brought up. I thought about the same thing, too. to just give approval for what's going on here, absent any degreasing of vehicles. thing with DEC. Find out what you've got to do. Come back, and we'll do it ~gain. What if we were You go do your MR. COULTER-It sounds good to me, and then I can apply for degreasing. MRS. PULVER-Right, and then if you want to degrease, you're going to have to have a pit and come back before this Board. MR. COULTER-That's agreeable to me. It would make this a lot easier. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, it would. MR. CARTIER-Tom? 5 ---- ---- MR. YARMOWICH-I think that if the applicant would agree to that, it would satisfy the concerns of this Board. If the app1 icant wanted to continue washing vehicles, it should be done under the guidance of DEC. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. There you go. That's a good word. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I believe I closed the public hearing. think we can now conduct the SEQRA review. RESOWTlON NO. 86-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a sales and service of heavy equipment known as ARROWHEAD E~IPMENT, INC., at the comer of Luzeme Road, just west of Northway overpass, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion. JlJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 86-90 ARIUIIHEAD E~IPMENT, INC., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For sales and service of heavy equipment, north of Luzerne Road, just west of Northway overpass, as follows: Anyon-site oil or grease work to be self contained through a service known as Safety Clean. Other than water and soap, no other degreasing of tractors, trailers, engines, or any other equipment may occur until the app1 icant has sought and received DEC approval and presented it to the P1 anning Department. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. YARMOWICH-I'd like to just direct the applicant to a contact at DEC. You can follow up by trying to call Randy Galusha and I'll give you a number you can reach him from the Queensbury calling area. MR. COULTER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Before we get into the next item, I just missed something. Off Premises Sign No. 2-91 has been tabled at the request of the applicant. We have scheduled a public hearing. If there's anyone here to address that, that has been postponed until a future date. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 27-91 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA JOHN P. MTTHEIIS OIItER: SAME AS ABOVE 300 BAY ROAD, CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND GLENWOOD AVENUE TO ADD ADDITIONAL COIIERCIAL OFFICE SPACE OF 5,600 SQ. FT. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 61-1-34 LOT SIZE: 1.76 ACRES SECTION 4.020-K 6 "--' JOHN MATTHEWS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Site Plan Review No. 27-91, John Matthews, May 16, 1991, Meeting Date: May 28, 1991 "The applicant has received a variance to place two principal buildings on a single lot. This is the preferred design because it minimizes the impact that would be created by a massive 10,500 sq. ft. building. The proposed building will be significantly set back from the road and even the proposed parking will be buffered by 50' of green area. Vehicular circulation appears to be well planned. The roadcut on Glenwood Avenue could be narrowed and possibly moved further west. This would minimize confl icts between traffic entering and exiting this site and the intersection of Bay and Glenwood. Sufficient parking is provided and does not conflict with pedestrian circulation. All handicapped spaces should be 16 feet wide or 24 feet for two spaces. The existing site is very nicely landscaped. The white pines along the west property line should be continued to screen the building from the neighboring property." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 23, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The trench construction requirements developed in the SWM calculations include a filter fabric wrapping of the stone fill. The filter fabric is not shown on the infiltration and trench details on drawing No.3. ? The infiltration trenches for drainage area "A" are located such that they must cross the proposed buried water service and underground electrical service. Trench configuration or services location should be modified to eliminate the crossings where depth confl icts occur. 3. The infiltration trenches for drainage area "B" should be separated by more than 5 feet. The applicant should consider a single trench of equal total length or perhaps an alternate location for one of the trenches such as along the existing parking area to the east. 4. The piping size, inverts and material should be indicated for the interconnecting and outlet piping at the catch basin structures. 5. The comments noted are minor. The Board should consider project approval subject to an acceptable response by the applicant to Items 1-4." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We have Warren County Planning has disapproved with a comment, "Due to increased density and increased traffic.", and we have a 1 etter from the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification, "QCCB does not ordinarily review Variances until Site Plan, which generally comes up the following month. In this instance, the Site Plan is on the agenda in the same month and was overlooked. The applicant has done a fine jOb of landscaping on both roads that front his property, and it looks attractive, in the opinion of the chairman. He has agreed to meet with our Committee at our June 10 meeting, so if appro~al is given it can be with the stipulation that he meet with QCCB at our June meeting." Mr. Matthews, would you care to comment, please. MR. MATTHEWS-My comment to the Engineer's Report is that any of the items that were overlooked or not included, I don't see any problem with including those and correcting them where necessary. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. MATTHEWS-If you people have any questions. MR. CAIMANO-Well, the obvious question is, for those of us who have turned left onto Bay Road from Glenwood before, what's going to happen there? MR. CARTIER-How much traffic are you going to be generating in and out of this, increase due to this addition? I can't remember, what's the total number of parking? MR. MATTHEWS-Eight or ten employees. MRS. PULVER-Seventy, seventy two? MR. MATTHEWS-And I would say the traffic flow in and out, on a regular, normal, daily basis, isn't going to increase much more than what's there now with the real estate office. MR. CARTIER-You're going to have eight or ten employees in the new building? MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-What's the nature of the business going to be in the new building? MR. MATTHEWS-It's an office type. MR. MARTIN-I mean, is it going to be service where there's going to be people coming in and out in addition to the employees? MR. MATTHEWS-It's a health related. Correct. MRS. PULVER-You mean it's going to be like, what, doctors, physicians? 7 --- MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, a clinic type arrangement. MRS. PULVER-So there will be eight or ten employees and there could be as many as eight or ten patients. MR. MATTHEWS-Certainly not as much as the Racquet Club. MR. CAIMANO-That's not the point. The point is, now we have to add on top of the Racquet Club. MR. MATTHEWS-I understand that. MR. CAIMANO-Well, let me just point out something here. We have a Short Form SEQRA to go through? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I believe. MR. CAIMANO-Cl says, "Existing Air Quality, Existing Traffic Patterns Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:" and I guess the question is, can we answer that honestly? MR. MARTIN-Lee, isn't that intersection, the Glenwood Avenue/Bay Road intersection a Class F? MRS. YORK-I believe it's E or F. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we need to know. MR. MARTIN-We came across this once before in Tyrer Galleries or something. MRS. YORK-Yes. It was, I believe, E or F. can't specifically state, now, what it's at. MR. LAPOINT-Just a guess, probably 10 vehicles an hour, seven vehicles an hour, seven spaces. MR. MATTHEWS-Or less. I can't see that much of an increase. MR. MARTIN-Is this the type of situation where we're talking, like, a consortium of doctors or something 1 i ke that? MR. MATTHEWS-No, it's an out patient type of clinic, affiliated with the hospital. MR. CARTIER-Is there any way to improve that by establishing a one way traffic pattern in here? It doesn't really lend itself to that, does it? MR. MATTHEWS-No. MR. CAIMANO-It's too far away? If you're thinking about, you mean in one way and out the other? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I was thinking of possibly only right hand turns off of Bay. MR. CARTIER-Out onto Bay, you mean? I see what you mean. MR. MARTIN-Yes, right hand turns into the parking lot and out of. MR. CAIMANO-These are not directly across from the Racquet Club, are they? MR. MATTHEWS-No. MR. CAIMANO-They're more up toward Ship N' Shore. MR. MARTIN-Yes, because those are existing right now. That's there now. MR. MATTHEWS-Everything that's there is going to stay or is proposed to stay. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I'll tell you what we could do, this particular one could be limited to, the one on Glenwood which is very close to the corner, you could limit that to right turn only, if that's the exit, because my concern would be that there would be a left hand turn. That would really gum up traffic or hit something coming around the corner the other way. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, you don't have enough clearance there. MR. CAIMANO-There's not enough clearance to come out and make a left hand turn. So you could limit that to exit, right hand turn lane. MRS. PULVER-So, the exit you want right hand only. 8 MR. MARTIN-My problem with it, my office where I work is two doors down from this and when ACC lets out at, like, noon time and things, Bay Road is virtually bumper to bumper, as it exists now and you have, one of the exits for the Quaker Village office is there, comes out on Bay right there by Quaker Electric and so you have the Glenwood Avenue intersection, then you have that intersection, the Quaker Village exit and then you have a very busy road, and they're not aligned is the problem. MR. CAIMANO-Well, there's going to be a change, shortly, when the traffic light goes into effect at the corner of Glenwood. MR. MARTIN-That's true. MR. CAIMANO-That will make an effect. MR. MARTIN-But I just know at noon time when college is in session it's a nightmare getting out of Glenwood Avenue turning left up Bay Road. MR. CARTIER-I was going to say, won't that light maybe just pulse the traffic. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know. MR. CAIMANO-Maybe just enough to let his traffic get in and out. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Well, again, we go back to the old story, should we make one applicant face the music for what amounts to the sins of everybody or should we just force the issue and let the Warren County DPW screw it up again? MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, we're looking at the possibility of right turn only on the Bay Road entrance. MR. CAIMANO-No, the Glenwood entrance. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. I'm trying to do both, and the Glenwood entrance also. In other words, no left turn out of Bay Road entrance. Somebody can come in, turn left, come in, turn right. MR. MATTHEWS-How would you police that though? For the last ten years I've owned the property. I've done everything I possibly can to curb the cut through people. MR. CARTIER-There's no perfect system here, I know, but we have to take a shot at it. MR. MATTHEWS-I've looked at that corner very carefully trying to figure out what to do to el iminate the race through traffic that tries to make a short cut and cut off that corner. I do think that the traffic will be curtailed on Glenwood with the light at the other end, because a lot of people do get to that point on Quaker Road and say, I'm going to cut across Glenwood and zing right across that intersection and I think if they're forced to stop there, they'll think twice and realize that, actually, they're not saving any time. If you go to the light on Quaker, it's just as easy to make that. MR. CAIMANO-What about, can't you put a planter in there, to prevent, that's your property, right? MR. MARTIN-Speed bump. MR. CAIMANO-You can't put a speed bump in. The Fire Department always makes them. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I've done, it's worked out with the re-construction of the building and the changing of the parking around has made a big difference in the cut throughs. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think right turns only is a possible solution with the full understanding that it's not a perfect solution. People are going to cheat. MR. MARTIN-We're trying to come up with a mitigating measure, here, without which we'd be stuck. MRS. PULVER-Well, the only problem I can see with the right turn only is that light isn't there yet and it's not working and it could possibly back up traffic on Glenwood, rather than keep it moving. MR. CAIMANO-When is this building going to be done? MR. MATTHEWS-Summer, late Summer. MR. CAIMANO-Well, they'll be done. They can't open a store until that light. MR. MARTIN-They were stringing the wires for the light today. MR. CAIMANO-The wires were being strung today. 9 MRS. PULVER-No, but what I'm saying, though, is when the light starts working, it could actually work against a right turn only because they're going right and they're going down Glenwood and they're all going to be stopped at the light, plus normal traffic that's going down Glenwood is going to be stopped there. We could be backing up, Jim could possibly not get out of his driveway to get lunch. MR. CAIMANO-I'm thinking that you're going to be at least 3/4 to a mile from the light to this. MRS. PULVER-Well, you are, Nick, but I'm just saying that with the 1 ight working, it could actually slow the traffic right down on that with the right turn only. MR. CAIMANO-It could, but I can't see letting traffic do anything other than right turn only and then let the police worry about it. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. Most of the traffic actually goes the other way. MRS. PULVER-I think it's a good solution, but. MR. CAIMANO-Which way? MR. MATTHEWS-West to east. MRS. PULVER-It's going out on Bay. Very little's going the other way. MR. CARTIER-Yes. What will happen, if people start turning left out of there, they're going to block that lane because they're going to try to force themselves in the easterly flow. MR. CAIMANO-Well, there is one way, as a matter of fact, aren't the folks at Glenwood and Bay doing that? Aren't they making that curbing so that you can only, you curb it so that you can only go that way? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-And that's what they're going to do at Glenwood and Quaker. So that they don't go left onto Quaker Road, they're going to curb it and turn it so that you have to go that way. MR. CARTIER-But you also want to, that's an entrance only. MR. MARTIN-Yes, you're right. MR. CARTIER-And I think he wants to allow, you know, we want to have him going in and out of here. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Well, that's the only way I can see we can pass it. MR. LAPOINT-Have you looked at moving it, maybe you have, another 100 feet up to the west, the entrance along Glenwood? MR. MATTHEWS-Really, we didn't consider it because we were just going to use what was there. I mean, that's the way it had been. So, we figured we'd just leave things well enough alone, but we probably could, you know, slide that whole entrance up to a separate entrance. MR. CARTIER-What would that put you across from? MR. MATTHEWS-We'd just curb this area further down here and maybe come straight in here. MR. LAPOINT-That's only, probably, 50 feet, though. That doesn't buy you much. MR. CAlMANO-But this would prevent all this traffic from flowing out of there in an unregulated way. MR. HAGAN-To date, how many accidents have been involved in either exit or entrance on your property? MR. MATTHEWS-None on my property. There have been accidents out here in the middle of Bay Road. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. MATTHEWS-And most generally they are people coming north on Bay cutting across into Glenwood. MRS. PULVER-Misjudging the other traffic. MR. MATTHEWS-Misjudging the other traffic. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's the problem with that intersection. There's so many things you have to keep your eye on because cars are coming at you from so many different angles that it's very easy to miss one. 10 ~ MR. CAIMANO-I think 1 imiting, as you say, limiting the entrance and exit and then making the right turns, we at least force the issue. MR. CARTIER-So, we're talking about what, a right turn only or a no left turn sign on the Glenwood entrance and a right turn only or a no left turn sign, I don't know. Is one of those signs better? MR. HAGAN-I'm just wondering if we're playing with fire. That was the reason for asking the question. If he has not had any accidents on either entrance or exit, are we concerning ourselves unduly, here? MR. CAIMANO-We I re not concerning oursel ves with acci dents. We're concerni ng oursel ves with the free flow of traffic on the corner of Glenwood and Bay. MR. HAGAN-Ultimately we have safety on our minds. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but I think also we have a situation where the traffic is being increased because of thi s appl i cati on and therefore we can expect an increase in acci dents. I don't thi nk you can say, well, the accidents happen out on the corner of Bay and Glenwood and therefore this has no effect on the accident rate. I think it's a cumulative effect kind of situation, here. Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? MR. CAIMANO-Have a public hearing and see what happens. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Are we prepared to go forward with this and predicate this on moving an entrance to the west and signing? MR. HAGAN-Have we put restrictions on anyone else on Glenwood Avenue in this respect? MR. CAlMANO-No one else is on the corner of Glenwood and Bay. MR. HAGAN-His property's on the corner, but his entrance and exits aren't. MR. CAIMANO-The one is about as close as you can get. MR. HAGAN-You have the tennis club there and people come in and out of there from any which way. MRS. PULVER-Every direction. MR. HAGAN-And nothing could be worse than that situation right there. Nothing. MR. CAIMANO-I agree. MR. HAGAN-Okay, and we're concerning ourselves in trying to pinpoint each car coming out, telling them what direction to go in and I think, you know, the horses are out of the barn all the time, here, and no matter what action we take, we're not going to correct what's really at fault at that busy street. MR. CARTIER-That's true, but I think we can mitigate some of the traffic flow, or at least we can attempt. MR. HAGAN-You may think you're going to mitigate it. You may be creating more of a hardship in the traffic patterns. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Then what's the alternative? That we do nothing because it's already disastrous? MR. LAPOINT-Well, I can't see it being more than one car every six minutes. I don't think it's going to be higher than that. Ten cars in all. MR. HAGAN-Here's my point. How many times do you come out of a busy intersection with the intentions of going right or left, either way, and all of a sudden the traffic gets so heavy, against you, you change your mind. You go down the street and you go around in a circle? When you conform to one turn, I think you're going to create. in some hours of the day, more of a traffic hazard. MRS. PULVER-Of course in the summer, you know, ACC, they don't have that amount of traffic that they have in the winter. That changes. 11 --- -- MR. CARTIER-I don't know. I'd still like to see us try it with signage. If it turns out that it's not helping, it's very simple to remove the signs. I don't think we should throw up our hands and not try anything because the situation is bad. MRS. PULVER-No. don't have any problems with the sign if the applicant agrees to it. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I'd be willing to try it and see how it works. MRS. PULVER-I don't see moving the entrance. though, 50 feet making much of a difference. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I wasn't so crazy, it's not moving it that much. MRS. PULVER-I mean, I'm not sold that that's really going to be. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, if you had 300 feet. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but 50 feet, I can't see that, and why make him go through the additional expense of putting in another entry. MR. MARTIN-Just one 1 ast comment. "Any change in street al ignment to edge of the intersected street." edge. In our Subdivision Regulations, we call for Street Intersections, meet this requirement shall be at least 100 feet from the pavement So they're looking for 100 feet distances back from the pavement MR. CARTIER-And what is it here? MRS. PULVER-One hundred, what does it say 100 by? MR. MARTIN-Well, what is that distance from the edge of your property now to the entrance, the edge of the entrance on Glenwood Avenue? MR. MATTHEWS-This right here? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MATTHEWS-About 75 feet. MR. CARTIER-Well, moving it to get it into conformance is merely a paper change, is it not? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-At this point. MR. MATTHEWS-My suggestion. I would probably, at this point in time, prefer to do it, if you're going to require a sign for right turn only, I think I would prefer to straighten this out, because I think it would be fairly difficult for a car to make a complete right hand turn coming out at that angle. MR. MARTIN-And I'd also like to narrow it down. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, pull this over here so we entrance more in here and go this way and straight. MR. LAPOINT-If you just reverse that turn from where it is and move and narrowed your exit, if you're going to make it an exit only, but, again, I don't know if that's the solution. MR. CARTIER-It's not going to be an exit only. It's going to be entrance and right turn exit only. MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. LAPOINT-And you want it square, then. MR. MATTHEWS-If we're going to move this down to this point, we're going to be quite a bit further down the street from the entrance that's right over here for the doctor's office and Ship Shape. See they're almost right directly across from this entrance anyway. MR. MARTIN-Tom, what would be the minimum entrance for a commercial parking lot, the minimum width of an entrance? MR. YARMOWICH-As far as radius goes? MR. MARTIN-Yes. 12 -- --.-' MR. YARMQWICH-It kind of depends on the width of the approaching road. Typically, you need a minimum inside turning radius of 43 feet, is what I recall it to be for a large truck or a bus. Passenger buses are about the worst, coaches. MR. MARTIN-Yes, we're not talking about that situation here. So that would yield what width in the entrance? MR. YARMOWICH-It depends, again, on how wide the pavement is. They're typically allowed to use the whole pavement. You've seen every truck driver do that when necessary. So, if you were to do it without leaving your lane, it would require, it could require, if you were trying to take a right hand turn when traveling west on Glenwood, it would require an entrance of about 45 feet wide, which is impractical for these sorts of sites. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-Because you lose control of traffic. In those cases, the driver of a large vehicle has to wait for the people in the other lane to oblige him so that he can take a wide turn in. MR. MARTIN-That's what I mean. I'd like to see a narrowing of that entrance off of Glenwood. Do as you say, straighten it there and then pull in that curb from Bay Road substantially, or lengthen it. MR. CAIMANO-Everything else all right? MR. CARTIER-Has anybody else got any questions or comments? Okay. We can conduct a SEQRA. RESOWTlOI WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS IW)E RESOWTlON NO. 27-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: an additional cOEercial office space of 5600 sq. ft. at the comer of Bay and Glenwood, and WHEREAS, thi s Pl anning Board has determined that the proposed project and Pl anning Board acti on is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the official compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion. I think I will remind you that we want to reference Tom's comments from Rist-Frost and signage and changing location of the entrance on Glenwood Avenue. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-91 JOHN P. MATTHEWS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 13 "--' -../ For additional commercial office space, 5600 square, on the corner of Bay Road and Glenwood Avenue, sUbject to Items 1 through 4 of the engineer's letter dated 23rd May 1991. That the applicant agrees to move the eastern most boundary of the Glenwood Avenue entrance and exit to a point perpendicular to the natural traffic lane. The applicant agrees to erect right turn only signs at the Glenwood exit. The applicant has to meet with the Chairman of the Beautification Committee. That the applicant submit a revised plan to the Planning Department within two weeks. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 28-91 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA ROBERT R. CLARK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ON VANDUSEN ROAD BETWEEN WZERNE AND CORINTH ROADS AT SANDERS ROAD TO ADD AN 18 n. BY 24 n. ADDITION FOR USE AS AN OFFICE. TAX MAP NO. 126-1-57 LOT SIZE: 4.35 ACRES SECTION 4.02D-N ROBERT CLARK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 28-91, Robert R. Clark, May 17, 1991, Meeting Date: May 28, 1991 "The request is to add an 18 ft. by 24 ft. addition to an existing structure in an exi sting 1 i censed junkyard. The property is on VanDusen and Sanders Road. The appl i cant al so intends to modify the entrance to the facility for greater security. Patrons will enter from VanDusen Road and park in the fenced parking area. This will provide the owner with greater control of the area. The statement attached to the application which is signed by Mr. Clark addresses the questions listed in Section 5.070. This plan appears to be an improvement for the facility. 1. The addition will be compatible with the existing site. 2. Vehicles will be more controlled in their access of the site. A fenced in parking area is provided and one entrance will be closed off. 3. Parking will be improved. 4. Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5. Runoff from the addition should not be a problem given the area of the lot. 6. Municipal water is provided and on lot septic is shown. 7. There will be no change in plantings or buffering. 8. There is emergency access through a gate in the fence. 9. Flooding and ponding is not a concern." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom, did you have any engineering comments? MR. YARMOWICH-No. There was no engineering review. MR. CARTIER-Okay. This is not subject to Warren County. Okay. Would the applicant care to address the Board? MR. CLARK-What would you like me to say, other than I just am looking for an application to put the building up. That's it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's it? Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-This building is temporarily up in the air at this point? MR. CLARK-It sure is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I assume, because it didn't show on the plan, I assume that this is going to be brought down, so that the first step is not anything like it is at the present time. Is that correct? MR. CLARK-No, right. There will be foundation under it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. YORK-Mr. Chairman, I do have a letter here, I don't know if you have it in your packet, from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Access For the Handicapped? MR. CARTIER-No. I don't have it. MRS. YORK-And it says, "After reviewing the plans for the addition for use as office space, access into the building is needed as well as one handicapped parking space." MR. CLARK-There is a sign there for handicapped parking. 14 --- MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CLARK-That's already there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is that it? Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a Short Form SEQRA on this application. RESOWTlON NO. 28-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: to add an 18 by 24 ft. addition for use as an office by ROBERT CLARK on VanDusen Road between Luzeme and Corinth Road at Sanders Road, and WHEREAS, thi s Pl anning Board has determined that the proposed project and Pl anning Board acti on 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 regulation 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 May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE 28-91 ROBERT R. CLARK, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To add an 18 ft. by 24 ft. addition for use as an office. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Karla, the gentleman who's representing Regan and Denny said that you'd be willing to go get him. MS. CORPUS-Yes. Did you want to wait until the end of the agenda to put him on? He indicated to me that he was going to go last. MR. CAIMANO-He wanted to be at the end. MR. CARTIER-He wants to get moved to the end? 15 ~ MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Fine. Thank you. MS. CORPUS-While I have the Board's attention, I have to ask the question. Did someone mention a tabling, is it of an Off Premises Sign? MR. CARTIER-That's correct. Yes, 2-91. MS. CORPUS-The applicant has requested that? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MS. CORPUS-I would recommend the Board adopt a resolution. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We'll do that when we get to it on the agenda, okay? Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 29-91 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA F. T. COLLINS OIlIER: F. T. I E.P. COLLINS 278 BAY ROAD TO CONVERT A PORTION OF THE VACANT WAREHOOSE INTO A WHOLESALE IIJSINESS. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 105-1-12 LOT SIZE: 6.23 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 29-91, F.T. Collins, May 17, 1991, Meeting Date: May 28, 1991 "The request is to utilize 4,500 sq. ft. of a Light Industrial space as a wholesale furniture store. The Board should ascertain if this is to be wholesale or retail. The appl ication on page 2 states retail as well as the site plan, but there is an affidavit which states the business will be 51 percent wholesale. This inconsistency is certainly an oversight but should be clarified since the application is in error. The zoning is Light Industrial which does allow for wholesale but not retail. The Zoning Administrator has indicated that site plan review is necessary. The letter from the Zoning Administrator directs the applicant to request waivers from stonnwater management and drainage (calculations). The applicant has done this, although waivers can only be granted by the Planning Board from subdivision requirements. Since the facility is in existence and no exterior or site changes are anticipated, drainage should not change from the existing condition (and this shouldn't be a problem). The property is located off of Bay Road between C.R. Bard and Super Shop and Save. The plan submitted reveals an item which may not be significant but which has to be mentioned. The septic system appears to be located under the gravel parking for 30 cars. The Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance states, "No component of a leaching facility shall be located under driveways, roads, parking areas, or areas subject to heavy loading". (page 6, Section 3.020B). The driving area for vehicles going to the furniture store will be utilizing this area. David Hatin has indicated that this regulation may be undergoing a change to allow for leaching facilities under parking areas if an engineer signs the plans. The gravelled area was in existence last month, but it is difficult to determine if it was placed there in anticipation of a change in use or it preexisted the 1982 Sewage Disposal Ordinance. The Board may want to make the applicant aware of this. This application was reviewed with regard to Section 5.070. 1. The structures on the property are in existence. No new lighting is proposed according to the plan. The Board may want to ask about the hours of operation of the furniture store to ascertain if lighting will have to be provided for evening hours. If lighting is anticipated, it should be indicated on the plan. The signage should be in conformance with the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. 2. The vehicular traffic access should be identified. The parking lot the east (front) of the building serves the warehouses and has loading docks. Access to the proposed furniture store should be separate. There are no dividers or traffic controls indicated. A patron of the furniture store would have the option of driving through the unpaved parking/loading area, around the building or utilizing the Super Shop and Save paved parking lot adjacent to the property. The Board may want to el iminate any potential for access through another property. 3. The Zoning Administrator has indicated that it appears that the existing parking area is sufficient. Loading areas for the furniture store are not identified. 4. Pedestrian access should not be a problem. 5. Storm drainage facilities are existing and no change is anticipated. 6. A well is identified on the lot. 7. The facility is light industrial and not very visible from Bay Road. The plan does not indicate that any new landscaping is intended. 8. Emergency access appears sufficient. 9. The land is relatively level and all the structures are preexisting. Ponding, flooding, and erosion potential are not a concern." MR. CARTIER-Engineering comments, there were none I assume? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have a copy of a letter to Michael O'Connor from Pat Crayford, April 17, 1991 "Dear Michael: I reviewed the Affidavit of Anne B. Dwyer dated April 12, 1991 stating that the proposed use of a portion of the above referenced parcel is primarily a wholesale business. The Light Industrial Zoning permits wholesale business with Site Plan Review. Section 2.020, Definition 315, of the Queensbury 16 -- --- Zoning Ordinance, states: that 'wholesale business' means establishments or places of business primarily engaged in selling merchandise to retailers, to industries, commercial institutions or professional business users or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers in buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to such individuals or companies. Ann B. Dwyer's Affidavit states that 51% of this proposed wholesale business is derived from selling merchandise to retailers, industries, commercial institutions or other professional business users, or to other wholesalers. Therefore, wholesale business is the primary use. A Use Variance would not be required, and it would appear that an Area Variance would not be needed as the existing parking area is large and the existing structure will be used. Site Plan Review will be required per Section 4.020-N as explained in the enclosed referral form dated April 17, 1991. A recolllllendation to waive drainage and stonnwater management would have to be initiated by your client directly to the Planning Board. John Goralski could assist you in this request. Enclosed you will find the Site Plan application and submittal date sheet. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to phone me." Would the applicant care to comment, please. MR. CAIMANO-Warren County approved. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. With me is Frank Collins who is the owner of the property and Larry Dwyer who is the principle of the proposed tenant of the property. If I can, let me set what we're talking about first. This is Bay Road out here and this is a larger map than, probably, what you had, but it is a survey of the total holding of Mr. and Mrs. Collins and maybe gives you a better idea of the layout of their entire holding along that street. They have frontage on Bay Road. They come along by Brennan's Quick Print building, which is also owned by them. They come into the back and there is a large building which, up to this time, has been used for warehousing. There are three separate buildings within that building, I'm told. There is 35,000 square feet in two other buildings that is used for warehousing and still is used for warehousing. In the particular building that we're talking about, which is shown on the small map, which I think was attached to the application, there is a total of 9600 square feet, and I may have that wrong, 14,000 square feet, and of that, 9600 square feet is still used for warehouse or storage. What we're talking about is a small portion in the rear of that building which is 4500 square feet and principally what we're talking about is a wholesale operation of furniture. Mr. Dwyer envisions that he will operate probably six days a week. He'll operate from 10 am to 7 pm on weekdays. On Saturdays he'll operate from 10 am to 5 pm. He's tal king about probably 10 to 15 peopl e, maximum, that he expects to see during the day. This will be a displaÿ area, if you will, for wholesale sale of furniture, principally, or primarily wholesale sale of furniture. There will be some retail sales, but it still will be a wholesale business as is outlined within the definitions that we have. MR. CARTIER-Let me ask you the question, right there. How do you determine that it's 51 percent wholesale and 49 percent retail? Is that on the basis of sales? Is it on the basis of square footage? How are you determining that? MR. O'CONNOR-In this instance, we're suggesting that it be based on sales. We will sell to people who have a retail certificate of at least 51 percent. If you talk about square footage, you're talking less than 10 percent of the total building. I don't know how else you want to try and look at it. MR. CAIMANO-He meant square footage of the area in question, but sales is the way to do it. MR. O'CONNOR-The Definition of Wholesale speaks to sales and that's why we refer to that and try to key on that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. A variance was appl ied for and it was not granted, based on hardship, for retail sales. I guess what I want to know is, how do we avoid this thing suddenly spilling over into more retail sale than wholesale, in which case, the variance process has been gotten around by way of Planning Board approval. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The make up of the business has honestly not changed, as I understand it, from Day One. Probably, they should not have made the application for the Use Variance in the very first instance. They did though, and that's of record. I think it's going to be enforcement, the same as anything else. We have rules and regulations. We've filed an affidavit that says that our sales will be primarily wholesale. Our books are subject to audit. Our books are subject to review at any time and we would be put to that burden of proof and we understand that. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. My only, I guess, and I'm speaking for me alone, here, not necessarily the Board, is that since there are retail sales that are going to take place here and I'm assuming the possibility of an increase in retail sales, that we need to look at this from the perspective of being a retail outlet and deal with it on that basis. MR. MARTIN-You mentioned the operating hours. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. 17 '-' --' MR. MARTIN-Is that open to the general public 100 percent of that time, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and 100 percent of the merchandise in the store will be available to the general public? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, either the public or other business customers can purchase it. MRS. PULVER-But, Mike, what you're saying is that the prices on the furniture will all remain the same whether you come in and you have a Vendor Number or? MR. O'CONNOR-I can't answer that question. LARRY DWYER MR. DWYER-No. MRS. PULVER-No? So the prices are going to change as well? MR. DWYER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-So it won't be wholesale selling retail? MR. DWYER-All prices will be more retail with a code for wholesale. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So then they would have to produce their Number? MR. DWYER-Retail Certificate. MRS. PULVER-Yes, Retail Certificate in order to buy wholesale. MR. DWYER-Right. MR. CARTIER-That's not a great issue with me. I just want to be clear, I want to be sure that we deal with this on the basis of the retail portion of this and come up with something, that we apply the same standards here. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that the applicant has a problem with that application by the Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It's a very large site. It can accommodate whatever safeguards you think are required or necessary. MR. CARTIER-Fine. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. As to specific comments that were made, as to what we are talking about, the first comment that I would deal with is the comment that indicates that the property septic system is under a driveway, roadway, or parking area. That is true. I would say that those facil ities probably grandfather any Ordinance that we have in the Town. We're not talking about changing them in any manner. Mr. Collins bought the property in 1978 and those facilities were in at that time. Neither the parking area nor the septic system has been changed drastically in any manner since he purchased it. I do know that the Town Board has before it for public hearing on June 3rd, a proposed amendment to the Septic Ordinance which also will probably answer that question. In the future, all you'll have to show, even for new construction, is that it's properly designed, and you can put your septic under parking, not leaching facilities, but you can put your septic components. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Karla, were you following that? MS. CORPUS-Yes, it's on for public hearing on June 3rd. MR. CARTIER-Back up one, in terms of, no problem that being grandfathered, from a legal point of view, the septic system under the present parking lot? MS. CORPUS-If that is, in fact, true, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, that's grandfathered, thank you. MR. YARMOWICH-However, the Board should make sure that the facil ities as they exi st were adequate for the proposed use at the time. If the use is different at this point in time, that doesn't necessarily grandfather them as adequate for today's use. 18 - ----- MR. CARTIER-True. MR. YARMOWICH-So, depending on how they were installed prior to Mr. Collins purchasing it, it could have some bearing on it's acceptability. MR. CARTIER-Do you know what's there now, in terms of a septic system? FRANK COLLINS MR. COLLINS-I'm Frank Collins the owner of the property. At the time the septic system was constructed, it was a steel fabricating shop which had maybe 20, 30 people. It was Dempsey's Lock and Steel business, and it's a great big septic field down there. We've never had a problem with it and right now all we have on it is just two water closets for the warehouse personnel. MR. CARTIER-How big is the tank? Do you have any idea? MR. COLLINS-The tank is, they made it out of block, it's like 18 feet long, 6 feet wide, 6 feet deep. I've never seen it, but that's what Jimmy Dempsey told me and he has a big, heavy, concrete slab on top of it and he said we'll never have to worry about it because they had their steel trucks and everything driving over it all the time. MR. CARTIER-How old is it? Do you know? MR. COLLINS-Probably, they moved up there in '55 and they started the steel business maybe about in '62. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. COLLINS-And they were only in business for maybe eight years, ten years. MR. CARTIER-Tom, have you heard anything that makes you think we need to take a closer look at what's underground? MR. YARMOWICH-It's difficult to tell, from the description, whether or not this is an increase in use and that it used to be a steel shop employing many employees, which could be a relatively dirty business, in terms of sanitary requirements, it's not likely that a wholesale with a minor retail use would exceed that. There is no question, though, that the description that Mr. Coll ins provides would make it a substandard system by today's criteria, but that doesn't change the fact that it's probably going to receive less use than it originally had. MR. CARTIER-Are you suggesting that it should be upgraded? MR. YARMOWICH-I'm suggesting that as long as it's not shown to be a failing system, there's no requirement in this Town that can require it to be upgraded until it's use increases. MR. MARTIN-In layman's terms, it's preexisting and we don't have to worry about it. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. It's a 4900 gallon tank, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And if we buy into this wholesale business argument, I think that would certainly fall under. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So the septic issue has been sati sfi ed, I guess, as far as thi s Board's concerned. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Go to the lights. MR. O'CONNOR-We did not show 1 ighting on the map. What we would suggest, if it would be satisfactory to the Board, and let me basically just step back a minute. What we're talking about, principally, is daytime operation, but we can provide lighting, okay, and what we have talked about is putting 1 ighting on the exteri or of the buil ding on these three corners, here, whi ch will show the travel way around to it, and show the parking area behind it. MR. CAIMANO-What's the hours of operation? MR. O'CONNOR-Until 7 pm on weekdays. MR. CAIMANO-You're not talking about daytime operation after September. MR. CARTIER-That's right. 19 ---- MR. O'CONNOR-If that is satisfactory, we would be happy to provide that. MR. MARTIN-I think that would be an improvement to the area. It's a dark corner down there. MR. YARMOWICH-You have to have a light at every entrance for a commercial establishment, by code. MR. CAIMANO-It's safety for you, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. When you talk of entrances, if you went down and visited the site, on the very back where we're talking about, there are two boarded up areas. One is toward the Shop and Save side of the, that little extension of the building. That would be removed and an overhead door operation will be put in there with proper lighting and the wooden exterior that's plugged up on the other side of that extension will be removed and a passenger door will be put in there, with proper 1 ighting. So we can have lighting over those two doorways and lighting on the three exterior corners of the building. If you thought lighting through the parking light we're required, we're amenable to that. We think that that will adequately do the job. The question as to vehicle traffic, perhaps this map here shows better what we're proposing. This is an actual survey. It shows a crushed stone driveway. It shows it coming around this side of the building, to the back, to the parking area. MR. CARTIER-But at present, there's nothing to indicate that's how you get back there. The question is, how is Joe or Josephine Public driving off the Bay Road, going to find their way back to this building? MR. O'CONNOR-I've indicated that we will need some directional signs with arrows to show back through there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And we'd be amenable to directional signs. It is unpaved. There is no plan to pave it. So it's not something that we can mark, necessarily, on surface, but we can put directional signs up. MR. CARTIER-Okay. While we're talking about that, what about access from the Shop and Save? MR. O'CONNOR-At present, there is no relationship or agreement between Shop and Save and the property owner. The people with Shop and Save, the local manager, we've shown him what we plan on doing. He has no problem with it and actually endorses it, thinks it would be good for the neighborhood, okay. To go through their corporate structure, I don't know if we will ever get into swapping some parking for entrance. When they first opened, and I was a little surprised. I didn't realize that even after they had opened and we're under operation, for some time they had leased spaces from us for employee parking. MR. CARTIER-Well, the issue is, is this Board comfortable with the possibility that traffic is going to be accessed to this place from Shop and Save and vice versa? I can picture people driving through here to get a quick zip into the side of Shop and Save. MR. CAIMANO-It seems to me that it's up to the management of Shop and Save and the Collins'. I mean, it's their property. They're right next to each other. It's very similar to whether you and I put a fence next to each other. If we don't like each other, we don't want people going through. MR. CARTIER-Well, no, I don't think it's the same because we're not going to have the public going across your property line and mine back there. MR. CAIMANO-But if the two property owners don't care, why should we care? MRS. PULVER-Yes, and it's a little bit like the Million Dollar Mile where we were encouraging people to go around behind the building into the other property to make an exit. MR. CAIMANO-Right. I mean, last week we encouraged people. MR. CARTIER-So, the question becomes, because the question is there, do we want to encourage this or do we want to discourage this or how do we want to handle this? MRS. PULVER-I think we should just leave it alone. MR. HAGAN-What are we going to start getting involved on where your kids are going to play and where my kids are going to play? MRS. PULVER-Lets just leave it alone and let them. MR. CARTIER-Fine. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no plans, is my only answer. I don't have a definitive answer for you. 20 ----- --../ MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Three, I think, is a positive comment. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Excuse me, Mike. It's not only private property. We, as a Board, need to look at this from a public perspective because the public is going to be using this private property. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, I agree with Pete that there are those cases that you have to look at that type of thing, due to capacity and design limitations and so on, but in this particular instance, I don't see a problem with it, but I don't think we, in every case, should just turn our back because the two neighbors are getting along over the issues. MR. CAIMANO-I agree. MRS. PULVER-I agree. MR. CARTIER-Fine. MR. O'CONNOR-Three is a positive comment with the exception that the loading area for the furniture store is not defined. That would be on the entrance way to the north of the extension of the building. That would be the overhead door and that will be the entrance way or unloading area for the 4500 square feet. MR. CAIMANO-Where, here? MR. O'CONNOR-No. Right there. MR. CAIMANO-Here. Because we can't do it here. That looks like trees and that's the property line. MR. O'CONNOR-That's also the property line. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-It would be right here. MR. MARTIN-Off of the west side of the building, right? MR. O'CONNOR-It would be the very northwest exposure of the building, the area that had the plywood sheeting there. That will be an overhead door, and that will be the load; ng area. It wi 11 be north of this little extension. MR. MARTIN-And naturally your del ivery tractor trail ers and so on are going to enter and exit through your property and not through Shop and Save, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, with one correction. We will be warehousing off site, okay. We will not have tractor trailer delivery to the site, as we propose our operation at this point. We will have a 16 foot box vehicle that will bring replacement goods into the showroom or goods that have been purchased and selected that were stored off site for pick up if people are not going to have us deliver. MR. CAIMANO-Regard1ess of the type of vehicle, on the record, you are saying that your entrance and exit for your trucks will not be through the Shop and Save parking lot? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I have no problem with that. Four, I think, is not a problem. Five, we did file, with the Board, a request for waiver, and perhaps that's too strong a language. We would request that the Board consider the app1 ication and require nothing further of us, as far as storm drainage is concerned. I think Pat Crayford corrected us, later, saying that she shouldn't be recoll111ending or wasn't really recommending a waiver because the only place she can waive things is under your Subdivision Regulations and not under your Site Plan Review. Six, I don't think, requires cOßll1ent. Seven, does not requ ire comment, except that I wi 11 say that I' vespoken, by phone, wi th Robert Eddy of the Beautification Committee, and he understood the application and thought it was that remote from Bay Road that nothing was needed to be submitted to his Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Eight, I think, doesn't need cOll111ent, and nine, I don't think needs comment. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-If there are other concerns, we'll try to address them. MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any other questions? 21 -- -..-' MR. HAGAN-The parking situation is kind of vague, here. that you have there now? Are you going to increase the parking spaces MR. O'CONNOR-No. We're not going to increase the parking ~, okay. We have a good number of parking, however you laid it out. It's not a hard surface, it's gravelled. MR. MARTIN-So, it will be unmarked. MR. O'CONNOR-It will be unmarked parking. We can mark, to some degree, if you want. I've suggested that perhaps they park along the line with Shop and Save because Shop and Save has marked parking on the other side for, maybe, employees, and you gö front to front, but there's a good deal of space back there. I don't know what the demands will be. There's nothing on the schedule. MR. HAGAN-I hate to ask this, but what about handicapped parking facilities? MR. O'CONNOR-We showed some handicapped right next to the vehicle entrance. MR. HAGAN-I don't see it. MR. CARTIER-What is the size? MR. O'CONNOR-You're talking, if it's a standard 15 feet? MR. CARTIER-16 by 20, an 8 foot slot with 8 feet next to it, 20 feet, a total of 16 by 20. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We have no problem with two handicapped immediately to the south of the entrance way for the pedestrian traffic. MR. CARTIER-And this building will be handicapped accessible? MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, it's ground level. MR. CARTIER-Ground level. No step? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CAIMANO-We're trying to do an analysis. Somebody asked a question about parking, and we're trying to kind of cut it in half for a retail store and a wholesale. He's got plenty of spaces for a wholesale, but not near enough for a retail, if you assume 50 percent of the footage, which you can't really do. I mean, we'd be just guessing. MR. CARTIER-Well, we're going to mix apples and oranges here. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MR. CARTIER-For the purpose of wholesale retail, we're doing it on the basis of sales, but in terms of parking, you're going to have to do it on the basis of square footage. So if you want to calculate the square footage required for retail, you're going to have to use the square footage of the piece of the property being used for retail. MR. CAIMANO-We did, 4800. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Proposed retail area, 80 feet by 60 feet, 4800. MR. MARTIN-You might be better to pull it off from the commercial shopping center scale. MR. CAIMANO-I mean, maximum, you'd need 48 spaces, is what I'm saying. MR. CARTIER-That's for retail only? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but he only needs five for wholesale. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-It's very vague. MR. CAIMANO-It's very vague. 22 -- -- MR. O'CONNOR-That whole backyard is actually cleared. It's gravelled. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. MARTIN-There's plenty of room there for parking. MR. CAIMANO-I think there's plenty of room. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but what I'm saying is, we're going to have to stipulate the space that's needed because at some point I can see this property being developed later on for some other uses and I don't want to see us get into a bind where we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, in terms of parking for later on. This, in and of itself, needs to be able to stand alone, as far as parking is concerned. MR. MARTIN-I think a reasonable calculation is, you have 9600 square feet total, right, that's going to service the store? MR. O'CONNOR-No. We have 4500 square feet for store. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The 9600 square feet is a separate tenant that's strictly warehousing. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Well, we did that wrong, then. MR. MARTIN-Okay so 4500 divided by two. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. It's showing at 4S00 here, SO by 60. So, it's 4S00. MR. COLLINS-Well, that's the toilet area. MR. CAIMANO-Well, 4S00. It doesn't make any difference. That's 2400. He's got plenty of spaces. MR. MARTIN-Just for the purpose of establishing a benchmark, I'd like to see, and I'll just throw this out for discussion, one space for each 1,000 square feet, according to the wholesale calculation out of the schedule and then picking up on the commercial or shopping center schedule, five and a half spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor space, because I think this is the type of a store that you would see in a commercial or shopping center. MR. CAIMANO-Thirteen plus five, so you've got to have eighteen spaces. MR. MARTIN-Just so we can establish a benchmark for future reference. MR. CARTIER-Well, we have a furniture store down the road that we just approved. What criteria did we apply to that? MR. MARTIN-I think it was the commercial or shopping center criteria. MR. CARTIER-Lee, do you remember? MRS. YORK-I would hesitate to make a statement on that. MRS. PULVER-That was Kelly Carte. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, the applicant says he'll stipulate 30 with two being handicapped and for what we can read here, that seems to be more than sufficient. MR. CARTIER-Okay. As long as we're not changing gears, here, that we're using one set of criteria for one furniture store and another set for another furniture store. That's my only concern. MR. MARTIN-I think furniture stores would typically fall under our commercial shopping center. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-As I recall, though, Kelly Carte, we can look up the minutes if we want to verify it, but that whatever the parking requirement was for that they were willing to do. However, they felt that it was many more spaces than they needed because of the nature of their business. MR. CAIMANO-Right. 23 --- ~ MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-You just don't have 30 people in your store all the time buying furniture, unless you're having a close out sale, I would suspect. MR. CARTIER-Okay. As long as we're being consistent, is my concern. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Lets do that, 30 spots including two handicaps. MRS. PULVER-As I recall, with the Carte, they said they would probably need no more than X, and we said, okay, but if the demand was great, we would require you to put in the additional spaces and they agreed to that. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Well, the other consideration with them was that we were creating the space and if they were to ever leave and we had another new tenant, what would be the? MR. CARTIER-Right, they were leaving green space. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-Are we ready to entertain a Short Form SEQRA? MR. CAIMANO-Do we need a SEQRA on this? MR. CARTIER-Yes. It's unlisted. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. RESOLUTION NO. 29-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: by F.T. and E.P. COLLINS, to convert a portion of the vacant warehouse into a wholesale business, and WHEREAS, thi s Pl anni ng Board has determined that the proposed project and Pl anning Board acti on is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE 24 -----~ -- MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion, now. Let me see if I've got it al1 here. We want to mention lighting, signage, handicapped parking size, and parking numbers and I believe I've got all of it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-91 F.T. COLLINS, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To convert a portion of the vacant warehouse into a wholesale business, with the following stipulations: Number One, that 1 ighting be instal1ed on the building to conform with conunercial building codes. Two, signage be shown on the plan and installed on-site, directing customers and delivery trucks to the wholesale store. Three, that no fewer than 30 parking spaces be shown on the plan, two of which being sized and identified to accommodate handicapped parking near the entrance to the building. A revised plan be submitted to the Planning Department within two weeks. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 31-91 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA MR-5 NIGRO REAL ESTATE I EMPIRE VIDEO SUPERSTORE OWNER: JOHN NIGRO ROOTE 9, UPPER GLEN STREET, 500 FT. SOOTH OF AVIATION ROAD FOR A 1,000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EMPIRE VIDEO STORE. FOR EXPANSION TO ACCOfIIIJDATE INCREASED MOVIE DISPLAY AREA. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 99-2-1 TAX MAP NO. 102-1-2, 3, 4, 23 LOT SIZE: 11 ACRES SECTION 4.02D-J MACK DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Site Plan Review No. 31-91, Nigro Real Estate & Empire Video Superstore, May 14, 1991, Meeting Date: May 28, 1991 "The application has been reviewed with respect to Section 5.070 E of the Zoning Ordinance. 1 - The present location of the building is not an ideal one. Because the addition is on the rear of the building, the proposal should not exacerbate the problem. 2 - Turning movements to and from the north bound lane of Route 9 are extremely dangerous. A one way flow of traffic on the site would minimize the danger and provide for less confusing on site traffic flow. 3 - Parking was a major issue when the Video Store was originally approved. At that time, the applicants agent indicated that the parking provided was the low end of what was anticipated to be necessary. The problem is not the number of spaces, it is the utilization of the spaces provided. Currently customers tend to block the driving lanes rather than park in the rear of the store. If an entrance at the rear of the store were provided, customers would be more likely to use the rear parking area. 4 - Providing a rear entrance will also improve pedestrian circulation. The parking space closest to the front of the bui 1 ding on the south si de shoul d be el iminated to faci 1 i tate safe pedestrian access. 5 - Stonnwater drainage will be reviewed by the Consulting Engineer." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom, comments please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 23, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering cOl11líents: 1. Although the applicant proposed 60 spaces at the Video Store, only 53 spaces are shown. The last space on the southeast side does not appear usable. It appears to be necessary for pedestri an access to the bui 1 di ng, as i ndi cated by hatching on the pl an. Parking in addition to the 53 spaces is available in the nearby area serving the Nigro center commercial development. 2. The invert of the 8" PVC pipe outletting from the proposed drywell should be shown and the head condition of the pipe should be considered in the SWM design. A calculation is required to establ ish this. 3. The drywell grate elevation and parking lot grading should be provided on the plan to ensure proper drainage. 4. Erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control should be provided." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you, and we have comwents from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped, May 21, 1991 "The scale for handicapped parking is as follows: 1:25 = 1 space, 25:50 = 2 spaces. It appears two handicapped spaces are needed for the number of spaces." Warren County approved this with no comments. Beautification Committee approved this with comments. Mr. Dean, please. MR. DEAN-Good evening. My name's Mack Dean from Morse Engineering and with me tonight is Charlie Mench, operator of Empire Video Stores, and also Mr. Steven Powers, from Nigro Real Estate, owners of the plaza. What brings us here tonight is, of course, beyond the 1,000 square foot addition. It's a need to provide both more space within the store and a wider selection of videos. Ironically, one item that put us into this position is the recent approval and what's under construction now. That's a major competitor which we have not faced before, locally. That also, I think, has some bearing on this project in that it will undoubtedly cut into video sales at Empire Video, you know, common sense alone will tell you that. The percentage of the effect is, of course, not know at this point in time. I would entertain questions at this point. 25 ..../ MR. CARTlER-I think probably the most appropriate thing, at this point, is for you to go through the comments from Staff and address those comments. MR. DEAN-Okay. I would enjoy that opportunity. I had a little bit of a problem with Mr. Goralski's comments, in terms of being a very dangerous turn. Having read the Staff's coments, I contacted the Sheriff's Department and talked to two patrolman who generally cover that area, as well as Major Larry Cleveland who's been both with the Town of Queensbury and the Sheriff's Department for many, many years and I quote from Mr. Cleveland, if we had a problem at that location, I'd know about it, and we don't have a problem at that location with accidents, either on the property or, and he said, the Grand Union, we have had a problem, he said, but at this particular location we have not. MR. CARTIER-Yes. be appropri ate. as we go along. Okay. I don't have a problem with those comments, but I think the suggestion might We're in an area that's going to become more and more heavily impacted by traffic There's no question about that. MR. DEAN-Right. MR. CARTIER-And we might significantly improve that situation if. in fact, we could get into some sort of one way flow here, somehow, where, I don't know off the top of my head, if they go in on the north side and come out on the south side. MR. DEAN-We took a good look at that. The interior patterns, which we had done a few years ago that some members of this Board had reviewed at that time with the same idea of creating that one way flow. One of the problems is that by creating a one way in at, say the north location, then we are disrupting the flow in a major part of the plaza. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I agree. MR. DEAN-And we are forcing people to exit to a right-of-way. MR. CARTlER-I agree. Very val id point. How about reversing. Suppose it's a one way in that way and a. MR. DEAN-The problem arises, here, in that with the beverage center next door. If we were to put exit only. MR. CAIMANO-No, entrance there. MR. DEAN-Entrance only, then people are confused as to what they do once they enter. We kicked around a lot of different ideas and I think it's perceived as more of a hazard than what really exists. We haven't had pedestrian accidents. We haven't had vehicular accidents. MR. CAIMANO-You haven't had a pedestrian accident here only by the grace of God. I mean, you can't walk along the front of the cars. Every time I go there, kids dart out here, not knowing where a car is coming from. MR. DEAN-What I would suggest, also, is we look at other perhaps more serious situations where you do have parking and you have traffic moving, such places as McDonald's, which is a well known short cut to a back street in Town. Northway Plaza, Price Chopper, all of these areas, all these plazas, while different, have similar set ups in that you do have moving vehicle lanes, access lanes, where cars are backing into lanes that have moving vehicles. One that I've had personal experience with is the Queensbury Plaza where, if you enter off Glen Street, it's a straight line to the bank. MR. CAIMANO-But, why don't we stick with this and see if we can solve this problem. MR. DEAN-I'm trying to equate similar situations where vèhicles must back into a driving lane. It's not similar to, perhaps, backing out onto Glen Street or something of that nature, obviously. MR. CARTIER-Well, lets try this. You don't need the mound system anymore, right? MR. DEAN-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Why can't we strip the parking off the side of the building and put it all out in the back in the green space and put an entrance in the rear of the building and somehow that would solve all of that. MR. MARTIN-That's the key. MRS. PULVER-Well, you're taking away your green space now. MR. CARTIER-No. We can trade green space around here. 26 ---- .....,/ MRS. PULVER-You're going to have him rip up the macadam? MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MR. CARTIER-We've done that. MR. DEAN-The problem with two entrances to the building becomes one of security, for one thing. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay, but we're looking at this from a traffic perspective, here, and I understand what you're saying. MR. DEAN-Right. The two entrances, and we discussed this early on with the client was that very possibility, and it's not so much having to hire additional help, it's a real security problem. You're dealing with small videos. MR. CARTIER-Fine. You get rid of the front entrance. You get rid of the front door. Okay. The present entrance is right here, correct? MR. DEAN-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-In the center. MR. DEAN-In the center of the building. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So you dump that and you put the entrance here. Now you don't have two entrances. You've got one. Okay. You strip these off. You put them back here. You eliminate all of this backing out into these two lanes. Everybody parks here and they come in this way. MR. CAIMANO-It's ideal, but obviously they're not going to do that. MR. CARTIER-Why not? MR. CAIMANO-Cost. MRS. PULVER-Well, yes, it's going to be very expensive. MR. DEAN-What you've done is to create remote parking, create even more remote parking. One of the concerns mentioned by Staff was that once you get up into this area you're so remote from the entrance, that it's not a desirable place to park and some people have a tendency to park places they probably shouldn't and I think by moving back into this area, once again, you're in excess of 300 feet from even the rear of the store. MR. CARTIER-Well, they can walk into get their aerobic videos. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say. I kind of disagree with that because I know with the mall I've had to park many, many feet away and I would still go to the mall and I probably would still go, although I don't rent very many movies, but I know it woul d not keep my son or my husband away from renting movies if they had to park over by Wheels. MR. CAIMANO-As a matter of fact, I park over here almost all the time because I can't get over here. You almost never can get a parking space along there, on the side. MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, even to the rear of that green space is only 200 feet anyhow. MRS. PULVER-It is going to change the permeability. I do think it's very expensive for them to have to rip up their parking. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. Maybe they don't. Don't we now have 20 percent perm? MR. YARMOWICH-30. MR. DEAN-30. MR. YARMOWICH-Thirty is the requirement. MR. CARTIER-I thought it was changed to 20. MRS. PULVER-Only in the Plaza Commercial. 27 '--' --- MR. MARTIN-I fully agree with the second entrance, security or whatever has to be done, because the problem is, people are not going to park out in the back here and then have to walk all the way around to the front. They're either going to do what they do now, which is park along the beverage center. You can see the signs on the side of the building asking people not to park there, or they're going to park in the bank parking. I've done it myself. MR. CAIMANO-I have, too. MR. DEAN-Well, the situation with the bank parking is the bank's closed at peak hours of this business. MR. MARTIN-Well, even in the daytime though, they do park there. MR. DEAN-While I agree with private property at the beverage center, the bank is part of the Plaza parking. MR. MARTIN-The other thing is that I think we're seeing a new beast here, on the horizon, of what is commercial use. Video stores are, I think, an animal all of their own, when it comes to parking. You're talking about a high density usage here. On a Saturday night, there, in the winter time, when there's nothing else to do and it's dark and cold and people just stay home and watch movies, that place is jammed. MRS. PULVER-Well, now wait a minute. Then you're saying there's no traffic. Everybody staying home and watching movies or watching t.v. on a cold winter night, there's no traffic. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm tell ing you, at peak hours of this place, and you know it to be true if you've been there on a Saturday night, they're parking right here along this side, here. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but what we're going back to is, yes, I agree. There is parking everywhere, but there is no traffic on Glen Street. There's very little traffic at that time of night on a Saturday night. MR. CARTIER-I don't think the concern is the traffic on Glen Street so much as it is the flow into and out of. MR. MARTIN-Internal. MRS. PULVER-Well, and even the other mall that's there and the Grand Union on a Saturday night, I mean, that's not high peak grocery time. MR. MARTIN-No, I'm not tal king about, I'm tal king about the immediate space within 150 or 200 feet of this building at high peak times of a Friday and Saturday night, is absolutely dreadful. MR. DEAN-This isn't impacted, necessarily, with the Plaza. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. DEAN-Those peak hours vary. They are different in that most of the stores in the Plaza are typical daytime, whereas the video stores are late afternoon, early morning drop off's. MR. MARTIN-I just fully agree with the rear entrance. I think it's an excellent suggestion. MR. CAIMANO-I'd like to suggest that you ask the applicant to go back to square one, without a major expense, and explore the rear entrance and the change of traffic patterns. One of the things, that I'd like to see, if you're going to allow parking here, is to at least let pedestrians walk in front of the cars. Now, was this green space put here because of the lack of permeability? MR. DEAN-No. That's always been. MR. CARTIER-No. They had it. MR. CAIMANO-If that's not there, at least you can walk along here as a safety island. Do you understand what I mean? MR. CARTIER-There's another thing, Mack, in looking through this, I recall somehow, when we went through this and we spent a lot of time, you remember this, talking about the amount of perm. MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And we came up with 30 percent for the whole site, right? MR. DEAN-For the entire Plaza. 28 ~ MR. CARTIER-For the entire Plaza. Now we're looking at 25.2 percent green space for just this. Now, what I'm suggesting to you, I'm reading the numbers here, is maybe if you go back and look at the numbers for the whole site and you work with those permeability numbers for the whole site, which is what we made you do the first time around anyway, I think maybe you can re-work this parking without having to worry about tearing up stuff and putting green space in, but I think what you're hearing from this Board is that we want to see a new design on this thing that incorporates a rear entrance that does something to improve this parking along the sides. I haven't, Jim, Ed, do you care to add any comments to this? MR. LAPOINT-I park way out back for convenience. I can't believe people would do what they do. They pull right up in back of cars, sit right by the doorway. I am extremely conscious of kids running out of there myself. I think the ideal situation would be that there were no parking places along the edges and if you didn't have enough parking places, then it's better not to have them along the edge of the building. I think a pedestrian walkway there would be, whether or not you had two entrances or not, would be much more desirable than those parking places, at this point in the game. I can't come up with a way to engineer this situation. MR. CAIMANO-It's difficult. We don't want to put the guy out of business. We just want, an accident's ready to happen, here. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and I think in fairness to the applicant, instead of talking about exploring other possibilities, that we give him very firm ideas of what we expect to see the next time around, here. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I don't think we have that, do we? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-You actually know that you want to take out the Mound and put parking there and a back entrance and that's going to solve the problem? MRS. PULVER-And that's going to be the best thing to do. That's what we're saying, is that we're going to be the architects now. MR. CARTIER-I'm talking about what I'd like to see in a redesign, here. MR. MARTIN-We should be, to an extent though, as a part of the site plan review. MRS. PULVER-I know, but that's what I'm saying, that's what we're saying, right? MR. MARTIN-This is one that needs help, in terms of a design. MR. CARTIER-We're talking about a rear entrance, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Whether or not they leave the front entrance is up to them. If they eliminate the parking along the sides and move it to the rear, that green space back there, they wouldn't need a front entrance. MR. CAIMANO-Except for sale visibility. MR. LAPOINT-Which they don't need. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's up to them. MR. CAIMANO-That's up to them. MR. CARTIER-Okay, what else? MRS. PULVER-The only thing that I would add to that, Peter, and I agree with everything that you've said, except that I don't want to create a hardship for the applicant if he can't meet the permeability, to ripping up all that blacktop. MR. CARTIER-No. Fine. I don't have a problem with that either. MR. YARMOWICH-They don't meet the permeability right now. The existing permeability under this proposal is to remain unchanged at 25.2 percent. MRS. PULVER-I know, but we're talking about taking away the green space and adding the side parking to the back. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, that's up to the Board. 29 '- -...-r MR. CARTIER-What I'm saying, Tom, is that the last time we looked at this, when this first came in, we considered the permeability for the entire site, for everything, Present Company and so on and so forth and you do not own this piece of property separately, correct? MR. DEAN-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So he can use that permeabil ity for the entire site and work within those numbers. This 25.2 is showing us just for this location. MR. YARMOWICH-I understand that. I'm not trying to persuade the Board one way or the other. I just thought I might have heard some misunderstanding from what the application was before and as proposed. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-No. I'm just trying to get to that I agree with everything that Peter said, but if we're going to create a hardship on the applicant, where he can't meet our 30 percent permeability right now, that we have to be willing to make some concessions here and I don't want to see that blacktop ripped up along the side of the building, but we can do something so there's no parking there. I mean, put a curb in, or. MR. CARTIER-I agree with what you're saying, but, just, again, so that we're not establishing precedent here, understand that, in the past and I'm not suggesting that we're going to do this to this applicant, in the past we have requi red that blacktop be torn up to get back the requi red perm. We di d it across the road. Okay. That having been said, is there anybody who would like to add another potential revisions? MR. CAIMANO-You might want to open a public hearing. There might be some people here. MR. CARTIER-I'll get to that. MR. MARTIN-I just want to make sure that, it seems to me a fairly substantial comment there, too, about the discrepancy in seven spaces in the parking, the 60 and 53. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DEAN-Yes. Thank you for reminding me. What I had stated in my narrative addendum to the application was that there are 60 spaces at or near the store. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. DEAN-I think Tom might have looked at below the parking on the south side where it says proposed total parking. MR. MARTIN-Right, that's what I was looking at. MR. DEAN-So it might have been somewhat misleading, but if you were to count the spaces at the store, plus the 20 proposed additional, plus 6 that are a little more remote, then you come up with 60. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and also, I'm sure you have copies of the engineer's comments, that those would be something you wish to address in a revision. MR. DEAN-As a matter of fact, we have addressed those comments and have re-done calculations and have also revised our site plan to reflect the elevations that Mr. Yarmowich had requested. I do have copies of those with me tonight, if the Board were so inclined to. MR. CARTIER-No. We don't take revisions. MR. HAGAN-In attempt to reduce one of your hardships you mentioned, it might be helpful in getting you to have a rear entrance. You show two checkout counters al ready. We're not suggesting that you have to add any checkout counters, but you'd have two doors, two checkout counters. You'd still have two checkout counters for security. I don't see where the rear door would add that much of a hardship to you. MR. DEAN-I would like to ask Mr. Mench to answer that. CHARLES MENCH MR. MENCH-I'm Charles Mench from Empire Video. In addressing the rear entrance exit, we've looked at that situation ourselves, as being a possibil ity to maybe alleviating some of the hardship that the front of our store gets right now of a lot of people entering that area. The problem with having an entrance to the back or having the two entrances is, first we have to man two areas at all times and we have live products, we actually have products there where people, even though you have security systems, you have a lot of people, sometimes, that'll just run right out, and that's it. You'll not 30 '--'" ~ see it. So it's a hardship for us to be able to maintain two different areas of the store. MR. CARTIER-We're not saying you have to have two, though, understand that. MR. MENCH-Okay. In putting the entrance to the rear of the store, we feel, psychologically, the standpoint being on Glen Street, our entrance is not in the front, people driving by do not see the hustle and bustle of the store. Psychologically to us, that is the worst place to put an entrance. MR. CAIMANO-In the back, you mean? MR. MENCH-In the back of the store. MR. CARTIER-But you are a well, I could understand that if you were brand new, day one. You are a well established business, okay. MR. MENCH-Well, for us, we're looking at competition, too. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but on the other hand, if I'm driving by and I'm thinking about getting a video and I look now and I see the place is packed, I'm going to keep trucking right on by. On the other hand, if I don't see any cars around, I'm going to say, ah, it's not very busy, I'm going to swing in and get something. So it works both ways. MR. MENCH-Well, I think what would also happen is if you eliminate the parking on both sides, I think people are going to park here anyway. MR. CAIMANO-Park where? MR. MENCH-Along the sides. MR. CARTIER-Not if there's a barrier of some sort. Not if we eliminate the parking. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. You can barrier it. MR. CARTIER-We're not talking about playing games, here, of just kind of paint the lines out and pretend it's okay and let people slip in and out of there. We're talking about doing something to prevent people from parking there. MR. DEAN-Would the Board entertain maintaining parking on the south side, since this is primarily a right-of-way and not a main access point to the plaza, and I'm talking about these spaces? MR. CARTIER-Is there a problem with people backing out of there into traffic? MR. CAIMANO-It doesn't seem to be as bad as this. This seems to be very tight. MR. DEAN-Yes, because it is one of the major access points to the plaza. There's no argument. MR. CAIMANO-I'll tell you, I constantly try to walk up here on that little boardwalk, but this prevents me from doing that. If I could walk up here on this boardwalk, which prevents cars from coming in. MR. MENCH-If there were a walkway that goes all the way down through here, would that help out? MR. CAIMANO-I'd be a lot happier with it, I'll tell you that, that's me, though, speaking. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I don't want to see that parking, I want to see that parking on the north side of the building el iminated and moved to the rear. I think that would solve the internal traffic flow there. MRS. PULVER-I could be talked into it, if they could walk all the way around. I could be talked into the parking if they could go all the way around. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I also. MR. MENCH-Personally, I'd rather have a separate rear entrance to take off the pressure from the front, so that we have this accessibility for the people that want to park in back, here, they can come in and out and, I mean, I would rather man that and have the front and still have that accessibility up front, here, but have the rear entrance in back, here. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Right. You've got four checkout counters anyway. So put two front and two back. MR. MENCH-I mean, this will alleviate a lot of the congestion we have up front, anyway. I would rather have that. 31 -- MR. MARTIN-That's what creates your dangerous situation is that one entrance people are swelling to the front. They're trying to get as close to the entrance as they can, especially in the winter time when it's colder and it's poorly lit in the back. They don't feel safe back there. They are trying to get closer to the front and they'll create a hazardous situation to do that, but if you have a well 1 it back entrance, then they'll feel just as fine parking in the back and making use of where most of your parking now would be. MRS. PULVER-You can still have a back entrance and not have any checkouts back there, just an entrance. MR. MENCH-Security wise, we've talked to other stores that have tried doing this, it is very difficult, in order to, you have a security system, you have to have one way in, one way out, always. You can't have the same door going in and out because other wise people returning videos, the beeper goes off, people going out, you just can't, you have to man somebody there all the time because these things are worth a lot of money and people love to take them home without paying for them, without checking them out. So you do have to man it and that's an expense for us. Another thing I wanted to add to this. I don't think that Mack has addressed is, we're proposing putting a significant drop box location somewhere in the back of the store, this part of the area here. So, right now, probably a third of the people that come in our stores, they come up here, they pull up and wherever they can, here, they run in, they drop their video. and they leave. Right now, we have about six locations all over Glens Falls to drop off movies so you don't have to come back here, but we're also proposing putting one back here to alleviate that problem up here. MR. CAIMANO-Do you have drop off's other ways? MR. MENCH-Yes. I've got six different ones, but what we'd like to see is, if we have to put a second entrance back here, that's something that we've considered, but we'd like to be able to keep our main entrance up front. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that, as long as you eliminate. as you said, the north parking, and move it to the rear of the building and the south parking I can leave alone for now. I don't have a problem with that. I'm talking for me, to get this thing by me, you need a rear entrance, you need to move the north parking slots to the rear of the building somewhere. MR. MENCH-Can we eliminate maybe just part of these? MR. CAIMANO-Come back with a new plan. MR. CARTIER-Well, I don't want to keep running this guy back and forth to death, here. MR. MARTIN-Right, no. I agree with that. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we're giving mixed signals, here. I'm happy, I could see these spots from here back, if this was el iminated. I really could. If you el iminate these spots up front, you've el iminated a lot of danger. I coul d see that. If you took these spots from right where thi s starts, back, 1 eft them, and took this out of here, make this a walkway. It's a walkway already. It's that wooden walkway. MR. MENCH-Well, this here is planted. This area is planted. MR. CAIMANO-I know that, but this is wooden. MR. MENCH-This is wooden, right. MR. CAIMANO-Extend that back so that the people have a safety island. Now if they don't have to walk back here and don't have parking here, because that's a real dangerous spot. MR. CARTIER-All right. Would it also help to eliminate those first few parking areas on the south side the same way? MR. CAIMANO-Here? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. So that this, now, is retail space and no parking. Everything runs back there. MR. LAPOINT-For some reason, I never see a problem on the south side. MR. CAIMANO-I don't either. MR. LAPOINT-I go there a lot, and for some reason it's only the north side. MR. MARTIN-The reason why you don't see a problem on the south side is because there are so many people bumping over the beverage center parking lot. 32 '--' -.../ MR. DEAN-Well, that works both ways, too, Tom, in that, a lot of people stop for some beverage and a movie as well. MR. MARTIN-No. I'm not saying they're violating, but I'm just saying as a practical matter, there is physically more available space for cars to park on that south side, given the shared usage with the beverage center, and I'm not saying that customers don't use both locations, but that's why there's that less pressure. MR. LAPOINT-Well, we'd have to keep the handicapped there, right? I mean, that's almost always empty, correct? MR. DEAN-Well, we could very easily move the handicapped to this area. MR. CAIMANO-To the back door. MR. DEAN-No problem at all. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm with Nick. If I can get rid of that green and I can wal k in front of those cars, I'm with Nick. MR. CAIMANO-How about you? Would you buy that? MR. CARTIER-I missed. MR. CAIMANO-If we eliminate these spots, and start the parking here, would you buy that? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I can live with that. Yes, I think I'd also want to move the four or five on the south side too. Lets solve problems before they become a problem. I think, you know, there's going to be more expansion in this place. There's going to be more traffic. MR. DEAN-If we take out the first four here, it will bring us almost to that corner. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And how many up the top side? MR. MARTIN-And I want a rear entrance. MR. HAGAN-Again, I have to ask, why are you eliminating the ones on the south side? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I don't see that either. MR. DEAN-You know, you've got 60 feet from here to here, to the first space. MR. CARTIER-I'm trying to look down the road and at some point, I can see a curbing separating the beverage center parking from this right-of-way, and you may crowd that. MR. DEAN-It's not really feasible, in that, this a right-of-way to the rear, but also for tractor trailer deliveries, the beverage center and so forth, it gives them absolutely no maneuverability by blocking that off. MR. CARTIER-Well, if you have tractor trailers running back and forth in there. MR. LAPOINT-They've got delivery hours, too. MR. DEAN-They've got their early morning delivery hours. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I think I can see, okay, moving the four on the north side, giving ourselves pedestrian access and leaving the south as is, that's one, for me. MRS. PULVER-I'll go for that. MR. HAGAN-I agree with that. MR. MARTIN-I'll go with that, too. MR. CARTIER-I'll live with that. MR. CAIMANO-I'm happy with that. MR. DEAN-Okay. 33 --- ~ MR. MARTIN-That and a rear entrance. MR. DEAN-And a rear entrance. MR. MARTIN-Now, the other thing I might add, since you introduced the idea of drop boxes, I don't know how you coul d work it, but if you coul d get some way that you had 1 i ke a drive through drop off box where people don't get out. MR. MENCH-It would be a drive through. MR. CAIMANO-Good. MR. DEAN-Exactly. It would be similar to a mail box. MR. MENCH-Our whole purpose of being here and doing this, besides adding onto the building to help the customers have more elbow room, make it more functionally efficient. We know there's, obviously, parking problems there, but we also want to balance that. We don't want to eliminate the front, totally, but give us secondary entrance in the back. MR. to\I\RTIN-The problem is that there's only one entrance to the building. It's not the location of it, it's that there's one there. There should be two, especially if you're going to expand. MRS. PULVER-All right, well. that's what we've just said. We want a back entrance, remove the. MR. CAIMANO-Move seven spots. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And come up with some physical way of preventing people from parking there. MR. DEAN-No problem. Curbing along. MR. MENCH-Yes, just do the curbing. MR. DEAN-I would ask the Board to consider, by installing a drop box, we're eliminating the need for parking spaces and I believe there is a proposal before the Town Board to reduce the width of parking spaces. You probably know where I'm headed. MR. CARTIER-I can hear what's coming, and, unfortunately, we can't. MR. CAIto\I\NO-Yes. We already have one of the Planning Board members who says your business ought to be looked at separately, anyway, because it has a high volume of traffic. So I think I would leave that alone. MR. DEAN-You feel that you want to stick with the 60 spaces? MR. CAIMANO-I think I'd leave it alone, if I were you. MR. CARTIER-We couldn't do anything at this point if we wanted to, Mack. The Ordinance is the Ordinance, at present. MR. DEAN-Well, this is part of the plaza. MRS. PULVER-What about sticking to the 60 spaces, but going to the reduced size? MR. DEAN-Right. We're will ing to provide the spaces, however, we are el iminating a number of spaces at this location, which means more green area is going to get eliminated. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. MARTIN-You're adding some green area, too? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. DEAN-But I was just curious whether the Board would entertain a few less than 60 total spaces, like 58 or 57 and a half? MR. CARTIER-No. I think we can answer your question in terms of size. MR. to\I\RTIN-You know me on parking, Mack. 34 '--' MR. CARTIER-Karla, how long is that procedure going to take? When will it be law, that we have 9 by 20 rather than 10 by 20? MS. CORPUS-I'm not absolutely positive. I believe there's a public hearing scheduled for June 3rd, but that doesn't mean that it would be enacted then. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, we can't. MR. DEAN-I know we can't design 9 foot widths. MR. MARTIN-Why don't you figure for the worst, then if something happens, you'll be. MR. DEAN-Yes, well, that's kind of how we approached this. One of the reasons why I was headed in this direction, in terms of numbers, is basically, you're cut off date for the July agenda is tomorrow, for submittals. We can very easily rearrange lines for parking and so forth, however, more time would be involved, the more we have to do. Is there any possible way we could get an extension on the submittal date for the July agenda of a day? MR. LAPOINT-Extension of submittal date? MRS. YORK-It's up to the Board. The deadline is tomorrow at 2 o'clock. MR. MARTIN-This is a common problem. MR. CARTIER-If we do it now, we do it for everybody. Is this Board will ing to do it for everybody? MRS. PULVER-I am. MR. CAIMANO-No, I wouldn't say we'd do it for everybody. MR. DEAN-If we were on the first agenda, we'd have had. MR. CAIMANO-I'm willing to listen to everybody, if there's a real hardship. MRS. PULVER-When are you planning on starting construction? As soon as possible, right? MR. MENCH-Our busiest time of year is July and August. MRS. PULVER-Yes, I thought so. MR. MENCH-And for us, right now, we're talking July, for construction, which is bad. MRS. PULVER-Lee, how soon do you need to have the information in order to complete all your rounds? MRS. YORK-Well, I'd like it by the end of this week. MR. CAIMANO-He said 48 hours. MRS. YORK-48 hours would be fine if the Board has no problem with that. MRS. PULVER-Well, how about Friday? Would Friday be all right? MR. CAIMANO-Friday noon? MR. CARTIER-Before we do all of this, we still have to do a public hearing. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Let me do that. Let me open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to address the Board with regard to this issue, please? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RITA FLYNN MRS. FLYNN-I'm Rita Flynn and I own the adjacent property in back of the Empire Video and just realized, today, what was happening and have not seen the site plan. I'd like to be able to find out how it's going to impact on my property and I have a lot of concerns with the traffic congestion, with the safety of the children that are in the apartments that I rent back there, with how the access is going to be. 35 '---' ~ MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. I'm trying to picture, to the west, to the south, where? MR. MARTIN-Her apartments are right here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Continue please. I'm sorry. MRS. FLYNN-I have a right-of-way that comes off Glen Street to enter the apartments and there are actually several right-of-ways that have been used for a long time and I'm not sure how this project would impact on the right-of-ways. I just don't know what's going to happen, and I kind of think it's a huge traffic mess already and a lot of the traffic for the Empire Video parks in my area. Generally, that's probably okay, but I don't even know if it's a good project or not because I don't know enough about it. MR. CARTIER-They park on your property? MRS. FLYNN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Is that with your permission or without? MRS. FLYNN-No. I've never objected. I've never discussed it with the folks. MR. DEAN-Her property begins at this point and it's difficult for me why people would even want to park back there. Are you sure they're from the Video and not some other people? MRS. FLYNN-I'm reasonably certain that some are. That's not my biggest concern. MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't find that hard to believe. It gets that busy. MRS. FLYNN-Right, but my concern is not so much what's happening now. Like I said, it's not been a huge concern. My concern is what is ~ to happen and where this building is going and I don't even know that because I was just notified about the meeting and when I called this morning, I was told to come tonight, and here I am. MR. CARTIER-Well, basically, they're expanding the building to the rear, okay, and I suspect you followed our previous highly intell igent discussion about the revisions that we're recollll1ending to this person. They're going to move some parking to the rear into that green space. MR. LAPOINT-Shown in shaded blue. MRS. PULVER-Right, the dark blue is the addition. MR. CARTIER-Is the addition, correct. MR. CAIMANO-And I gave your husband some drawings. MRS. FLYNN-Okay. I just don't know what kind of setbacks are required. MR. CARTIER-Well, he's met setbacks. If he hadn't, he wouldn't be here. He would be before the Zoning Board. MRS. FLYNN-Okay. So, it wouldn't interfere, then, with right-of-ways that are going through there? MR. CARTIER-No. MRS. FLYNN-Those were the kind of things that I might be able to see from this map that I've not seen? MR. CARTIER-Yes, correct. MR. MARTIN-What we're attempting to do with our revisions is expand the parking to the rear and potentially create a new rear entrance, so that he will park his customers in those areas that we direct him to, rather than in neighboring properties such as your own. MRS. FLYNN-Yes. I would wonder if it would have a depreciation type effect on my property? MR. CAIMANO-I've got to tell you, based on what's already there and the expansion, it's a guess, I wouldn't see how it would change it any. MRS. FLYNN-I'm not sure. MR. CAIMANO-Whatever's been changed is changed. MRS. FLYNN-I'm not here to object or to say it's wonderful because I don't know enough about it right now. I can see where it coul d be a problem, or I coul d see where it, perhaps, is very good for these people. I don't know. 36 '--' -....' MR. CARTIER-Well, you'll have another shot at this, because we're going to be looking at a reV1Sl0n. The applicant will be back before this Board again and the public hearing will remain open, so you will have a chance to come back again and look at the revisions. MRS. FLYNN-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-You may not be notified. MR. MARTIN-You won't be notified directly. MR. CAIMANO-What you need to do is to call Mrs. York at the Planning Department and find out when this is going to be on the next agenda. MR. CARTIER-Well, we may decide that tonight already. MR. CAIMANO-And we may decide that tonight already, so when it's on the next agenda, if the public hearing is still open, you can still come and make whatever comments you have to make. MRS. FLYNN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. PULVER-And let me just add that if you find the parking on your side does become a problem, that they are taking your parking spaces, you do have the option to call the Building and Codes Inspector and make a complaint against them, that the parking is spill ing over, and they will go out and look at the entire situation. So, if, at some point you think, okay, you've had it, then you do have the right to call the Queensbury Town Building and Code Inspector and have him come and look at the whole situation. MRS. FLYNN-Well, on weekends, as you said, in the winter especially, it probably is the worst. MRS. PULVER-Well, call them. They have beepers. MR. MARTIN-They do come out on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. MRS. PULVER-Yes, they will. MRS. FLYNN-Okay. Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is there anyone else who'd care to comment on this application? Okay. The public hearing will remain open. We need to do two things. Number One, decide whether we're going to grant an extension and, Number Two, deal with a motion regarding the tabling of this application. MR. CAIMANO-I don't mind granting the 48 hours that's necessary, if Mrs. York feels she can do it, and she does feel she can do it in this case. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do we need a motion to that effect? MRS. PULVER-We're going a little more than 48 hours, Nick. MR. CAIMANO-48 hours. MR. MARTIN-Wednesday afternoon to Friday afternoon. MR. DEAN-She offered me until Friday. I'll take it. MRS. PULVER-Wednesday afternoon? MR. CARTIER-What is your pleasure, Lee? You're the one who's going to have to. MRS. YORK-Mack, why don't you bring the plans in Friday at noon. Is that okay? MR. DEAN-That's fine. MR. CARTIER-Friday by noon. MR. CAIMANO-Why don't we make it all one motion. MR. CARTIER-Fine. Do we have the agreement of the applicant to this tabling? Is this applicant willing to agree to table this application? MR. DEAN-In light of your comments, we would be agreeable to tabling. 37 - MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-91 NIGRO REAL ESTATE I EMPIRE VIDEO SUPERSTORE, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a 1,000 sq. ft. addition, pending the revisions discussed here tonight. As a rider to this, also, I grant an extension until Friday, May 31st, at noon for submission of a revised set of plans for consideration at the June meetings. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano NOES: Mr. Cartier MR. CARTIER-No, with a comment. I have a problem with granting extensions. Okay. The application's tabled. OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 2-91 MGIC AUT(JI)TIVE, INC. AS A FRANCHI SSE OF MEINEKE tIIFFLER, INC. LAFAYETTE STREET AND ~AKER ROAD OWNER: MARCEL DEMERS C/O CARUSONE AND tIILLER OF 250 BAY ROAD PROPOSAL: TO ERECT A POLE SIGN ON THE LANDS OF NIAGARA JlJHAWK 50 SQ. FT. SIGN, 16 FT. HIGH AND 15 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN CooNTY PLANNING) MR. CARTIER-We have a request to tabl e Off Premi ses Si gn No. 2-91 until such time as the appl i cant can deal with it. JlJTION 10 TABLE OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 2-91 MAGIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC. AS A FRMCHISSE OF MEINEKE tIIFFLER, INC., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Tabled until such time as the applicant can deal with it. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 32-91 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 KAREN J. WITTE OWNER: NOIUM FERGUSON WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, \ MILE SOOTH OF BLIND ROCK ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, SEPTIC SYSTEM, AND MISCELLANEooS SITE WORK. (WARREN CooNTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 60-7-4.3 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION 4.020 F TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 32-91, Karen J. Witte, May 16, 1991, Meeting Date: May 28, 1991 "The application is to construct a 900 sq. ft. office building on Bay Road. The applicant has previously received a variance to be located closer to the road and stream that is allowed by code. This appl ication was reviewed with regard to Section 5.070. 1. The building and parking area is compatible with the site. The flood lights appear to be situated so as to illuminate the parking area and not cause any undue glare for motorists. Signage should conform to the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. 2. Vehicular traffic access is adequate. 3. Off street parking and loading are adequate. Handicapped parking is provided for. 4. Pedestrian access will be handled by the 4 foot walk adjacent to the building. 5. The engineer will review the storm drainage facilities. 6. The facility will be on Town water. The engineer will review the septic system. 7. Plantings will be addressed in the Beautification Committee report. 8. Emergency access is not a concern. 9. The applicant has provided for an erosion control barrier to protect Old Maids Brook. Also, there is a note indicating that after each storm the sediment trays shall be inspected for failure or clogging and if this should occur it will be corrected. This is very positive and the Board may want to keep this stipulation in mind when reviewing other projects." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We heard from Warren County. They approved with no comments. Queensbury Beautification Committee approved with comments. Tom, please. MR. YARMOWICH-These are comments from our revised May 28th, 1991 letter. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 28, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The test pit data is of insufficient depth to establ ish 38 -- -.-- a 3 foot separation between groundwater and the bottom of the proposed sewage disposal seepage pits. 2. The handicapped parking space must be a minimum of 16 feet wide to accommodate an 8 foot vehicle space with an adjoining 8 foot access aisle. 3. The SWM facil ities for the parking area drainage should account for a paved area in the event the proposed gravel area is paved at a later date." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Mr. Nace. MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. I bel ieve Planning Department comments are self explanatory and do not require any response. The engineering comments, the test pit is not of sufficient depth. That was an oversight on my part and that will have to be corrected. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. NACE-When you actually work out the inverts of the system and carry it through for the proposed floor elevation of the office, it turns out that the bottom of the leach pit would be below the bottom of the test pit that was dug. So we will have to go back and do another deep test hole. I would suggest that we can do that and, if you would like, make approval contingent upon that being worked out between myself and the engineer. If groundwater turns out to be a problem, then we can simply put in an effluent pump and pump up to the system or raise the floor level of the house to bring the rest of the system up in grade. The handicapped parking, again, was an oversight on my part. I went with the old code, which showed, I believe, 12 or 14 foot space. MR. CARTIER-Yes, it used to be 12. MR. NACE-And it should be a 16 foot space. We can make that wider and we will, and the last comment, the stonnwater management was done for a gravel parking because that's what is proposed. If you go back and look at the numbers, the difference in runoff coefficient for gravel, which is .89 versus paved, which is .98, for such a small area, is insignificant and I do not believe that should be an issue, since, in fact, we are proposing gravel parking. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. CAIMANO-What kind of business? MR. NACE-It will be professional offices. At present, the possible clients would be a couple of psychiatrists. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. It hasn't been determined yet. MR. NACE-That has not been exactly determined. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Is the Board ready to entertain a SEQRA Short Form? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 32-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KAREN J. WITTE for construction of a 900 sq. ft. office building with associated parking, septic syste., and .iscellaneous site work. Bay Road, ~ mile south of Blind Rock Road, 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 39 -- --../ 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 May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion. JlJTlON TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-91 KAREN J. WITIE, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For construction of a 900 sq. ft. office building with associated parking, septic system, and miscellaneous site work, providing the applicant meets or accommodates all the suggestions made by the Town Engineer regarding the comments made in his letter of May 28th. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MRS. YORK-May I have a map with the changes on it in my office when they're completed, Tom, please. MR. NACE-Yes, you will. MRS. YORK-Thank you very much. (END OF fIRST DISK) 40