Loading...
1993-01-19 - .....'t" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19TH, 1993 7:07 P.M. Subdivision No. 7-1992 FINAL S'l'AGE Geneva Estates 6. SEQRA REVIEW ONLY Harry Ruecker 8. Subdivision No. 15-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE Harry Ruecker 12. Subdivision No. 17-1992 FINAL STAGE Boyce & Barbara Rawson 12. Site Plan No. 1-93 John P. Matthews 15. Site Plan No. 2-93 Dr. & Mrs. Robert Birchenough 16. Subdivision No. 2-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Malcolm & Betty Batchelder 19. Subdivision No. 3-1993 National Realty & Development 20. Corp. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVIEW. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ --- ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19TH, 1993 7:07 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, ACTING CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY EDWARD LAPOINT CAROL PULVER CRAIG MACEWAN KATHLEEN ROWE MEMBERS ABSENT J. ROGER RUEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. LAPOINT-Item Number One on our agenda Officers, subject to Town Board approval. anything for us on that update? is the Jim, election of do you have MR. MARTIN-Well, I conferred with Paul about this today, in light of what happened yesterday with the Town Board decision. The Board basically has one of two routes that it can follow, the first being you can elect, tonight, a pro temp Chairman to act in the interim until a permanent Chairman is elected, and that can be just for the night or for however many nights it takes, or meetings it takes for you to get a permanent Chairman. or the second route you can take is hold another election, and send that name on, again, to the Town Board for their approval. You have either one of the two, or you could combine the two, elect a pro temp Chairman, and in the interim, at some point, tonight or at the end of the meeting or next meeting hold another election. MR. MACEWAN-What about the other two elected officials? MR. MARTIN-That's not subject to Town Board approval. Chairman and Secretary are in effect. The Vice MR. MACEWAN-Why can't the Vice Chairman, then, run tonight's meeting? MR. MARTIN-That's just what Paul told me is the course of events. That was the best way to handle it, he felt, to have an election of a pro temp Chairman, or, and then at some point, either tonight or in the near future, have another election. MRS. PULVER-I thought, somewhere, I was lead to believe along the line, that we could also just keep our Acting Chairman as Chairman. MR. MARTIN-If that's your pro temp Chairman, that could be the case. You could continue Ed as the Acting Chairman. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Our previous Chairman would step in, for lack of a Chairman, until another Chairman is elected. MRS. TARANA-That doesn't make sense to me. Roberts Rules of Order says when your Chairman is not present. your Vice Chairman steps in. MR. MARTIN-I'm just going on the information that Paul conveyed to me. 1 ,-/ --/ MRS. PULVER-And I agree with everything else that you said, about electing the Chairman pro temp. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I guess that would leave Tim. Tim, you're our Vice Chairman now. So, you would take control of the meeting tonight, should we not selection Options A or B. or decide to have. MR. MARTIN-I would strongly recommend that, if you want to just run the meeting unti I you decide on an election time or date, that you'll appoint a pro temp Chairman as an agreement of the whole Board. or something to that effect. MRS. PULVER-I would like to do that. I would like to appoint Ed as our pro temp Chairman until we get this election situation solved. MR. MARTIN-I'd do it as a matter of a vote, to make sure that you have. MR. BREWER-Pro temp, that would be until something is resolved? MR. MARTIN-Until such time as you elect a permanent Chairman and its approved by the Town Board. The other option, also, I should say. is the Town Board can just appoint somebody, but the gist I got last night was that they'd rather not do that. MR. LAPOINT-Craig. what do you think? MR. MACEWAN-Well, I think if Tim's going to be our Vice Chairman, I think maybe he should do it, get the taste of the reins. starting tonight. MRS. PULVER-You'll need to nominate him. MR. MACEWAN-I'll nominate Tim. MRS. TARANA-He's already been elected Chairman, a Vice Chairman, and when the Chairman is absent, the Vice Chairman will take over. that's what Roberts Rules of Order says. I just don't see where there's even any question about it. MRS. PULVER-Well, except that we haven't elected a Chairman. MRS. TARANA-No, but we've elected a Vice Chairman. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Kathy just mentioned to me, when you two were talking, that she had no problem with Tim, either. So, why don't we have our Vice Chairman take over, and we'll work out the. whether we have a pro temp Chairman or a Chairman, maybe even at the end of this meeting, if we have time. MR. BREWER-At the end of the meeting is fine. MR. MARTIN-I just want to go on the record as dispelling a suspicion. The point was just raised, and I want to go on record as saying, there's some suspicion as to why the election of officers appears at the top of the agenda tonight. The agenda was prepared by Pam Whiting, the Secretary to the Department. She did that with the thought that elections usually occur at the first regular meeting of the Planning Board, and that's why those were prepared. It was even prior to the announcement of your special meeting, where you had your elections. So, there was no political play or undertone to that, or organization of an underhanded nature. That was just simply Pam trying to be efficient and noting election of officers at the first regular meeting. So, I just want to dispel any suspicion there, and I'll go on record as saying that. MR. LAPOINT-All right, Tim, it's all yours. MRS. PULVER-Okay, Tim, could I just interrupt you for a moment, and 2 -../ have the floor? MR. BREWER-Go right ahead. MRS. PULVER-I have a letter that I somewhat organized today, although it's not the best it could be because I was really busy on the phone, that I would like to read to this Board, and then I'd like your comments after. "Last night the Queensbury Town Board did not approve my appointment as Chairman by a three two vote. There was no discussion, and no reasons were given. As an individual and a Board member, I believe we are all entitled to an explanation, but most importantly, I question the vote itself, and hope as fellow Board members, you will agree with me and will request, One, a joint meeting with the Town Board to discuss this matter, and Two, support this Board's original slate of officers and resubmit them to the Town Board for approval. As to my reasons why I question the vote, it is my opinion that the three individuals that voted last night had a conflict. Mr. Tucker, I don't believe, should be voting on Planning and Zoning issues that pertain to the Town because of his occupation. As a contractor, he depends on the Planning and Zoning Department and Boards for his livelihood and approvals of his project. This is a matter I have brought to the attention of the Ethics Board for review, after discussing it with Mr. Tucker and the Board. I do not know what the outcome is, as of yet, but I do know that Mr. Tucker knows that he has this potential for conflict, it does exist, and I would hope that he would be using good judgement. As for Mr. Brandt and Mrs. Goetz, I believe they also may be in violation of the Ethics law, along with Mr. Tucker, when it comes to voting, and plan to meet with the Ethics Board again as soon as possible to discuss this matter. I find it hard to believe that a couple who is living together and attempting to build a relationship would be able to be objective about their political practices and not influence the other into their way of thinking. I don't believe any town government would allow a husband and wife to serve on the same board and vote. It's my opinion that we should not allow it ei ther. We all know that the Planning Board is a citizen board composed of volunteers that should be allowed to function free from political pressure, in order to serve the citizens of the Town. The power to deny a Chairman and remove a Board person was meant to be a way for the Town Board to protect its citizens from having a Board member that may not have the best interest of the Town and the community uppermost in their mind. This veto power was not meant to satisfy a Town Board person's personal agenda, but was meant to be part of the checks and balances good government needs in order to function." Corinne, and I hate to pick on you, but it just popped up in my mind, and I'm not picking on you. I know you haven't forgotten how you felt when you were visited by Mr. Brandt. MRS. TARANA-When I was what? MRS. PULVER-Visited by Mr. Brandt, and he suggested that you change your vote on a specific project? MRS. TARANA-He never, ever did that. MRS. PULVER-I thought you said he visited you? MRS. TARANA-No. He never did that. MRS. PULVER-I'm sorry, then. I misunderstood. MRS. TARANA-Please. I would like that on the record. MRS. PULVER-Well, didn't someone ask you to reconsider your vote on the Dexter project? / MRS. TARANA-Mr. Brandt didn't. I got a lot of telephone calls. MRS. PULVER-I'm sorry. I misunderstood. 3 '~ ..-' MRS. TARANA-Absolutely not. I think that's a cheap shot. MRS. PULVER-You know how you felt when you were asked to change your vote? Well, that's how I feel right now about this whole Board being asked to change their vote. Corinne, I'm sorry. I thought that you said that it was him. MRS. TARANA-No. You probably should check your facts first, Carol. MRS. PULVER-My hope is that, as a Board, that we will all stand firm and maintain our principles and support our original decision. I'm sorry. I know one time you had mentioned to me that you felt you were being pressured. MRS. TARANA-I was being pressured. Never did I say Mike Brandt. Never. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I stand corrected. So, anyway, Tim, that's my feeling on last night. I would like to get an explanation from the Town. I think I deserve it. I think the Board deserves it, and I would hope that the Board would back their original decision, however they vote. I don't care who voted for what. I just know that it was fair. MR. BREWER-I would agree with you, Carol, and for whatever reason they voted the way they voted, I think there should be an explanation, speaking only for myself. When we deny a project, we give a reason. It may be a weak reason, but we give a reason. I feel that they should give a reason, and I think Mr. Brandt did, on the radio today. I think he should explain it to us. That's just my opinion, whether it be right, wrong, or indifferent, and I feel that they do owe you that. MRS. PULVER-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Are we ready? MRS. PULVER-Well, no. I would like to know how the Board feels. Are they going to ask or request for a meeting with the Town to give us this explanation, and resubmit their original ballot, or? MR. BREWER-I just said that I feel that they should give you an explanation, and I spoke for myself. I can't speak for the other five members, or six members. I don't know that they have to give you a reason. It's their decision, and that's totally up to them. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I kind of think that maybe we are entitled to it, and the only other thing is that I would like some more time because I have. MR. BREWER-I didn't say, "we", Carol, I said you. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I said I would also like some more time to find out exactly what's going on. I feel that they are trying to apply some political pressure to this Board, and we should be free from that. MR. BREWER-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-As a Board, I don't think we should approach the Town. We're serving at the discrepancy of the Town, appointed by the Town to these positions, and I, for one, don't want to mix politics with a Board that is away from the political scene. We're pretty much clear from any political ties with the Town Board. We have been all along. They haven't pressured us on any project that's come up in front of us. They just didn't approve the vote that we had, and that should be it. If she feels that she needs to take it up further with the Town Board, then she should do it individually. MR. BREWER-Corinne? 4 -/ MRS. TARANA-I have no feelings about it, one way or the other. MR. BREWER-Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Well, I think it's unfortunate that they didn't go with our selection. I think we had a four to two vote. We selected Carol to be our Chairman, and I think it's unfortunate that they didn't approve it. I'm not entirely sure what purpose a meeting would serve. I would stand behind my four to two vote, in supporting Carol, and even if she desired to continue, put her up as Chairman again, and put it back to them for another vote, and see what happens. MRS. ROWE-Well, I just agree in the respect that I think Carol deserves a reason why they haven't done anything or haven't said anything to us about why they haven't agreed with our vote. I don't know if we should put it before the Town Board, to have them oversee our Board any more than they are. MR. LAPOINT-Good point. Good point. MRS. PULVER-Well, if they're going to dictate who can and cannot be our Chairman, I see that as applying political pressure to the Board. MR. MACEWAN-It's been in the by-laws for how long? MRS. PULVER-What by-laws? MR. MACEWAN-In our Rules and Regulations and Procedures, that the Chairman is contingent upon approval of the Town Board. MRS. PULVER-Well, since, I don't know, 1988. MR. BREWER-All right. We can move on. Is everybody satisfied with that? Carol? MRS. PULVER-Well, I'm not sure I have an answer. MR. MACEWAN-What is the answer you're looking for? What is it that you want? MRS. PULVER-Well, the answer I guess I want is, is the Board going to stand behind your decision, and as a Board, can we ask the Town Board for their reasoning behind their disapproval, and have a meeting with them? MR. MACEWAN-I say, no. Leave it as it is. They've made their decision and we'll leave it as it is. That's my opinion. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think we three somewhat agree. MR. BREWER-I don't know if a meeting is in order. I think it's fair that they should give you a reason, and a substantial reason. I don't want to get mixed up in politics. I understand your situation, but I don't want to get mixed in with those three people voted no, for what reason I don't know, and I just don't want to get in the middle of it. I think that they owe you an explanation, that's all I can say, for myself. MR. MACEWAN-That's something that should be done individually, on an individual basis, not from the Board's standpoint. MR. BREWER-If they want to have a meeting with us, to explain to us why, then so be it. I mean, I'll go to it, but I'm not going to insist that they have a meeting with us. I mean, I think it's fair that they should give you an explanation. That's the bottom line. MR. LAPOINT-Again. I think I would stand with our four to two, and that was rejected. Maybe you should get your thoughts together 5 '----" -..-' and. MRS. PULVER-Well, can I say one thing? I had a brief conversation with Sue Goetz before I got here tonight, and I said, what happened, Sue, last night, and she said, well, I just felt there should have been more nominations, and she said, more than one person, and I said, what do you mean, and she said, well, there should have been more nominations. MRS. PULVER-I said, there were. There were three people who were nominated for Chairman, and I said, were you at the meeting, and she said, no. I said, yes, I know you weren't, because I was there. So, how can you say that and make that jUdgement? Now, it's my feeling that, possibly, there was a lack of communication or something, because I have it on tape, at home, our conversation, that she was saying something that was totally incorrect, and we all know it because we were there, and this is why, and I also have made a few phone calls. I'm waiting to get the results of the calls, and I was not able to do it in less than 24 hours. MR. BREWER-I think in all fairness, Carol, we can discuss this after the meeting, if we can get on with the agenda. Does that suit everybody? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. The first item on the agenda. Will the Secretary read it, please? OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1992 GENEVA ESTATES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:22 p.m.) MR. BREWER-We have a letter, I think, don't we? MRS. TARANA-We received this letter from Mr. Mathias, two letters, one correcting the dimensions. Do we have to read that into the record again? MR. BREWER-I would read, at least, the second one. MRS. TARANA-The second letter is a clarification of his first letter, where he states, "I am writing to clarify my letter to you dated January 6th, 1993. In that letter I erroneously referred to approved lot sizes of 1500 square feet. The submitted plan called for lots of approximately 15,000 feet in area. I request that the board revise its resolution granting final approval. The density under current zoning allows for 10 lots. Therefore request is made for approval of 9 lots of approximately 15,000 square feet with the 10th lot containing 6 plus acres. Thank you for your consideration", and I think part of that, the first letter, though, because it's not addressed in that one, we should read the part where you requested clarification. This is from the first letter dated January 6th. "I also request that the Board clarify the time for filing the mylar. It was my understanding that an extension until January 31, 1993 had been granted but apparently your records do not reflect that date." So, both of those issues are there. MR. LAPOINT-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. The first thing we'd have to do would be to rescind the previous motion? MR. MARTIN-Right. I think that would be best. It was a really odd si tuation. All the discussion in the Planning Board minutes regarding this application indicated an acknowledgement that the 10th lot would be an oversized lot, and everything hung together, 6 '--' -.../ except the final resolution. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, I made the final resolution, and I feel poorly about that, and I'd like to correct the situation. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I just wanted to give you a little background. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. My name is Wilson Mathias. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. It came up because we weren't sure what was going to happen with the remaining six acres. When we first presented it to you, there was the hope that the Town might accept it for park purposes, ..in lLeu 0.£ recr..eational fees. . That... after, ..çlisgussiOR6. ~ltn the Town Boara ana Recreatíon comm1ss10u, ~asn w S me~n1 9 that was going to happen. I mean, they just didn't want it. We're, at this point, want to go with the approval of what we had, which was the 10 lots. for approximately 11 acres, because it's a one acre zone. What I also did allude to in the first letter to the Board, though, is, to. I guess alert and maybe get some feedback on the possibility of requesting re-zoning of the remaining six acres for four additional lots. I guess I don't want some feedback. I just want to put it on record, but to alert you to that fact, I put it on record, and just ask that we get approval for what we did originally submit the application for, and also to kind of extend the time, because we've got a problem of filing mylars. MR. BREWER-So. we can do an extension, tonight, along with this, or didn't we grant an extension of this? MR. MATHIAS-Yes. You did, and I think, my records, my notes reflect that the extension was until January 31st, but then when I added the date, and actually when I look at your resolution, it says, until January 31st, but if you add 90 days to when you granted the approval, it expires in December. MRS. TARANA-You're right. MR. LAPOINT-So, did you have a date in mind? MR. MATHIAS-Well, we'd like it to the 31st. We're ready to go with this baby. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The 31st, January. MR. BREWER-Okay, Ed, do you want to rescind your motion? MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RESCIND ITS MOTION OF 16 JUNE 1992. WITH RESPECT TO SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1992. AT THE FINAL STAGE. FOR GENEVA ESTATES, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Pulver ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Then that's done. Now, Ed, do you want to make a new motion, for the extension. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1992 FINAL STAGE FOR GENEVA ESTATES, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: For a 10 lot subdivision, 9 of such lots will be approximately 15,000 square feet, with the 10th lot containing six plus acres, 7 '- -.../ with a final deadline to file the mylar being 31 January 1993. Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Rowe. Mrs. Pulver MR. MATHIAS-We're going to bring over a mylar. Who's going to sign it? MR. LAPOINT-The Acting Chairman. MR. MATHIAS-All right. Thank you. SEQRA REVIEW ONLY TYPE I WR-1A HARRY RUECKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: WESTERLY OF CLEVERDALE RD. AND SOUTHERLY OF GUNN LANE. FOR AN EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW AND A DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ON THE REQUEST WHICH CONSISTS OF: CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. CROSS REFERENCE: AV '121- 1992 TAX MAP NO. 12-3-18 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. "The proposal involves the construction of a two story house on Lake George in Cleverdale. The applicant is requesting three variances. shoreline setback" MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. We're doing the SEQRA here, right? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BREWER-What notes are you reading? MR. MACEWAN-It was a hold over from our December 15th meeting. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. REHM-Those are the previous comments. comments. These are tonight's MR. BREWER-This is for the SEQRA. MR. MACEWAN-Are you looking for the December 15th copy? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I've got that. variances. The one here was for. This is relating to the MR. MARTIN-See, what he's doing, Walter, is he's gotten Staff Notes from last month that were relating to the SEQRA review of the variances, and that's what he's reading from. MR. HARLICKER-We never went through them last month. MR. MARTIN-Because it was tabled. MR. REHM-I never received a copy of those. MR. MARTIN-Well, we thought you had. MR. REHM-I didn't know that they existed. In any event, this is for a SEQRA Review for the variance, which is on for public hearing tomorrow night with the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. BREWER-And don't they have to pass it to us? 8 '--' -/ MR. HARLICKER-It was passed to you last month. MR. MARTIN-It was passed to you last month and tabled, and the Staff Notes were written at that time, and. 'MR. HARLICKER-What we've done in this past month has amended them, to reflect the review that Rist-Frost did for the drainage and septic system plan that they submitted. MR. BREWER-And the applicant has not got a copy of those? MR. REHM-Well, thi COpy that I was just. <:ritven contains lett.e.rs from Rist-l'rost, and ett~'t's -Yrom the -proJE!"c englneer regara1ng ~ne stormwater management plans and the sewage disposal system which is for the variance. However, the SEQRA notes that Staff prepared are for the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-For the subdivision, which is the next item on the agenda. MR. REHM-Well, I'm not so sure. This talks in terms of the house, and if you read the project description. MRS. TARANA-It doesn't mention the variances at all. MR. REHM-This deals with the subdivision. Staff ever prepare? I don't know. Does MR. MARTIN-Yes. Last month, at the time at which it was tabled, notes were prepared, in terms of the Staff review of the SEQRA assessment as it relates to the variances, and they were just simply held over while we were requesting some information from Rist-Frost. As a matter of fact, were these read in at that time? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, I believe they were. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, it's just a matter, now, of simply updating the Board with the information as it relates to Rist-Frost, because these were already read in last month. MR. BREWER-So, we'll hold these notes until the next item on the agenda? MR. MARTIN-Yes, in terms of the SEQRA Review and the Subdivision review, the SEQRA Review that relates to the Subdivision, and the Subdivision review, yes. Hold those until the next item, and you have your notes from December 15th regarding the variance, and you also now have updated letters from Rist-Frost regarding the variance, and I think that's where we can pick up from. MR. REHM-I would also point out that the second and third pages of the SEQRA Review for the Subdivision has a good outline of that which needs to be considered on the. MR. MARTIN-I was hopeful of having Tom here tonight, but I couldn't get through to him. MR. BREWER-All right. Can I ask you one more question, Jim? Is there a public hearing on this, tonight? MR. HARLICKER-Not for the SEQRA. MR. BREWER-Not for the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Not for the SEQRA review relating to the variance. That will come with the Zoning Board of Appeals. I believe. What are you, on for tomorrow night, Walter? MR. REHM-Yes. 9 --- -..../ MR. BREWER-I'm talking about Item Number Five, but we're not concerned with that right now. MR. MARTIN-Item Number Five? MR. BREWER-Never mind. We'll go ahead with what we were doing on four. MR. MARTIN-You simply have to go through the assessment, as it relates to the variance, and last uncomfortable with some of the engineering design. on to Rist-Frost. environmental month you felt It was referred MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we go over the Staff Notes, then? Do we have Staff Notes? They're from last month, right? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-You have the Rist-Frost letters, information. I would read those into the record. have those? are the new Scott, do you MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-There's two letters. We'll start with the December 23rd letter, first of all. MR. HARLICKER-"Rist-Frost has reviewed the engineering aspects of the plans with respect to the SEQRA determination to be made by the Planning Board. Our review has been conducted to assess the drainage design, sewage disposal design and overall concept as directed by the Planning Board's December 14, 1992 resolution. The following issues should be addressed by the applicant. 1. Water supplies (wells or other) must not exist wi thin 100' from the proposed sewage disposal area. 2. The shoreline of Lake George must not exist wi thin 200' in any direction from the proposed sewage disposal area. Wetlands must not exist within 100' in any direction from the proposed sewage disposal area. 3. The location of test pits #11 through #14 should be established. Test pit #11 indicates the potential for seasonal high groundwater which could adversely impact sewage disposal in the event test pit #11 is located in or very near «25') the proposed sewage disposal area. 4. Sewage disposal systems for the two existing frame camps should be identified to insure that the proposed sewage disposal does not interfere. The drainage and soil erosion control designs are satisfactory in concept and well suited to the site. Mr. Jim Hutchins, the applicant's engineer has been contacted and the issues above have been discussed. Mr. Hutchins has requested a copy of this letter and the opportunity to provide clarifying information relative to the issues brought up. Mr. Hutchins has been instructed that any additional information for review by Rist- Frost associates should be provided through your office. Additional information received by Rist-Frost will then be reviewed and our completed evaluation will be provided to the Town. On the basis of information provided to this point it is our jUdgement that the applicant's proposed project is in general feasible, well conceived, and will not create significant or potentially significant environmental impacts from an engineering standpoint. This conclusion is based upon the presumption that satisfactory additional information relative to the engineering issues identified herein will be provided by the applicant's engineer." Tom Yarmowich signed it. MR. BREWER-We have another letter, of January 5. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The second letter says, "Dear Mr. Martin: Rist-Frost has reviewed the engineering aspects of the plans originally submitted and supplemental applicant information with respect to the SEQRA determination to be made by the Planning Board. Our review has been conducted to assess the drainage 10 ~ design, sewage disposal design and overall concept as directed by the Planning Board's December 14, 1992 resolution. The drainage, sewage disposal and soil erosion control designs are satisfactory and well suited to the site. On the basis of the plans and other applicant information provided, it is our judgement that the applicant's proposed project is in general feasible, well conceived, and will not create significant or potentially significant environmental impacts from an engineering standpoint." MR. BREWER-Okay. So I presume from that letter that all four of these comments have been satisfactorily addressed. MR. MARTIN-Then I believe Scott updated his notes with a short paragraph, here, dated today. MR. HARLICKER-Right. It was just a summary of the two letters that were just read into the record. "The applicant submitted for review a drainage report and engineering aspects of the proposal. The information was reviewed by Rist-Frost Associates in order to assess the drainage design, sewage disposal design and overall concept of the plan. They found that the applicant's proposal is in general feasible, well conceived and will not create significant or potentially significant environmental impacts from an engineering standpoint." MR. BREWER-Would the applicant like to offer anything? MR. REHM-I really have nothing else to add. We went into this in substantial detail at the last meeting, and I think the only open issues were the issues that were discussed by Rist-Frost and Jim Hutchins. There is a letter to Jim Martin, from Jim Hutchins, responding specifically to the questions that were asked, in terms of locations of wells and that type of thing. ' So, I think that the record is now complete and its a matter of making the SEQRA determination. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to take us through that, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION FOR SEORA REVIEW ONLY, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there application for: variances, and is presently before the Planning Board an HARRY RUECKER. before going to the ZBA for 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: The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Type I 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. 11 -- '-' 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 effect 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 19th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Hr. Ruel MR. REHM-Could I say something? The next item on the agenda is the subdivision. There are Planning Comments. There has not been sufficient time to provide the people wi thin 500 feet of the property with adequate notice of the public hearing, and for that reason, and I wanted to tell you that now, rather than get into this. I know you've got a long agenda. For that reason I would ask that the Subdivision issue be tabled for the next available meeting, which I assume would be the first meeting in February. SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I WR-1A HARRY RUECKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: WESTERLY OF CLEVERDALE RD. AND SOUTHERLY OF GUNN LANE. PROPOSED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. (A.P.A.) TAX MAP NO. 12-8-18 LOT SIZE: +3.289 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE HARRY RUECKER, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: At the applicant's request, so that he may provide and prove notification to the surrounding property owners, and that he be placed on the next available meeting's agenda. Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. MARTIN-Walter, you have a copy of the Staff Notes, right, then? MR. REHM-I do. MR. MARTIN-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A BOYCE & BARBARA RAWSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SWEET ROAD BETWEEN LANDS OF PAUL TIMMS & FLOYD HILL PROPOSAL FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV t 122-1992 TAX MAP NO. 64-1-5.5 LOT SIZE: +11.6 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 12 "--' ,-.,/ LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 17-1992, Boyce & Barbara Rawson, Meeting Date: January 19, 1993 "Pro; ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to create a 1.03 acre flag lot with 30 feet of frontage with access via Sweet Road. The property is zoned SFR- lA. The property to be subdivided was originally a landlocked parcel that was part of a larger parcel that was subdivided to create Hickory Acres. Access to this parcel was through Hickory Acres subdivision! On Noyember 18, L992 the application r~ceivÎd a variance to al ow 30 teet of road frontagé Where ~0 teet s required and on December 15, 1992 they received preliminary subdivision approval. Because the subdivision is for only one new lot, the applicant received waivers for sketch plan, grading, erosion control plan, drainage report and the need to show contours on the entire site. Project Analvsis: During the preliminary subdivision review it was found that there were no significant problems or outstanding issues that had to be addressed prior to final subdivision review. The applicant modified the subdivision to show the limits of the clearing that will be required for the construction of the house. Other than that change the application is the same as what was previously approved. Future development of the remaining land will be limited. The location of a pond and an intermi ttent stream as well as the steep slopes will restrict development. Furthermore, the property is only accessible through the Hickory Acres subdivision and a large portion of the parcel which abuts the subdivision is used as a retention area for stormwater runoff from the subdivision. SummarY/Recommendation: As previously determined, it does not appear that this subdivision has any significant problems associated with it. The existing situation, that of an almost landlocked parcel, is not very desirable, but it is unavoidable and has to be dealt with. The new lot is the most suitable area for development and seems to be the most logical parcel to subdivide. It is unclear at this time what the owner will do with the remaining property. However, the possibili ties seem to be limited because of the environmental factors and the lack of accessibility. It appears that the proposal follows accepted planning practices and the planning staff can recommend approval of this final.subdivision application." MR. BREWER-Okay. questions? Is there anybody on the Board that has any MRS. ROWE-Will that access that exists from the Hickory Acres Subdivision continue to be there for the purposes of getting into the remaining property? MR. STEVES-Yes, it will. MRS. ROWE-Okay. MR. STEVES-It has nothing to do with this lot. MRS. ROWE-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Does the owner have any intentions of doing anything else with the property? Do you know that? MR. STEVES-No. I don't. The owner of the property is Mr. Sidney Timms. MRS. TARANA-I mean, will this property be developed in any other way? Would the applicant be willing to have that stipulation on the final subdivision approval? MR. STEVES-I don't think I understand the question. MRS. TARANA-Well, the question is, from the Staff, was, it is 13 -../ unclear at this time what the owner will do with the remaining property. MR. STEVES-For the record, my name is Leon Steves, and I thought I made it clear that when we made the application it was to clear up the violation of the Code and the transfer of property has already taken place by deed, back in 1990, and this is only to clear up that transaction that took place at that time. MRS. TARANA-I guess I would ask the Staff, then, what this is referring to. What is this referring to, then, this comment about, it is unclear at this time what the owner will do with the remaining property? MR. HARLICKER-It was my understanding that it was just, the rest of it was just to remain. He didn't give any definite developmental plans for it, is what I was referring to. MRS. TARANA-There's no possibility of further subdivision or anything on this piece of property, back in there? MR. HARLICKER-Well, there's restrictions to it, the environmental things, if there's slopes and there's the pond and there's the stream and there's the retention basin, and it just seems very unlikely that anything can be done with the remaining piece of land. MR. STEVES-In addition to that, the applicant is Mr. Rawson, who received the property by a gift, if you will, from his father-in- law, Sidney Timms. To restrict Mr. Timms to any further subdivision of his lands is not a part of this application. I don't think that he should even be involved in this at this stage. MRS. TARANA-I'm just wondering if there could be more subdividing back in there? MR. BREWER-You're talking beyond the lot? MRS. TARANA-I know there's a big slope and everything back there, and I can't see that anything would happen. MR. STEVES-He'd have to meet the Code. MR. BREWER-Yes. If he wanted to do anything else with it, he'd have to meet the Code. MRS. TARANA-I realize that. I just wondered if YOU knew if he had any? MR. STEVES-I have no idea what he intends. MR. MACEWAN-He'd be hard pressed to do anything, really, with that back there. MRS. TARANA-I would think he would be. MR. BREWER-Does anybody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1992 FINAL STAGE BOYCE & BARBARA RAWSON, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: As proposed. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE 14 -- ~ ABSENT: Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-93 TYPE: II WR-3A JOHN P. MATTHEWS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: ROUTE 9L. EAST SIDE. CEDAR POINT. PROPOSAL IS TO REMOVE EXISTING DETERIORATING. ROCK FILLED CRIB DOCKS NOW IN A U-SHAPE TO REPLACE WITH NEW E-SHAPED DOCK TO SHORTEN NEW DOCKS SO THEY CONFORM TO EXISTING REGULATIONS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (A.P.A) TAX MAP NO. 2-1-9 LOT SIZE: 2.68 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 (D) (3) MRS. TARANA-There' s a letter asking to be tabled. Regarding Site Plan No. 1-93, John P. Matthews. It says, MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Okay. He came into the office this morning and requested that the application be tabled, pending notification of his neighbor. They've been talking, and his neighbor hasn't had a chance, and just didn't, being a good neighbor, he said I'll wait until next month, in order for you to get a chance to look at it, but I think that in order to save the applicant some grief, if it would be possible to open the public hearing, and then get comments here and then just keep the public hearing open until next meeting, to save re-advertising costs. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think we should do anything with it. We couldn't find the site. MRS. TARANA-We couldn't find the dock. MR. BREWER-Well, it was my understanding, I talked to Jim about it, it's not necessarily we have to see it, but it's advisable that we do. Is there anyone here to speak about the project? MRS. PULVER-No, because he asked to be tabled. MR. BREWER-Well, then why can't we just wait until. Do ~ have to pay for the re-advertisement? MR. HARLICKER-No. The applicant would have to pay for the re- advertising, but if you open the public hearing and just keep the public hearing open until next month, he wouldn't have to go through the re-advertising again. That's all. MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any objection to that? Okay. I'll open the public hearing, and then we'll need a motion to table, and we'll leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. PULVER-I'll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 1-93 Carol Pulver who moved for its LaPoint: JOHN P. MATTHEWS, Introduced by adoption, seconded by Edward Until the first available meeting in February. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MRS. TARANA-Could I just ask, to clarify in my own mind, the dock, when you go down that main road, and there's like a little lagoon there, you go down that paved road with the street light, there's 15 '"-' --- a little lagoon. That's where we were, but from there, can you see the dock? It's right across that little lagoon. MR. HARLICKER-I don't think so. MR. BREWER-Maybe we could ask Staff to get a hold of Mr. Matthews and get a better sense of direction on how to get to it, and we could look at it next month. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. I did the same thing that you folks did. SITE PLAN NO. 2-93 TYPE I WR-1A C.E.A. DR. & MRS. ROBERT BIRCHENOUGH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF CLEVERDALE ACROSS FROM MASON STREET. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ALTERATIONS AND AN ADDITION TO SUNROOH AND ENCLOSURE OF AN EXISTING. RAISED EXTERIOR WOOD DECK. CROSS REFERENCE: AV' 128- 1992 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (A.P.A.) TAX HAP NO. 13-3-1 LOT SIZE: 11.950.16 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-79 CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 2-93, Dr. & Mrs. Robert Birchenough, Meeting Date: January 19, 1993, "Project Description: The applicant is proposing to add on to an existing single family dwelling and enclose an existing deck. The project is located on Lake George in Cleverdale. It is zoned WR-1A and is .28 acres in area. New construction consists of enclosing an existing elevated deck and the renovation of an existing sun room with a proposed small addition to that room. The addition will be about 330 sq. ft. On December 16, 1992 the applicant received area variances to allow for construction in the side yard setback and for permeability. Proiect Analvsis: The Planning Staff reviewed Part II of the Long Environmental Assessment submitted with this project and offers the following comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? There will be some physical changes to the project site as a result of this proposal. There will be a slight decrease in the permeability of the site because of the 330 sq. ft. addition to the sun room. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The project should not impact any protected water bodies. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The action should not adversely impact any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? There will be a slight change in the drainage flow on the west side of the house because of the construction of the addition to the sun room. However, the project should not adversely impact drainage flows or surface water runoff. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? There will be a slight change in the drainage flow on the west side of the house because of the construction of the addition to the sun room. However, the project should not adversely impact drainage flows or surface water runoff. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non- threatened or non-endangered species? The project should not affect any non-threatened or non-endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not impact any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any historic structure or site. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open space or 16 '--" "~ recreational opportunities. The action should not affect open space or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an affect to existing transportation system? The project should not effect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's energy or fuel supply. The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable noise, odors or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. Recommendation: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impact on the environment; therefore, the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we ask that David Hatin's letter be read into the record? MR. MARTIN-I can read it in. "Dear Curt and Board Members: This letter is in reference to the nonconforming septic systems located on Mr. Birchenough's property on Cleverdale Road. As the Board may or may not be aware, these systems have been issued three-year interim operation permits in accordance with the Lake George Park Commission rules and regulations. Basically what this means is that these permits are issued to nonconforming systems which do not meet the current standards of today's Ordinance, however, this does mean that these systems are illegal or that they must be replaced. This simply means that over the next three years, the Park Commission is asking all citizens with three-year interim permits to investigate the possibility of installing conforming septic systems or community septic systems to alleviate what they feel is a problem with septic around the lake. From a Board standpoint and from my standpoint, as long as these systems do function properly and do not fail, we have no legal right to make them upgrade these systems or replace them. If they should fail at any point in time in the future from this date, they would be required to meet today's standards or seek variances from the regulations in order to put a septic system in, but at this time, these are legal functioning systems under our Ordinance and do not have to be replaced or upgraded due to an expansion of a structure. I trust this will answer all of your questions, if not, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Hatin, Director, Building and Code Enforcement" MR. BREWER-Okay. We also got a letter from the ZBA. MR. MARTIN-This is their motion approving the Area Variance. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing now, before we get into the SEQRA. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. DYBAS-For the record, my name is Curt Dybas, from the firm of Cushing and Dybas, Associates, and I think the Staff Notes that were prepared fairly covered it. MR. BREWER-Are there any questions from anybody on the Board? MRS. ROWE-I have a question. The septic that's underneath where the proposed addition, in front of the sun room, is going to be, where will that be moved? MR. DYBAS-There is no septic under the sun room. Do you mean the ejector pump? MRS. ROWE-It's the ejector pump. 17 '-- ~ MR. DYBAS-The ejector pump, hopefully, will be moved westward, basically it's a 300 gallon ejector pump and move it in a westerly direction so you just re-hook to the line. MRS. ROWE-That just serves the main house, not the apartment over the garage, right? MR. DYBAS-That is correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone who'd like to speak about this matter from the public? Okay. With that, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Ed, would you like to take us through the SEQRA? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DR. & MRS. ROBERT BIRCHENOUGH, for alterations and addition to sunrooa and enclosure of an eXisting. raised exterior wood deck, 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: The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is a Type I 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 19th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver ABSENT: Mr. Ruel 18 --/ MR. BREWER-Okay. Would anybody care to make a motion? MRS. TARANA-Does Warren County see this after, their meeting is after our meeting? MR. BREWER-It's the 20th, yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's true. MR. BREWER-So, we can make a motion noting that. ~R, APl~~}'~du~~ãE L~L~uJ. PI?Ú'~ 2y~J.3d.Ud. Dw~¡u adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: & M~. f ROB~N- wvve vi For alterations and addition to a sunroom and enclosure of an existing, raised exterior wood deck, with the stipulation that Warren County finds No County Impact. Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: MR. HARLICKER-I could note that I've got a copy of their comments from when it was sent over for the variance, not for site plan, just for the variance, and they had no conditions, concur with local conditions. So, I suspect it'll probably be the same for the site plan review. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver ABSENT: Mr. Ruel ~ SUBDIVISION RO. 2-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I SR-1A MALCOLM n'~ & BETTY BATCHELDER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: CLEMENTS ROAD I~t~ - EAST OFF OF RIDGE ROAD. NORTH OF RTE. 149 PROPOSAL IS FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. (A.P.A.) TAX MAP NO. 27-3-1.1 LOT SIZE: 7.17 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WILLIAM NEALON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MALCOLM BATCHELDER STAFF IRPUT Notes from Staff, SEQRA Review - Subdivision No. 2-1993, Malcolm & Betty Batchelder, Meeting Date: January 19, 1993 II Proiect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing 7.17 acre parcel into two lots. One lot on which an existing house, barn and swimming pool are located, is to be 4.39 acres in size. The second lot, which is a flag lot, is currently vacant and is 2.78 acres in area. The property is located on Clements Road just west of Ridge Road and is zoned SR-1A. The flag lot will have 40 feet of frontage on Clements Road with the bulk of the parcel located behind the larger lot. It appears that both lots are bounded on the east by a pond. The proposal does not involve the construction of any new roads or public utilities. The project is a Type I action under SEQRA because it is located in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. proiect Analvsis: The Planning Staff Reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment submitted with this project and offers the fOllowing comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? There will be some physical changes to the project site as a result of this proposal. The subdivision will allow for the future residential development of the lot. 2. Will there be an affect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There does not appear to be any unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The project should not impact any protected water bodies. 4. Will proposed action affect any non- 19 '0......-- protected existing or new body of water? The action should not adversely impact any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The project should not adversely impact surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? There may be a slight change in the drainage flow on the new lot because of the construction of the house and driveway. However, the project should not adversely impact drainage flows or surface water runoff. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect any non-threatened or non-endangered species? The project should not affect any non-threatened or non- endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The new lot appears to have been used as agricultural in the past. The applicant states that the most recent use of the land was a pasture. The subdivision itself should not impact the agricultural land ¡ however, any future construction on the lot will take some agricultural land out of circulation. The project should not significantly affect any agricul tural resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any historic structure or site. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? The action should not affect open space or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an affect to existing transportation system? The project should not affect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's energy or fuel supply. The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable noise, odors or vibrations as a result of this project? There should not be objectionable noise, odors or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The proj ect should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact the character of the community. Recommendation: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment¡ therefore, the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." MR. BREWER-And we've got some other correspondence. We've got a letter from the Adirondack Park Agency. Do we need to read that? MR. LAPOINT-"Dear Mr. and Mrs. Batchelder: RE: Jurisdictional Determination J92-602A We received your application on November 6, 1992 requesting a jurisdictional determination from the Agency. The facts. as presented by you are recited below. If the project changes, or if the facts differ from those recited, a different determination could result. Please also note that this determination is based solely upon the presently existing laws, regulations and Park plan map administered by the Agency¡ if the laws, regulations or map are amended prior to substantial commencement of the proposed project, this determination may change accordingly. 1. The property is a 6.98±-acre parcel located in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, on the Clements Road, Tax Map Designation 27-3-1.1. 2. The property is owned by you both, as described in a deed recorded December 14, 1987, in Liber 700 of Deeds, page 593, in the Warren County Clerk's Office. 3. According to the Warren County Clerk's Office you originally owned approximately 46± acres located on the south and west side of Clements Road and the east side of Ridge Road on May 22, 1973, the enactment date of the Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan. The 46± acres were comprised of any adjoining parcels which you owned as of May 22, 1973 and pursuant to Part 573.4(i) of the Adirondack Park Agency Rules and Regulations those parcels would 20 ~ --'" have merged and be considered by the Agency as one undivided parcel on May 22, 1973. Since 1973, the original 46~-acre parcel has been subdivided creating the following parcels: 1) Tax map designation 27-3-1.21, a 2.16-acre parcel 2) Tax map designation 27-3-1.232, a 4.42-acre parcel 3) Tax map designation 27-3-1.231, a 2.07-acre parcel 4) Tax map designation 27-3-1.1, a 6.98-acre parcel, the subject parcel 5) Tax map designation 27-3-2, a 27.91-acre parcel 6) Tax map designation 27-3-1.22, a 2.37-acre parcel Your current proposal is to subdivide the subject 6.98-acre parcel into two lots creating a vacant 2.78-acre parcel to be sold and a 4.2-acre parcel improved by one single family dwelling to be retained. Based upon the above facts, Iican state theIfollowingú' (a) dThe subiect 6t98 acres are located n a Moaerate ntenslty se lån use area on fie Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan Map. (b) Agency wetlands staff has determined by site visit on November 5, 1992 that there are no wetlands subject to Agency jurisdiction on the 2.78-acre parcel to be conveyed. However, there are wetlands on the property to be retained and on some of the property previously conveyed to Arcangela Bannon. Enclosed for your information is a map delineating the approximate wetland boundaries in relation to the property. (c) The subject 6.98-acre parcel is not otherwise located in a statutory "critical environmental area" . Determination The 2-lot subdivision project of conveying a 2.7- acre parcel from a 6.98-acre parcel as described above does not require a permit from the Adirondack Park Agency, provided (a) the facts are as stated above and (b) the project complies with the conditions specified below. This determination applies only to the project proposed. Any other design of a project may generate the need for more information and a different determination. This non- jurisdictional determination is based upon the rationale that in a Moderate Intensity land use area no permit is required for a subdivision resulting in the seventh post-1973 lot whereby the lot being created is 2.78 acres in size as it would not be considered a Class A regional project provided no wetlands are subdivided and conveyed and no critical environmental area is involved and the following conditions are adhered to. The Town of Queensbury has an Adirondack Park Agency approved local land use program so that this subdi vision may require some approval from the town. P lease be aware that in reviewing the history of the subdivision of the larger parcel it appears that potential violations exist concerning the prior conveyances made to Arcangela Bannon due to the presence of wetlands on those parcels conveyed. An enforcement officer will be contacting you and Mr. Bannon to resolve any potential violation that exists. *Wetlands are lands annually subject to periodic or continual inundation by water and commonly referred to as bogs, swamps, or marshes, or lands which contain sUfficiently waterlogged soils to support and give a competitive advantage to aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation described in Part 578 of Agency regulations. Permits ~ required for activities in, or adversely affecting such wetlands no matter what the size. If you believe wetlands are present on any shoreline on the property or in the water, please contact the Agency to arrange for a site inspection by a staff member. Conditions The restrictions noted immediately below apply whether or not you need a permit from the Agency. 1. In a Moderate Intensity Use land use area, any new structure exceeding 100 square feet in size (except docks and boathouses) must be set back at least 50 feet from the mean high-water mark** of any navigable * * * river or stream and any lake or pond. The following shoreline vegetative cutting restrictions also apply to the shoreline of any navigable river or stream and any lake or pond: a) Within thirty-five feet of the mean high-water mark not more than thirty percent of the trees in excess of six inches in diameter at breast height (4 1/2 feet above ground) existing at any time may be cut over any ten-year period. b) Within six feet of the mean high-water mark no existinq veqetation of any kind may be removed, except that up to a maximum of thirty percent of the shorefront may be clear of vegetation on any individual lot. This requirement applies in addition to (a) above. c) Diseased vegetation, rotten or damaged trees, or other vegetation that presents safety or health hazards may be removed. All distances 21 , ------ specified in the shoreline restrictions are measured horizontally. Shoreline lot widths are measured along the shoreline as it winds and turns at mean high-water. BUilding setback restrictions are measured along the shortest line between any point of the structure and any point on the mean high-water mark. Porches, decks and other structures subject to the building setback restrictions are part of the structure for purposes of applying the building setback restriction. Finally, for a structure to qualify as a "boathouse", it must have direct access to a navigable body of water, be used for the storage of boats and associated equipment and must not contain a bathroom or kitchen facilities or be desiqned or used for lodqinq or residency. A dock must not be wider than 8 feet. 2. Any project must be undertaken in accord with Agency regulations implementing the Freshwater Wetlands Act, which prohibits subdividing and conveyance of a wetland, polluting, filling, dredging and draining or construction in a wetland unless a permit is issued. From your description of the project (and the map supplied by you), it appears that your current 2-lot subdivision project will not involve or affect the wetland. Enclosed for your information is a flyer which briefly outlines the types of acti vi ties which require wetland permits. 3. Any new on-site sewaqe disposal system shall not be located closer than 100 feet from any bodY of water. includinq intermittent or seasonal stream or wetland. Sewage disposal system setbacks are measured horizontally along the shortest line between any point of the seepage pit, drainage field or other leaching facility and the mean high-water mark (the average annual high-water level, in essence, the Hiqh water mark). Any new on-site sewage disposal system should comply with the standards promulgated by the New York State Department of Health: a) shall not be located on slope in excess of 15%~ b) shall not be closer than 100 feet from the source of any water supply system. 4. No structure shall exceed 40 feet in height, except residential radio and TV antennas. Please be aware that height is measured from the highest point of a structure to the lowest point of either existing or natural grade. Finally, your proposal may require permits or approvals from other governmental entities. It is therefore recommended that you check with the authorities of the Town of Queensbury and with other State agencies, particularly the Departments of Environmental Conservation and Health, to obtain all necessary approvals prior to commencing the project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Agency. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. **Mean hiqh-water mark means the average annual high- water level, in essence, the high-water mark. ***Naviqable water is defined as that in which a canoe can be floated. Sincerely, Eleanor H. Duffus Project Administrator MR. BREWER-Okay. We have another letter, Ed, from William Nealon. It's asking for waivers. We can make a note of that in the motion, if we so desire. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MRS. TARANA-Is this the one where the map was not correct? MR. MACEWAN-Backwards. MR. BREWER-The map was backwards. MRS. TARANA-Maybe we should get a perspective on where this really is. MR. BREWER-When we went out there, as we were sitting in the driveway, I think I have it right. We drove up here to the back, correct? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. We sat just about where the marker 705.89 feet is. We sat there and observed that the barn, the house, and the pool are more toward the easterly corner of that plot. Is that correct? The way you have them situated on that plot plan is not where they actually are sitting? 22 "'--- '--./ MR. BREWER-Or were we in the wrong place? MR. NEALON-Mr. Batchelder's here. MR. BREWER-When we were out at the site, we drove up this driveway here, okay. We stopped about in here, and from looking at it, it looked like this house was over here, the barn was over here, and the pool was over here. It's just a mirror image of what you have on the map. MR. BATCHELDER-Yes. It's down this way, some, from what you've got it. It's not as close to this íline, hULbit .all adds UP. You've got in the rignt pTace, except t snou~a e aown tñ1S way. MR. BREWER-Well, then it's not in the right place. right configuration, but not in the right place. It's in the MR. BATCHELDER-Yes, but not down far enough. MR. BREWER-Is that something that has to be adjusted on the map, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. TARANA-The barn and the pool are in the wrong place, too. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. The whole thing has to be moved more east, down toward the eastern corner. It's farther down the road. MR. BATCHELDER-About, I'd say, right there. MR. MACEWAN-Just about where your hand is, or down farther a little bit. MR. BATCHELDER-Well, not much. MR. MACEWAN-Well, it is, if you're going to approve it based on this drawing, it's a big deal. MR. BREWER-Right. I understand that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. He could move his house another 100 feet up the road some day. MR. BREWER-Any other questions? MR. MACEWAN-That was mY only question. MR. BREWER-So we can take care of that at Final. We can have the map taken care of. MR. BATCHELDER-I would think so. MR. NEALON-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NEALON-I apologize to the Board. I didn't realize that. Mr. Steves prepared the map. MR. BREWER-The scale, though, if you were looking at it to scale, it's way too close to the road, or the drive that you have there now. MR. NEALON-That may very well be. MR. BATCHELDER-If they'd have probably come to the Board, I would have straightened it out for them. MR. BREWER-No. We could see clearly that it was in the wrong place 23 ~' ---' from the map, because we were sitting in the drive, here, looking at the map and trying to figure out if we were in the right place or not. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay, Ed. MR. LAPOINT-Anybody have any other comments before we go to SEQRA, any questions? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-1993, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: WHEREAS, there application for: subdivision, and is presently before the Planning MALCOLM & BETTY BATCHELDER. for Board a two an lot 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: Adirondack Park Agency may be involved 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Type I 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 19th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. We'll need a motion. Before we do that, we do have the notification proof, right, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Notification to the neighbors has been submitted. 24 ',,-, -/ MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE MALCOLM & BETTY BATCHELDER, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: The proposal is for a 2 lot subdivision at Preliminary Stage, with the applicant to correct the location of the house, barn, and other structures, and the Town will waive the two foot contours on the final Site Plan, the location and size of existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drainage pipes, the layout, with respect to streets and sidewalks, and also waive the construction details, as applied to subdivisions of two lots or less. Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1993 SKETCH PLAN TYPE I NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: GROSSMAN, BAKER, RUBIN LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF N.Y.S. RT. 9 AT WEEKS ROAD PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 17.74 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS; ONE LOT OF 6.45 ACRES AND A SECOND LOT OF 11. 28 ACRES. AN EXISTING AMES RETAIL STORE IS LOCATED ON THE PROPOSED 6.45 ACRE PARCEL AND A PROPOSED WAL-MART RETAIL STORE IS TO BE LOCATED ON THE 11.28 ACRE PARCEL. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL ALSO BE DECLARING ITS DESIRE TO BE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEQRA REVIEW. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 71-1-3, 5 LOT SIZE: 17.74 ACRE SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS BILL WHITE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. ROWE-Can I jump in? MR. BREWER-Go ahead. MRS. ROWE-I just need to explain that I have been asked to recuse from this because I live within the 500 feet from the Wal-Mart project, and due to complications resulting from the Red Lobster project, I feel that this is in the best interest of myself and this Planning Board. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Mr. Chairman, I also just wanted to tell you, the Staff didn't prepare any notes at this time with this project. As you may note, this is a two lot subdivision, and usually we just go to preliminary stage with a two lot subdivision, but due to the magnitude and the scope of the project, I felt it a good idea to have them come in at Sketch Plan so they can just basically explain, in a very informal manner, their concept for the subdivision, and naturally we have variances associated with this, and site plan. So, it's really at the Board's discretion whether you want to make your recommendation to go on to preliminary, or even just table it at Sketch Plan, until you have the outcome of the variances. MR. LAPOINT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question, just before we get started, but our objective tonight is to at least get a resolution, asking for the lead agency status? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's very key to the. So, that happens tonight, one way or the other? Thank you. 25 '--' - MR. MARTIN-And as a note to that SEQRA Review, I think DEC likes to see one review, rather than a segmented review for subdivision, site plan, and variance. You'd be looking at all aspects of this from an environmental standpoint, with the variances, the subdivision and the site plan. MR. LAPOINT-So, we could anticipate that they would have to be in with their variances before preliminary stage, correct? MR. MARTIN-Right. I think we already have their variance applications on file, but there may be some engineering concerns. things of that nature, that you want to address, prior to actually undertaking the assessment. I think they've already been in contact with Rist-Frost on a preliminary basis and have established that contact already. So, whatever questions may come out of this that you have, as you go through the environmental assessment, I think we're poised and ready to at least undertake the engineering aspects of it as well. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, tonight we can let them give us their presentation, and there are people here concerned, I'm sure. Maybe we'd like to take some comments. MR. MARTIN-It's the Board's discretion. MR. MACEWAN-Good idea. MR. BREWER-Fine. MR. WHITE-My name is Bill White, and I'm with an engineering and architectural consulting firm in Rochester, Bergman Associates. I have a few other people here tonight that I want to introduce to you because they're part of the development team. They've been working on the project. Gary Olin is an engineer who also works with myself at Bergman Associates. Michael O'Connor, an attorney who's representing us throughout the course of the project, both in accomplishing the site plan, subdivision approval and the variance work, and we have Shelley Johnston, from the firm Transportation Concepts. We've hired Transportation Concepts as our consultants on this project. They completed a traffic impact study of the area, and have submitted that to DOT. They're going to continue to work closely with DOT during our review of the project. If you do have any traffic related questions, feel free to direct them to Shelley. She's prepared to answer them. As you guys were talking about, the purpose of our meeting tonight is to sort of on a more formal basis start the application procedure. We met probably about six to eight weeks on a more informal basis with the Planning Board, the Town Board, and the Zoning Board of Appeals as well as several residents, to just discuss in general the project, and I got pretty good input at that meeting, and as a result, we've made a couple of plan changes that I think are improvements in response to some of your comments that I received, but let me talk a little bit about the SEQRA process. Our understanding, which I believe is concurrent with what your people's feelings are, is that it is a Type I action under SEQRA, because it meets two of the criteria in the SEQRA law, one is that it's development of 10 or more acres. Secondly, it's greater than a 100,000 square foot bUilding. The structure is 116,000 square feet, plus or minus. So it's clearly a Type I Action requiring a coordinated review of all the involved review agencies. The other action that we'd like to see the Board take tonight is to declare their intent to be lead agency through the SEQRA process. We need your input that the application is complete, and we would like you to refer the application to the County Planning Department, and other involved review agencies, subsequent to the meeting, to begin the 30 day review period required for the coordinated review. We'd also like to accomplish tonight the Sketch Plan Review phase of this project. We've had the informal meeting, but I don't think we've had a chance to really sit down directly with the Planning Board and other people to get more of your thoughts, and I know you've had, now, some time 26 -..-' to think about it, and maybe you have some more input that we can integrate into the project, and we'd like to hear that tonight. Basically what our application is is that blue folder, does each Board member have a blue folder? That document there, the Environmental Assessment Report, includes the standard Long Form Environmental Assessment Form, and we've gathered quite a bit of information, there's a lot of supplemental data relative to other potential environmental impacts. You'll see in the Appendix of the report is also a complete traffic impact study that was prepared by Transportation Concepts. We included that in that, so you've all had a chance to take a look at the traffic issue. I think you'll agre~ with New York State DOT's conclusions on that~ We hayen't rece1ved, yet, a formal response írom the New Yorx ~tate ~OT. A traffic impact study was submitted, probably, the beginning of December, and we haven't heard back from them. We've contacted them a week or so ago, and we believe that we'll be getting a response to the traffic impact study within two weeks, and at that time, the next time we meet with the Board, I'm sure that the DOT will have responded, and we will have some more input from them at that time. The last thing that's in the Environmental Assessment are three folded up plans. The first plan is a topographic and boundary survey. What the topographic and boundary survey shows is basically what the existing conditions of the site are, and just briefly, it includes the existing Ames store, and a Sysco food market and about three or four additional in-fill retail type stores. Those stores will be, with the exception of the Ames store, the other stores will be removed during the course of construction to make way for the construction of the new Wal-Mart store. The second plan that we've included is what we call a subdivision plan, and the intent in providing that was to show the Board what are plans are with regard to subdivision of the site. It's one parcel, right now, of 17.74 acres, and what we're going to do is just subdivide this down through here. National Realty, the present owner of the site, would continue to own the eXisting Ames store, and the Queen Diner, which is on the front of the parcel, and Wal-Mart will own their own parcel. The third plan we had in there is the actual Sketch Plan, which is basically the same plans we have rendered up here for your review. As I mentioned, what we're going to do is remove four eXisting retail stores in there. We're proposing a new 116,000 square foot Wal-Mart store, which includes a TBO, which stands for Tire, Brake, and Oil, a scenario where you drive in, get your tires changed, get your oil changed, quick in and out type operation, as well as a garden center in this area. To support the store, we're providing some additional parking over in this area of the site. The existing parking comes over to approximately mid-way through the entrance to the Wal-Mart store. We're providing additional parking over here. The parking is in accordance with the Town Code, in that through providing right around 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square footage of the store. The other, I think, significant change that we'd be making to the site, and I ,consider this improvement to the site, is that we'd be realigning the entrance drive, the southern most entrance drive to the site. Right now this entrance drive is positioned a little bit further north than that location shown on the topographic and boundary survey that you have. What Shelley's found out is that, in completing her Traffic Impact Study, is the additional square footage will create the need for a traffic signal at that intersection. So for safer operation, we've elected to reposition this access drive. So it aligns directly across with Montray Road. That'll make for much more safer and efficient operation of that intersection, and it gives people a chance to get out at the signal. There's also a concern, right now, that the people at Montray Road are having trouble exiting out to Route 9, and with the signalized intersection there, that'll give them the time to actually get the light and the signal to be able to access New York State Route 9. I'll talk a little bit about the utilities and how we propose to service utilities to this site. There's an existing water main that serves the Ames retail store and the other small shops. However, it's rather small. It's inefficient. It's not adequately sized to be able to meet the fire demands of the Wal- 27 "--' ~ Mart store, but there is an existing 16 inch main along New York State Route 9 which does have quite a bit of available flow, and pressure, and we've met with the people over in the Water Department, reviewed some of the data on that system, and we'd be proposing tapping into that system and coming directly into the Wal-Mart store. The other major utility that we have to service this site is sanitary sewer. Presently, there is no public sanitary sewer on this site. There is a leachfield in this area right here, and in addition to the leachfield, approximately 15 years ago, a secondary type of leaching system, seepage pits, were provided over in this area. Due to the expansion, we no longer have the room to accommodate an on-site subsurface disposal system. So, we're proposing to extend a pUblic sanitary sewer. That sewer right now is south of the site, and I believe the best way I can describe the location is that it's in front of Long John Silvers. KATHLEEN ROWE MRS. ROWE-It's in front of Mr. B's. MR. WHITE-Mr. B's? Close to Long John Silvers. DAN OLSON MR. OLSON-No. It's quite a ways down the hill. MR. WHITE-Okay, and that sewer would be extended to the north, along the right of way of New York State Route 9, and come into the site. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can I ask you one question? Would the Ames store be tied into the sewer also? MR. WHITE-Yes. MRS. ROWE-No, it would not. MR. BREWER-Please, let him answer, and then we can get. They will be tying into it also? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have some kind of a contract or anything? Will you have a contract with them to tie them in? It is going to be a subdivision. MR. WHITE-Well, what we're going to do is we're going to extend a public sewer, and either one or two laterals will come out and tie into that pumping sewer. MR. BREWER-Okay. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. 0' CONNOR-We will have to have an agreement with the Town, approved by the Town Board, and that would provide for service to both of those properties. MR. BREWER-Right. It just would seem not feasible, if the Wal-Mart was going to tie into it and Ames not. MR. WHITE-Yes. No, the plan is to tie into the public sewer. This septic system that I spoke of over here services the Ames store right now. MR. BREWER-It does? MR. WHITE-So a leaching system for the Ames store is, in essence, underneath the Wal-Mart store right now. So, it actually has to be removed. 28 --- -.../ MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. WHITE-The last thing I'll talk about is drainage, because that's an important issue here. Right now, the site pretty much during a storm event, handles stormwater through sheet runoff. In essence, what is does is it hits the pavement or the bUilding surfaces, runs off onto the pavement, and because of the very sandy soil conditions on the site,' it pretty much just soaks into the ground. There's quite a bit of additional runoff that will runoff onto Weeks Road and into New York State Route 9. We think we can do a lot to improve that situation. So, we've taken a look at ways to mitigate the additional runoff that we're going to have by creating additional pavement and additional roof top area. Wha~ we're proposing, and we've spoken with the Town Engineer on the concept and we'll be providing him additional information, is a series of infiltration basins, seepage pits, that, essentially, act like catch basins throughout the parking lot. There'll probably be about 15 to 20 of them, and what they'll do is take that stormwater in and infiltrate it back into the ground. We've talked, again, with the Town Engineer about some of the details of it as well, and he's given us a pretty good idea of how this concept works in other areas in Queensbury, and so far it looks very promising that that can be accomplished. Mr. Martin suggested that we contact the Town Engineer and provide him calculations and engineering data to document that. We've prepared those calculations, and we'll be submi tting them to the Town Engineer wi thin the next couple of days. Some of the other things that we've done to date is pretty detailed soils analysis. We've had a geo-technical engineering firm out of the Rochester area. They hired a subconsultant to come up here. They've done a series of borings throughout the site and a series of test pits with backhoes. They dug down 10, 15 feet, and typical of other sites in Queensbury, there's a tremendous amount of sandy material. It's very permeable, and it's very well suited to the infiltration basins proposed to mitigate stormwater runoff. We've also taken a look, through our geo-technical engineer, to make sure we have adequate bearing pressure for the foundations for the stores, and that's proven satisfactory as well. So, we're quite fortunate to have very workable soils on this site, and they're also soils that work several months throughout the year. We could start this in the spring, during the rainy season, and be able to accomplish what we'd like to accomplish here. MR. BREWER-Can I backup one second? On this letter from Mike Shaw, the consumption for Wal-Mart, estimated, is 1200 gallons per day and Ames is 4615? Are those figures backwards, or are they right? MR. WHITE-Four thousand six hundred and fifteen? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. WHITE-And Wal-Mart's 1,000? MR. BREWER-Two hundred. MR. WHITE-Yes. The way we calculated the Wal-Mart, you've got to realize that this store has about three restrooms. It's a big store, but it's all retail store. I mean, it's. MR. BREWER-Okay. I just, the numbers were so different that. MR. WHITE-Yes. Well, here's what, DEC has a criteria that you apply to stores for design purposes, and it's 0.8 gallons per day per square foot. In the absence of other design information, you use that criteria for design purposes. Wal-Mart has historical data, from doing stores across the Country. They've measured exactly what their use is, and no question it varies geographically. They use more water in the western dry season. They might use less water in other regions, but as an average, Wal- Mart will use 0.31, or .031 instead of .08, less than half of what New York State DEC design data is. We would be able to provide 29 '--' -/ that information to the Town Eng ineer to document that, if you wish, but that is why a lesser number is being used for the Wal- Mart store than for the Ames store. MR. BREWER-Okay. It just seems like you're conserving a lot of water or somebody else is wasting a lot of water. It's better for you. You're not going to have to pay as much. MR. WHITE-What we've done is we've used the .08 figure on the Ames, which is probably a high figure. MR. BREWER-And the .031 on yours. MR. WHITE-. 031, because we have good hard data on the Wal-Mart store, but we don't have good hard data on the Ames store. MR. LAPOINT-Does the Ames include the restaurant? MRS. ROWE-Ames includes the restaurant. office, and it includes the Sysco. It includes the dentist MR. BREWER-Wait. When we get to the public, we'll let you speak. MR. WHITE-I'm not sure what the concern is on the sewer? MR. LAPOINT-My question was, he raised the question it was about four times as much, and it would make sense if there was a restaurant involved, that's all. MR. WHITE-I'm not sure if that number included any of the retail stores, or just the Ames. We could research that a little further and get actual water records from the Ames store, if it was relevant, if the Board felt it was relevant. MR. BREWER-I just saw a staggering difference, and I just was curious. That's all. MR. LAPOINT-Well, you wouldn't have that anyway, because it's going to a septic system now. I mean, it's not relevant. It's going to go to a sewer, and there's a restaurant involved, and that probably accounts for the difference. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Brewer, do we have that letter from Mr. Shaw. MR. BREWER-I don't know if you do or not. If you want, I can give you mine. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, because I'm not sure if we actually looked at that calculation to even see if that's right according to the figures that Bill has just given you. MR. BREWER-You can have this. MR. WHITE-Thanks. If there's a concern on the sewer. MR. BREWER-No. I just saw a four to one ratio, and I just. MR. WHITE-Yes. Okay. Did I explain it well? Do you understand it now? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. WHITE-As part of the site plan application, we do have four variances for the Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm not going to go into the justification and everything for the variances. I understand that's something to do with the Zoning Board of Appeals, but I think it's important that the Planning Board know and at least understand what they are. The first is a requirement for a - o lot line setback, and we're requesting that only in the area between the two stores because we have a common wall, subdivided 30 '--' ..-/ down in between the two stores right there. We're not aSkingl for that 0 lot line setback in any other location. That's jusi an issue that we have to deal with, and I'm not sure that ji. t' s anything that's real difficult to achieve, or something tha~ we could really avoid at this point. The second variance that comes to mind is the encroachment within the 50 foot rear setback a~ea. I don't know how many of you were at the initial informal meeþing that we had here, but our initial plan had several parking pl~ces that encroached into this 50 foot buffer, and the fire lane encroaches into the 50 foot buffer in this area here. I g~t a pretty good sense, from hearing through the Board members andlthe public that this :Ls more of a sensitivt; area than we ¡had origlnålly thought. so what we ve done lS we ve remove a ali t~ese parking spaces that encroach into this 50 foot buffer. So w, no longer encroach into this area here. However, we do have a ~ire lane that encroaches into the 50 foot setback area there, and ~hat we've tried to do is take a step forward and at least mitigate $ome of the potential environmental impacts that we have on this ~ite here. So at least we're complying with the Zoning Ordinance onithe I south side of the property. On the west side of the prope: :'ty, we're able to get the buildinq within that 50 foot rear set~ack area, but really we need to get the fire lanes back a littleibit further to do that. There's an existing encroachment into t-his area, by the way, over here by the Ames store, and I guess in I our mind, this isn't as sensitive as this area over in here, bec~use what we really abut, here, is an apartment complex, but notlthe actual apartments. It's two separate garages in this area that! are vehicle storage in that area. The other variance we're requesting is a stipulation in the Code that the parking areas be divide~ up into 150 foot groups by planting divider strips. You can see ~rom the existing conditions there, we really don't have that a~ an existing condition, and we're trying to add some buffer strips where we can. You can see we've added some additional plant~ngs along the front, here, to try and divide that area up, but bectuse of this preexisting condition where much of the existing areaiout front doesn't have those planted divider strips, we think it'sinot quite right for us to have to go back and improve the other Sid~ of this plaza to conform with the current Zoning Ordinances, as that is a preexisting condition. There's one more variance, ¡the permeability. There's a requirement in the Code that 30 percenf of the land area be permeable area. Our current plan ¡has approximately 15 percent permeable area. Again, what we're trI'ing to do, and you'll see this through the more detailed landsca ing plans and grading plans that we provide, is to try to provi e a good quality landscaping and aesthetics, adding more landscapin in this area, here, and in addition to that, mitigating the stormw_ter runoff that exists on this site now. We're going to actu.llY decrease the amount of stormwater runoff. So we're trying to, ,hat I believe is the intent of that Ordinance, being that you d~n't want to increase the stormwater runoff and you don't want to $ake this a sea of, either. So we're trying to address that. W~' re going to meet with the Beautification Committee soon. We're working with the Town Engineer on the drainage issue, and I t~ink you will have an opportunity to review the landscaping as wéll. That's about all I have. I guess what I'd like now is the i$put from the public. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questicjms, first, before we go to the public? MR. LAPOINT-If we asked for a real detailed description of i the landscaping plan, I mean size, species, the whole nine yards~ in those critical zones, you'd have no problem with that? I'm Just trying to think ahead, here, in terms of big, mature type Evergreens, or what's feasible. ' ! , MR. WHITE-I guess we'd like to do something that's reasonable. I My direction from Wal-Mart is work with this Town. Well, I'm just saying that that is an ele~ent MR. LAPOINT-Okay. 31 '- --- that I think that, as I went through SEQRA, I want to see that as one of the elements of the plan. MR. WHITE-I think the next step, like I said, is we're going to meet with the Beautification Committee and show them a landscaping plan as well. Probably what we need to do real quickly is develop a landscaping plan so this Board and the other Boards that are involved with this can better evaluate some of these things. MR. LAPOINT-And then you'd have to have a complete drainage report, the size of your infiltration galleries, etc. MR. WHITE-Yes. It's actually done, but not yet submitted. MR. LAPOINT-But not yet submitted. MR. WHITE-And I understand you submit that through the Town and the Town, the comments. MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly. MR. WHITE-Yes. We've done the engineering work on it. need to put it together. We just MR. LAPOINT-And if we wanted to know what you're going to do with all your snow, and still keep the parking? MR. WHITE-Well, it's interesting, because if you go through the site today, as you came down, you could see how the snow is stored out there, and really I don't think we'd try to do anything much different than the way they're accomplishing that, today. They're using much of this area, here, for snow storage and green space. We'll have some area, here, for green space. We'll have some area, here, for green space. They've stored some snow in these areas, here, and I think we have the opportunity to store additional snow back in this area. This drops off a little bit, once this goes down here. Granted, it's a little bit difficult. It's not an ideal plan for snow storage, but what could happen is that it could be trucked from one area to back in here, where it's off the pavement area, because there is the concern that, although we meet the Town Codes requirement for parking, we don't want snow in the parking lot, because it just takes away badly needed parking space, and as a last alternative, snow will be trucked off site, and that would, of course, depend upon the intensity of the snowfall. I'm not sure that that would be a fair comment. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Parking Area Number Six, along your back, that's the only parking area that encroaches on the 50 foot rear setback? MR. WHITE-Right here? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. WHITE-Yes, and it doesn't encroach in this direction, but these six parking stalls encroach in that direction. MR. LAPOINT-And that'll get your fire trucks and all that sort of stuff? You've figured that already, your radiuses and getting through there? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-That's already been done? MR. WHITE-Yes. We Marshal, because requirements along satisfactory. have. We do need to soon meet with the Fire I want to review with him the fire lane the rear of the building to make sure they're MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and the very light dotted line on here represents 32 '-.../ what exists now. I see the Sysco and the four other occupancies. I'm on my site plan that's not shaded in. MR. WHITE-Right in here? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. That represents what's there now. MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Now the parking that exists now, on this plan, is all the way out, or is that all green space right now, along the southern edge? I'm trying to picture it. MR. WHITE-I think if you have the topo and boundary submitted. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I see. MR. WHITE-There's a copy right there. MR. LAPOINT-Great. MR. WHITE-That's pretty much the way it looks right now, with the darker areas being the primary woods that are there, and this light green area is sort of more like a brush. It t S also where the sanitary disposal field is. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and I, just concepts we're trying to do up the road a little bit, about internalization of traffic. Have you considered the one story business to your south, possibly the chinese restaurant, any look at any internalization of traffic there? What exists now are barriers, right, guardrails? MR. WHITE-Between the chinese restaurant? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. WHITE-Yes. There's a guardrail that goes up and around here, and you really can't access the chinese restaurant today, from this parcel. MR. LAPOINT-These are just concepts, because what we're doing up the road is trying to look at internalization of traffic for stuff like this, and we've asked other applicants to check with their neighbors about those concepts. MR. BREWER-Rather than have somebody come from Wal-Mart and go out on Route 9, back into the chinese restaurant and go right through the parking lot. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well these are questions we've put to other applicants, when you're not here, obviously, and I want to make sure we hold the same type standards. MR. WHITE-I don't think we should rule it out. mention it to my client. I can certainly MR. LAPOINT-Okay, because that question is going to get tougher as we go along. MR. MACEWAN-Something else that we had talked about in our organizational meeting, too, was having sketches, elevations, front elevations, side elevations of the proposed building. We'd like to see that, as well. MR. LAPOINT-Do you have a rendering, some time along this process, I mean, before Preliminary, where we take a look at, see where the building would look like? MR. WHITE-Well, typically we don't begin preparing architectural drawings until we have site plan approval, but I think I can do 33 "--" --..r" even a little bit better than that, because Wal-Mart has pro- typical stores. I don't know if you've seen a Wal-Mart store, recently? MR. LAPOINT-I haven't, but I don't want a Grossman's, orange and white stripe type thing, but just for concept. MR. WHITE-How about I bring you some pictures of some that were constructed in Rochester. MR. MARTIN-I think, Bill, it might be worth mentioning, what's the color scheme, typically? MR. WHITE-The construction is split faced concrete block, and it's an aesthetic architectural type block. It's a gray, in general it's a gray color, in the lower half. It has a blue band that goes across the top, with the Wal-Mart, and it also has small red strip, sort of a red, white and blue theme. I think it's a very interesting building, architecturally, as retail stores go. It's not an architectural monument by any means, but I think if you compare it to some of the other retail stores. MR. LAPOINT-I go to Ames and Sysco quite a bit, but I never go out Weeks Road, or whatever it is. Are there problems with Weeks Road that any of you people know about? MR. MACEWAN-It's tough getting in and out of there, with the apartments. MRS. TARANA-It's hard getting in and out. MR. LAPOINT-Weeks Road onto Route 9, or? MRS. TARANA-Very hard getting in and out, and the visibility north, coming out of Weeks Road looking north, is very difficult. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now what exists now is just one exit from the parking lot. You would propose to have three? MR. WHITE-Well, actually, this whole area in here is paved. MR. LAPOINT-Is open. MR. WHITE-It's all paved. It's just wide open. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. That's an uncontrolled, and a bad circumstance. MR. WHITE-Yes, and I think we're improving in that area, what we're trying to define actual access points onto Weeks Road, rather than just having a. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and you would put one of these directly, this is somebody's private blacktop drive, the one right in front of Ames, right there? MRS. TARANA-That's Robert Gardens. MR. WHITE-Over in here? MR. LAPOINT-Right there. MR. WHITE-Blacktop drive? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-That's Robert Gardens. MR. LAPOINT-The next road is Robert Gardens. MR. WHITE-Yes. Robert Gardens is a little bit to the east. 34 '--' -.-/ MR. LAPOINT-I mean, you've got somebody's blacktop drive there, directly across from that intersection, as opposed to the road that goes into Robert Gardens. There's a difference. Okay. MRS. PULVER-What is, for the square footage, the number of parking spaces for this bUilding? I know Wal-Mart has more parking than is required, than the Town of Queensbury requires, but what is, for your calculations? You have 975 spaces right now? MR. WHITE-Right. We're right now at a ratio of 5.0 per 1,000, which is exactly what the Town Code requires. MRS. PULVER-So you're exactly. MR. WHITE-White. MRS. PULVER-All right, because initially you had many more. MR. WHITE-Yes. Those were the spaces that were here and encroached into the 50 foot buffer area, and although we hated to give up the parking spaces, it was fe 1 t that it's more important to not encroach into this buffer area. MR. LAPOINT-I also see something here that says, I'm assuming "BT" means blacktop, correct? Okay. I see blacktop island here that you have colored green there, and that's the one right in front, along Route 9? MR. WHITE-This here? MR. LAPOINT-Down. Yes, right in there. Now that's shown on my drawing as blacktop island, and you have it landscaped there. MR. WHITE-Yes. What we're going to do is make some improvements along New York State Route 9, there. You see a lot of, this is sort of pretty undefined area right now. MR. LAPOINT-Right. correct? There used to be an old gas station there, MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. WHITE-And what we're going to do is clean that up so that you've got a nice green space here. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, I mean, you would change your drawing so, I mean, what I have to go on says blacktop island, there, and you're showing greenery. MR. WHITE-Yes. I think what happened is some lettering. MR. LAPOINT-Something to be resolved as we go. MR. WHITE-Yes. That's something that belongs on the to po and boundary survey. MR. BREWER-Is there going to be a sign out front? MR. WHITE-Yes, and that's another thing 1'11 bring a picture of next time. Wal-Mart also has a pro typical type sign that they like to use. MR. BREWER-Where is it on here? MR. WHITE-I'm not sure that we have the sign location showing on our site plan, and we can add that to the site plan, for future reviews, but in general what we'd like to do is put the sign near the entrance, so the people are lead to the entrance of the store. 35 '--' I guess we haven't come to the issue, too much of signage, of how we'd deal with the Ames signage, if Ames, in fact, were to, in fact, have a different sign, for their parcel, and Wal-Mart a sign for their parcel. MR. LAPOINT-Well, for subdivision we'll need both. I think I'll want to see both. I don't know about anybody else. MRS. TARANA-Doesn't the Sign Ordinance say a mall can only have one sign to include. MR. MARTIN-A mall is defined as three stores, though. MRS. TARANA-And this is only two stores, so they can each have a sign? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-If we could just put it on the map. That's all. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MARTIN-You also have two lots, yes, that's true. MR. LAPOINT-Some type of combined sign would be much more, at least, I want to see some options, as opposed to, and if I were to ask what Ames lease is for, and I don't know if I have a right to ask for that, so that I know that, here's my one big concern is that Ames really doesn't intend to compete with Wal-Mart, and their lease is only for five more years, and then all of a sudden we have one, we already are proposing a megastore, and then we take that megastore up about another 40 percent when they take over Ames. If I were to ask what, I mean. what's Ames commitment? Are they in for another 15 years? Are they in for, I mean, it would make a difference to me, in my thinking, on whether or not I want to subdivide this property, if Ames' lease is up in 18 months. I can ask for that, maybe not, but I may want to know that. MRS. PULVER-Why can't we ask our Planning Department to research that, rather than. MR. LAPOINT-Well, they would have no idea about leasing. MR. MARTIN-I would have no idea about what the. MR. WHITE-I understand. MR. LAPOINT-But that's my concern, that's my concept, is that if Ames is up in 18 months or 24 months, and the big master plan that you guys have in secret is to take that store over, including what you have here, then all this variance and everything would totally unnecessary, in my mind, from a planning perspective, and that I would feel duped, okay, that if I can see that they've got a 10 year lease or something like that, it would be more reassuring to me that this subdivision is needed. MR. O'CONNOR-The only variance that would not be necessary would be the 0 lot line. MR. LAPOINT-No, because if you were taking over Ames, you could totally redesign this and meet everything, would be my opinion. MR. O'CONNOR-In honesty, though, that would complicate the problem, because Wal-Mart generally would want more parking than what we are presently having, part of the reason that the site is working is that Ames is staying. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now, you're really confusing me. MR. 0' CONNOR-If that were a total Wal-Mart store, they, as the 36 '-, occupant, would be looking for more parking space than what's there. MR. LAPOINT-As that's sized, but what I'm saying is that you would probably build something smaller, that is, than the combination of the two exist now. MR. O'CONNOR-The bUilding itself, really, the size of the bUilding that we're requesting isn't generating the requirement for variance. The building that's there is a little less than the permitted bUilding per the zone and per the lot size. MR. LAPOINT-I think you're missing my point. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think I am. MR. LAPOINT-That if you were to take over the Ames store, and if they were to take the whole thing, you could redesign this so you wouldn't have to have any variances at all. MR. BREWER-In other words, a whole new building, rip down the whole building, rather than part of the building. MR. LAPOINT-Ames is totally out of there, you could redesign this so there would be no variances at all, needed for this project. . MR. MACEWAN-And meet every Code requirement. MR. LAPOINT-Do you see what I'm saying? MRS. PULVER-Yes. I know exactly what you're saying. MR. WHITE-I can't tell you the details of Ames lease agreement with National Realty, for two reasons, one. I don't know, and that's the biggest one, but secondly, I'm not sure that they would divulge that information. MR. LAPOINT-National Realty is making the deal with Wal-Mart, though. MR. WHITE-They are selling them the property. MR. LAPOINT-So, they are definitely involved in this subdivision. MR. WHITE-They are, but Wal-Mart is not interested in buying the entire plaza. MR. LAPOINT-I take you on face value for that, but I just think that if this store's lease is up in 18 months, and the National Real ty knows that, that there could be a bigger plaza. I mean, that's the way I would plan it if I was an owner. If I were sCheming this, that's the way I would do it. MR. 0' CO'NNOR-If we can ask a question, I don't mean to make an issue of it because we don't know if the information would be available or will be available. You've asked us to inquire. We will make the inquiry, and if it's available, we will make it. If it's not, we'll come to that bridge at that time. MR. LAPOINT-Good. MR. OLIN-Gary Olin. Can we also point out that if that were the case, that would require Wal-Mart or whoever to come back before the Planning Board for site plan approval, whatever changes you're making, and also if there were variances involved, that we couldn't meet the Code, then we'd have to go through the variance process allover again. So it would still come back to this Board for all the various approvals. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but I wouldn't want to see that after the store is 37 ''"---' '-/ built. I mean, that would be a terrible error, and we don't know that. MR. O'CONNOR-We don't know that. MR. MARTIN-The only thing, as a practical matter, Ed, I can shed some light on, Ames just got done putting a substantial investment into that store, in terms of reconditioning. Everybody's aware of that. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. MARTIN-I can't imagine they would do that on the guise of an 18 month remainder on their lease. I would just throw that out. MR. LAPOINT-No. Exactly, but part of this deal had to have been pending the owners of those four stores condition, and if the paper's correct, it was a surprise to these people, and they thought they'd be here for renewing their lease, or something like that. MR. MACEWAN-Along that line of that comment, you wouldn't have thought that about Addis & Deys down in Saratoga Mall, either. So, I guess anything could happen. MR. LAPOINT-Which is why, you know, we're planners, and we're supposed to, I think, cover that, especially when people are asking for variances in these circumstances. MR. MACEWAN-If the Board wants, I'll be more than happy to research that and see if I can get a hold of somebody from National Realty and ask the question. MR. BREWER-That store could go out. MR. LAPOINT-I understand that, but if I'm a rich guy, and I want to do something like this, and I want this size store, plus Ames, this is the way I do it. Okay, and you're 100 percent right, they could go under, and it would all happen that way anyway, but there's a question in my mind that I need answered, because I see what's going on with the other four store owners. MR. WHITE-We'll contact our client and see if we can get that information. MR. LAPOINT-Great. Thanks. MR. BREWER-Okay. Fine. Anything else. MR. MACEWAN-Question back, again, on the sewer. You were talking about a proposal, the possibility of Ames tying in with the sewer when you guys tie in. Would the restaurant, which is owned by National Realty, also be tied into the sewer district? MR. WHITE-I guess we haven't gotten to that point yet, to talk with Mike Shaw, with the Sewer Department, about that. I guess we're trying to get over the hurdle of the variances first. If we can get that far and continue on with the project. Then we're going to start looking in a little bit more detail about how we provide sewage. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The other thing, I think, that should be explored is that I've heard that the car wash is very interested in being on the sewer, and they would be a major user and contributor to the district. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, and if you move this whole thing up into our strip, our Million Dollar Strip, that would be Question Number One, integrating the car wash, the restaurant and all that into the whole project. 38 '- -/ MR. WHITE-Certainly, we'll consider a couple of different options for the sewer. If we can get them in, that would be great. MR. BREWER-Yes. The more the merrier. MRS. TARANA-I have a question, going back to the water usage. Did you prepare the Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form? MR. WHITE-Our Firm did. MRS. TARANA-Okay. You may not know the answer, but on Page 4 they have the total anticipated water usage per day of 5250, 5,250 gallons a day. MR. WHITE-That's not the Wal-Mart store. MRS. TARANA-Well, I assume, yes. MR. WHITE-No. MR. BREWER-On Part I, Corinne? MRS. TARANA-Page 4, on the bottom, Number 23. MR. WHITE-I think if you take the number 116,097, which is the square footage of the building, times .031, which is Wal-Mart's, traditionally across the Country their water usage, you'll come up with a number similar, or very close to that. MRS. TARANA-Well, I guess I question, then, to qo back to Tim's question on this other page, you've got anticipated water usage of 1200 gallons per day. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's Mr. Shaw's estimate. That's not our estimate. That's not based on information. MR. BREWER-But he had to come up with a calculation somehow. MRS. TARANA-But I think we should have the right information some place, from somebody. MR. O'CONNOR-But we don't know the basis of his calculations. This is the first we've seen it. That's why I asked you for that, and I know that there was a newspaper article based upon that, which was a surprise to us also. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Okay. So, I think that's one question that you 're going to want to resolve. MR. BREWER-Maybe we can figure that out. What did he come up with, 26001 MR. WHITE-3560. MR. BREWER-3560. MR. LAPOINT-Again, with a sewer system and a water supply, these numbers are really meaningless, because you pay your bill, and that's it. MRS. TARANA-Well. I think it should be one thing or the other. MR. WHITE-But the question you ask is a good one. I think you need to get with Mr. Shaw and make sure that we're in agreement with him. MRS. TARANA-I have a question about the traffic light at Montray Road. In the first place, I guess I don't understand why you would 39 '--' -../ want to align with Montray Road, what the thinking is behind that, when you've already got the Ponderosa, which has a problem getting in and out, is directly opposite that other exit. MR. WHITE-The Ponderosa is right here. MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. WHITE-Yes. MRS. TARANA-And they're drive is right exactly opposite that other dri veway on your side of the road, and you're going to have to remove a lot of greenspace that you've got there to align it with Montray. So that's one issue. The other issue is, why Montray Road? When I look at these, and I don't know how to read these traffic things, I'll tell you the truth, but when I look at it, it looks to me like four cars on one thing came in and out of Montray Road. At one point, none. Am I right? Am I reading that right? MS. JOHNSTON-That's correct. MRS. TARANA-I mean, when you look at that whole area, the least used road is Montray Road. Why would the traffic light be at Montray Road? MS. JOHNSTON-The real impetus behind requiring a traffic signal is not the existing traffic volumes. What you're looking at in that figure in the traffic study is the eXisting traffic volumes going in and out of Montray Road, which will not, like you said they're minor, very minor traffic, and they're not going to require a traffic signal. What's triggering the requirement, or the warrant for a traffic signal is the traffic generated by the Wal-Mart. This driveway that's across from the Ponderosa, if this subdivision goes through, is going to be an Ames driveway, technically. This driveway will serve the Wal-Mart. So the traffic signal, the warrant for a traffic signal as specified by the New York State DOT is the traffic that's generated on a daily basis from this store. To anticipate your next question, why not these other roads up here, there simply won't be enough traffic generated on a daily basis to warrant traffic signals, at either Weeks Road or. MRS. TARANA-So the State will put up a traffic signal based on estimated traffic rather than actual traffic? MS. JOHNSTON-I cannot speak for the State. We've submitted our traffic study supporting what we feel that's historical data on how much traffic will be generated on a daily basis by this store, and what the State, and what the State has to do, it's their jOb to do, is to review our traffic study and either concur or, we discuss what we've presented, in our view, but in no way do I believe that the State's going to put up a traffic signal at those other two streets. The traffic levels on a daily basis are relatively low. During the peak hours, there are approximately 100 trips. MR. WHITE-That signal, by the way, is not something the State will construct. It's the developer's responsibility to construct this signal as well as all the traffic improvements out on a State highway. We need to complete a traffic impact study, and the State has a review function and an approval function of those plans, but they actually wouldn't get involved with any of the design or construction costs. MRS. TARANA-So, you're putting the traffic light up yourself, Wal- Mart? MS. JOHNSTON-With the approval of the State. MRS. TARANA-And why would the State object? there be for the State to object? What reason would 40 '---' -.../ MR. O'CONNOR-They have certain standards that must be met. MS. JOHNSTON-The minimum traffic volume for an eight hour day. MRS. TARANA-But that would still hold, even if you're putting that traffic light up yourself? MS. JOHNSTON-Those standards are for any State highway anywhere in New York State. MR. MARTIN-I think the other reason they have a say, Corinne, is because Yioul're.. impacting the flowthoft traffic on, a Staie rOl1te... and they der-¡ n tely nave a say ìn a. II you re go ng wO ur1ng traffic to a halt in the middle of Route 9 in that section of the road, they have a say in that. MRS. TARANA-Okay. My other question, then, is based on historical data, is what you said. Historical data, how old and from where? MS. JOHNSTON-The data that we based the traffic impact study on, traditionally, and what we did, is based on Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation information, the information varies, and the date of the information. We based our trip generation estimate on a 1991 ITE Trip Generation Manual. Right now Wal-Mart, just for your information, on an aside, is compiling actual trip generation information particular to Wal-Mart from across the Country, and hopefully that information will be available through ITE to everyone, but that information isn't available now. It has not been approved by ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Right now we're using industry standards. MRS. TARANA-I'll tell you quite honestly. The problem I see with that is anybody that goes up into that area any time tries to go in and out of Sweet Road, Weeks Road, Ames Plaza now, knows you can't get in and out of those intersections without waiting for a very long time. NOBODY uses Montray Road, and there are a lot of reasons why they don't use it, and it just doesn't make any sense to me that nothing would be done to help alleviate some of that other problem, because if you've got a traffic light, and nobody can move anyway, up here, they're going to be tied up down behind that traffic light, and that happens. I have seen traffic held up way beyond the curve of Sweet Road. MR. O'CONNOR-Montray Road, though, will only be one side of that light. What actually will be the function of that light will be to allow people to come in and out of the Wal-Mart property from the west side of the highway, without interrupting the flow of Route 9 north and south. Montray Road will have maybe some collateral or secondary benefit, however minor it might be, but the function of that light will be to service the traffic that will be generated to the Wal-Mart store itself. We've probably got to address, probably some people may come across at the Ames parking lot from Weeks Road now, to use and get the benefit of that light, and get out. MR. MARTIN-Bill, is there going to be any sort of constructed divider or partition between the two properties cutting through the parking lot, or will that be totally open access? MR. WHITE-We've tried to keep it open access. I think that's in keeping with this Ordinance that the Boards are currently considering, and trying to limit adjacent uses like that. MR. MARTIN-So there won't be any guardrails or anything like that separating the actual properties through the parking lot? MR. WHITE-Within the parking area here? MR. BREWER-Yes. 41 "-- ----- MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. WHITE-No, and that's because we don't want to restrict people to say you've got to park on the Ames side of this or you've got to park on the Wal-Mart. You want to park as close to the entrance as you can. MS. JOHNSTON-Although I can sympathize with people that want to come out from Weeks Road or Sweet Road, and they probably do wait, I know that they do. I saw them wait a while during the peak hours, there's simply not enough traffic to warrant stopping the flow of traffic which you know, on Route 9, is considerably greater. What the warrants are supposed to do is to balance the delay of the minor street traffic with the continuous flow of the major street traffic, which in this case is Route 9. That's the basis behind the warrants. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anybody else on the Board? MR. WHITE-I'd just like to add two small items. I just want to talk a little bit about this, is the reason for the signal is the Wal-Mart, and I think that's important to understand. If they remained offset, like they are today, what would happen is cars stacked at this light, ready to turn left into the plaza, when it turns green, would be sitting out in front of Montray Road. You couldn't physically come out of Montray Road and turn left. So aligning this with Montray Road is more for a convenience of these people rather than creating a signal for them, and the other thing that providing a signal here does is slows down the flow of traffic and provides gaps in the traffic for people heading north bound on New York State Route 9. As a result, access out of Weeks Road will open up a little bit more because that steady flow of traffic that's coming through here will be stopped during the red light. So there's really an added benefit there that's not actually by design. That's just something that happened. MR. BREWER-Is that it? Okay. I guess we'll take from the public. DANIEL OLSON MR. OLSON-I'm Daniel Olson, a resident of 29 Carlton Drive, property directly to the south border. I have a question about the buffer, and I have a couple of questions, as long as the lady was talking about the traffic light and the generation of the traffic flow, Mrs. Tarana brought up a very good question. I think what you're referring to data's that's, I think the data that was discussed, I don't think, did you actually make traffic counts up yet, Weeks Road, and? Montray Road is also, the other end of Montray Road is at Gambles. You're aware of that? MS. JOHNSTON-Yes. We counted Sweet Road, Weeks Road, Montray Road, Ames Plaza, Northway Plaza, and Route 9 and Aviation Road. MR. OLSON-Have you made this information available to the Town, because. MR. WHITE-It's in the Environmental Assessment Form. MR. OLSON-Okay, but it's probably not in the Town Highway Department or Planning Department. There's always been a constant complaint, a constant problem, the people that live at Robert Gardens. You could live along Weeks Road, Montray Road, getting out of Weeks Road onto Route 9, it looks to me like a simple solution, if you made one of your major entrances in there off of Weeks Road, because you've got that green buffer area that's, then you'd have your traffic light on that flat straight of way road. Your traffic light, where you're proposing it, is at the top of a hill which is called Miller Hill, which is quite a steep slope, if you're traveling north. Predominantly a hill, when the snow and ice comes in the winter, especially in the morning, people going to 42 '-- ~ work, from Noble True Value on up that hill, there's probably one of the most difficult areas. This is difficult, as it is on Aviation Road, in front of Aviation Mall. I really think the most useful place for a traffic light would be at Weeks and Montray Road in front of Gambles. If you're going to have gaps, you're going to have traffic blocked up. You're not quite as familiar with that area as I am. I'm not criticizing your plan, but I think you've got some things that you could correct. On your buffer zone, I have serious questions about the buffer zone on the south side. You spoke about trees. There is a right-of-way by Niagara Mohawk, and I didn't get time to research my deed today. You're talking a 50 foot buffer zone, in addition to the right-of-way. MR. WHITE-We're 50 feet from the property line to any disturbance. MR. OLSON-The property line. KATHLEEN ROWE MRS. ROWE-There's a five foot easement that runs into that property. MR. WHITE-On this property line? MRS. ROWE-Along the property line. MR. WHITE-We're not in that. MRS. ROWE-You don't show them on the back of the property. MR. OLSON-Niagara Mohawk and the Telephone Company have an easement down through, I'm wondering if it's this area right in here, here off the Northway. This is existing plants. What's your plans for this area. MR. WHITE-We're not disturbing anything in this 50 foot area. MR. OLSON-Anything that's there presently today? MR. WHITE-Right. That's a buffer zone that,by Town Code requirement, we can't encroach on. MR. OLSON-That was planted there when the original Zayre's store was there, and there's a chain link fence in there right now. MR. WHITE-See, the fence is actually about 20 feet on the plaza property, here. We're not going to affect that. We're going to leave it right there, and actually, all this green space that you see here is existing trees that will remain. MR. OLSON-You're saying the fence is on the plaza property? MR. WHITE-Yes. It's about 20 feet within the plaza property, but we don't. There's some houses, you can go back here and you can see the fence that's on thè property line. MR. LAPOINT-As a point, before you get to Preliminary, research that easement, we had talked about it internally on the 12th, and find out if it exists, or what, so when we get to the point of Preliminary, there's no questions about it. We don't know if it exists, if there's an easement or right-of-way or whatever is on that strip, you have to be able to tell us, yes, it exists, and what it is, or no it does not exist. MR. BREWER-It will show up on their deed. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If we are not planning to do anything with that 50 foot strip, what effect, if anything, is there, if there is need? 43 -- --- MR. MACEWAN-I think Code says it has to be shown on all plats, right? MR. LAPOINT-Show it on your survey map. MR. MACEWAN-The Code says that it has to be on there. MR. LAPOINT-We talked about it for 20 minutes, and I don't want to talk about it for another 20 minutes at Preliminary. What I'm trying to do is fix things, so that when you get at the right stage, that we don't quibble. MR. MARTIN-The Code would be 50 foot from the property line. MR. BREWER-If there's an easement there, then it exists. and it just stays there. MR. MARTIN-No. The easement has no bearing on the buffer MR. OLSON-Okay. Well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. My main concern the existing trees that are growing. There's a chain link fence that goes down through there now, with a walk gate through for the residents who live in the subdivision, Carl ton Drive, Greenway North, we'd like to maintain that existing chain link fence and also the path that goes through the woods. It would be nice if it were cleaned up a little better. Is there any reason why you have to put the Tire, Battery and Accessory store and also the Garden Center on the end? That pushes the whole complex? I know, legally, you're within your 50 foot setback, but as a resident, in talking to some of my neighbors who live close by there, and some of the people on June Drive, have put what would be the front of those two auxiliary stores real close to their backyards. MR. WHITE-These two areas right here? MR. OLSON-Right. They couldn't be swung around to the front of the store, by changing? MR. WHITE-They can't go on the front of the store. Typically, these two appendages will go on this side or this side. and you clearly can't put it on this side. They also need to be on the opposite side of the dock, which you can't have a garden center and a tire, brake, and oil on a dock on one side, and we couldn't put a dock on this side, because of the truck turning in. See, this area right here is a loading dock, and we thought it was a good design to keep the loading dock on this side, rather the loading dock facing these residents, but also from a truck circulation standpoint, there isn't enough area in here for a truck to come in, turn around and maneuver. MR. OLSON-Because you've used up a lot of your area that you would, for parking and the expansion of the store, if you haven't got enough room to maneuver out of the lot, is what you're saying to me, if you say you've only got 15 percent that's not going to be blacktop or building. So, you're really crowding a large building on a small parcel. MR. WHITE-We're providing a prototypical store, and we need to provide the parking required by Town Code. MR. OLSON-The 15 percent you're going to have left over, instead of the 30 which the Town requires for permeability, is that included in the buffer zone? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. OLSON-So actually you wouldn't have any room in this plan down here, as it exists today, if you do put snow on there, if snow is pushed into that area. 44 "--' -- MR. BREWER-They're not going to use that buffer for parking. MR. OLSON-If you look down here, they're using that for existing parking. MR. WHITE-We're using some of this area, here. MR. OLSON-It's a pretty heavily treed area. MR. WHITE-The worst case scenario is snow gets hauled off site, and that's not something Wal-Mart wants to do because it's expensive, but they realize the value of providing adequate customer parking, and we would move the snow to provide adequate customer parking. MR. OLSON-Thank you. My major concern is the main theme, the existing growth of mature 20 year trees that are there, to stop the visibility and the noise pollution, and dust and dirt. A major problem today, I'm sure it's because of the grocery store there, and the trucks with all the diesel, and the refrigeration units are running and we can here them through the whole neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. MRS. TARANA-I have a question, going back to the EAF. Part II, is that supposed to be filled out by us? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-They have filled in some of those questions. MR. BREWER-They've filled them all in. MRS. TARANA-Most of them in, yes. MR. LAPOINT-We can ignore that. It's actually a pretty good guide, because we normally just zip right through that, whereas they have checked, is there an effect to transportation, and they have honestly said, yes, because there's more than 1,000 cars. So it will help guide us, but, no, we will do that ourselves. MRS. TARANA-Well, no. I don't think that's true. MR. MACEWAN-There's some things in there I think that we kind of disagree with. MRS. TARANA-There' s a question that says, proposed action will result in major traffic problems. They didn't mark it. I mean, I don't think this is a guide for us. I think this should be out. MR. BREWER-No. all. We just have to look at it individually, that's MR. MARTIN-You'll have your blank form, and you'll go through your own. MRS. TARANA-Yes. I think it should be blank. obligation of the client to fill it in. This is not the MR. MARTIN-Right. That's understood. Unlike the past person who sat in this position, I'm not going to take them to task over that. That is not a federal violation. MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Kenny. DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-I'm David Kenny, a resident of the Town of Queensbury. I guess I'm a little confused on a few questions that I'd like answered. The drainage, are you doing the 17 acre lot or 11 acre 45 -- -- lot? MR. WHITE-We're going to provide drainage for the entire site in the parcel. MR. KENNY-So it would be even between the two lot owners? The drainage will always be? MR. WHITE-Yes. There will be several crosses and agreements between, to benefit both Wal-Mart and Ames, for the mutual benefit. MR. LAPOINT-You'll make sure that you'll have little narratives on what each one of those are for us? MR. WHITE-Yes, if you'd like them. MR. LAPOINT-I'm just saying, I know how these things go when we get hung up on exactly these little points. MR. WHITE-I can't do them specifically because they're drawn up by the attorneys at closing. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Something to say that you're going to drain the entire 17 acres, just that simple. MR. WHITE-Yes. I can say that. MR. LAPOINT-So that they don't become hang-ups at the meeting. MR. 0' CONNOR-The drainage plan that we submit will be for the entire site, which is both lots. MR. LAPOINT-Right. All you need is some narrative in there that they're going to cooperate, right? MR. 0' CONNOR-And all calculations will be for the entire site. Your approval will be for us complying with our submittal for both sites. MR. LAPOINT-For subdividing both parcels. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think that's any different than any proposal that's been before the Board. MR. KENNY-On green space, on green, permeability area, are you taking the 17 acre site into consideration when you say 15 percent, or are you taking the 11 acre site? I guess I'm confused. MR. WHITE-We're looking at the entire 17 acre site, when we look at the permeability requirement. MR. KENNY-Well, I, myself, I know it's up to the Board, but I almost think, once you have the subdivision here, you're talking about two separate lots, for site plan. My opinion would be, there aren't four variances needed, there are going to be eight variances need, I mean, because this lot is gOing to have its own deed map, and I believe the variance goes with the deed. MR. WHITE-The variance goes with the site plan. MR. BREWER-W.ell, variances are for subdivision of the land. In other words, we can't make him do the sewer for 17 acres and do the parking for 11 acres. That's not fair. MR. KENNY-The variance is, they're going to have an 11 acre site that may only have 18 percent permeability, the other person is going to have a 7 acre site that's only going to have, whatever, 10 percent permeability, whatever it may be, but there's a variance, I would think, required for each site. There are two separate sites there, once it's subdivided. 46 ~ MR. WHITE-Once it's subdivided, but we need the variances before it's two separate lots. MR. KENNY-I could be wrong. I don't know. I would be under the impression that there almost should be two site plans, because if I take a lot and subdivide it and develop two separate pieces of property I can't say to you, it's one site plan. I would need a si te plan for each development. Not to say, well, I mean, I'm raising a point, and I'm sitting here, I don't know, what are you doing? Later on, there are going to be two separate deeded pieces of property. MR. BREWER-But I think what the idea of it is, the Ames is not going to change at all. MR. KENNY-Sure it's changing, because today it needs no variances. Tomorrow it's going to need variances. MR. BREWER-Physically it's not. Well, it is and it isn't. MR. KENNY-It's to have the requirements. sites, not on not going to have the permeability. It's not going green area. It's not going to have setback There's a lot of things that are changing, on both one. MR. BREWER-You're right. MR. WHITE-Well, I think you bring up a good point. We'll research that before we do come back. MR. O'CONNOR-Is the Board willing to consider the Ames site a preexisting site? MR. KENNY-Well, it's a preexisting site that you're making nonconforming. It's conforming today. MR. O'CONNOR-No, not necessarily. We're not making it nonconforming unless we're making changes to it. MR. KENNY-Well, you are making changes to it by cutting it in half. MR. O'CONNOR-The only change that you're making to it is the 0 lot line. MR. KENNY-You're cutting it in half. It's got all that green space that you're not going to have tomorrow, to the south. MR. O'CONNOR-Two pieces of property, but the only part that would be nonconforming that is not presently nonconforming, presently the site is nonconforming, if you took the line, right now, and drew it down the site, right where the Ames property line, that side of it would be nonconforming. MR. KENNY-And you created that condition. MR. O'CONNOR-We can consider your question. I don't follow you all the way through. We will have an answer for you. MR. KENNY-I'm just raising the point that I've heard some things, so it can be addressed. MR. WHITE-I appreciate that. MR. KENNY-But I think there's possibly not four variances, there's going to be eight variances. I think each site should be considered two separate sites, once it's subdivided. That's why I asked the question about the drainage, on the plot plan, that you say how much green space is on each site, so the Town, the fire department and everybody else has an updated plan of what this new lot is going to have. It's going to have an Ames building with X 47 - --' amount of square footage, X amount of parking. How much greenery is on that site, and then you have a Wal-Mart building with a totally different site. They're two different sites. They're going to have two separate building permits down there and they're going to have two separate sites. You should have two separate si te plans filed. I mean, you can't have one site plan for two pieces of property, and that's the only question I have. MR. BREWER-Agreed. Thank you. MR. WHITE-I do want to say that that information was provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals who makes that determination. The thing is how much is on it, what's the permeability, and Wal-Mart said what's the permeability on the. MR. KENNY-Well, I think it should be part of the Planning Board, too. MR. WHITE-Well, if the Planning Board would like that information, I guess it's public information and it has been submitted to the Town. MR. KENNY-Right. Well, I think that should be at future meetings, when questions get asked. You're creating two sites, now, not one. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Anyone else? KATHY ROWE MRS. ROWE-What day is this supposed to go before the Zoning Board? MR. MARTIN-It would be, I think February 24th, I believe. It's the Wednesday after your second Planning Board meeting. It would be the second Zoning Board meeting. Do I have it right, Bill? MR. WHITE-The Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, right now, it's my understanding, is scheduled for February 24th. MRS. ROWE-Thank you. My name is Kathy Rowe, and I reside at 17 June Drive in the Town of Queensbury, the lot not indicated on the map up there. MRS. TARANA-Which lot is it, Kathy? MRS. ROWE-This one, right here, at the top. MRS. TARANA-Is there a reason why it's not indicated? MRS. ROWE-I've asked that question repeatedly, but no one has been able to give me an answer. The first thing I wanted to start off by saying is I called the Planning Department this afternoon and I spoke to Scott, and I asked Scott about the letter addressed to Jim Martin from Mike Shaw, because Jim wasn't available at the time, he was in a meeting. I called Mr. Shaw, at that point, and Mr. Shaw returned my call at about 4:15 this afternoon and filled me in on some facts, because I also noted the discrepancy in the water usages on this paper, and what I was basically told by Mr. Shaw is that the estimate from Wal-Mart is a very conservative estimate, probably under estimate, and it doesn't help them in any way with the sewage. It would probably be better for them, as far as getting the sewer in, to project their actual water usages, but the Ames figure is the actual figure of water use by the Ames Plaza as it currently exists right now for all of the stores, the Electrolux, Sysco, the dentist, Allen's Arts and Crafts and the Ames store itself, not the restaurant, just the other stores in the plaza, at least that's what Mr. Shaw indicated to me at this point. That was done from August to August. So he said to me, on the basis of these figurès, that after the Wal-Mart comes in, of course the Ames use would drop when it becomes a separate facility, and 48 - ---. the Wal-Mart one, he's not sure if that will increase or decrease, based on what the usages of the garden center and the automotive center would be. He said Ames might also stay a little high because of the fact that it has a restaurant right in Ames, which I don't know, there's a little snack bar kind of thing in the back of the store, but he also said the dentist probably runs water all day long. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. That is no longer there in Ames. That snack bar is gone. MRS. ROWE-It is? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MRS. ROWE-Okay. MR. BREWER-Well, I think the applicant said he was going to figure out that information for us, anyway. So, I don't think it's real important that we. MRS. ROWE-Now, I have another question, regarding the storage of flammable and hazardous materials on this site. Where will that be done? MR. WHITE-There will be no hazardous materials. MRS. ROWE-Oil is not a hazardous and flammable material? MR. WHITE-Oil is stored in accordance with the New York State Department of Environmental requirements. MRS. ROWE-And that would be stored in that building, 75 feet from our homes? MR. WHITE-Yes. MRS. ROWE-Another question for you, regarding the automotive center. Most GM cars now have catalytic converters in them. Anyone who runs a GM car would realize that there is a problem with odors, and particularly hydrogen sulfide, which is the smell of rotten eggs. What is going to be done to mitigate this odor from coming through our properties, especially in the summer time when I'm going to be trying to enjoy my back yard and my swimming pool? MR. WHITE-The architectural drawings will include the proper ventilation devices to be able to do things. MRS. ROWE-Ventilating it out to my property? MR. WHITE-There's also New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requirements on air quality. They'll have to be adhered to. MRS. ROWE-So, you'll have some kind of filtering systems then? MR. WHITE-I don't know if I'd call it a filtering system, but there's a way to mitigate that and it has to be approved by the State, and it has to be in accordance with the State. MRS. ROWE-And that means that 100 percent of the time your garage doors will be closed and no cars will be operating in there while the garage doors are open. MR. WHITE-No. That's not true. Garage doors are generally open. MRS. ROWE-So how will the filtering system work if the garage doors are open to release this into the atmosphere? MR. WHITE-I'm not sure. It has to be designed by a mechanical 49 -/ engineer that's designing the mechanical components of the building, but it has to be designed in accordance with State Code. Just so you know, and I don't think I explained this to the Board as well, this is what's called a six bay TBO. It has three doors here, and three doors here. This is a solid wall in this area here, and what a car typically does is drive in this area. There's, like, three bays across here and three bays across here. It drives into this area, gets worked on, and drives out this area and back out. So it isn't like it's open on this side. It's open three doors here and three doors here. MRS. ROWE-As you remember, that was my property back there, by those three doors. Since we're already gOing to investigate into the easement, I won't bring that up, but there is an easement there. It's in our documentation for our properties. Is any washing of cars going to be done in that TBO? MR. WHITE-No. Well, I can't say that, no, they don't do that. They don't sell that as a service. Does a car get hosed down in there? Maybe. They're not in, they don't wash cars for profit. MRS. ROWE-I only asked because Mike Shaw indicated that an oil sand separator would be needed if washing of cars was done, and required for the sewer district. MR. WHITE-Yes. MRS. ROWE-Okay. Now the other thing, you brought up, as a Planning Board, the fact that this would need two signs, but I'm just wondering, since the Queen Diner is part of this property, isn't that the third part which would make it a mall? MR. BREWER-No. A mall's connected, aren't they? A third store wouldn't make ita mall. That's not even connected to that building, in my mind anyway. MRS. ROWE-Well, Ames is not connected to that building. MR. BREWER-Yes. They will be connected to that building, now. MRS. ROWE-There's no walk through between the two stores that connects them to make it literally a mall. HR. BREWER-And that makes it not a mall. MR. MARTIN-If this, in fact, ends up as one store and one building per lot, then it's certainly not going to be a shopping center, classified as such. MRS. ROWE-All right, now. district goes, and this is don't know if you want to district stops at Mr. B's. One last point, as far as the sewer according to Mike Shaw, again, and I research it, but he said the sewer MR. MARTIN-Right. My understanding, after talking to Mike, is physically in the ground up to Mr. B' s, and they are in fact actually serviced by that pipe. Furthermore, the Pizza Hut/Long John Silvers development is scheduled to come in to the district. The documentation is being developed or has been developed, but the pipe is physically not in the ground, because they did have a problem with the Alpine House Hotel or Motel there, I think it is. They did not want to be in the district, and that had to be worked out, but I do think they've come up with a way of configuring the district. MRS. ROWE-According to Mike, all negotiation has been dropped between them, now. MR. MARTIN-Right, and I think what simply is going to happen is the district boundary is going to bypass the hotel and then go up to 50 -.-'" include Long John Silvers and Pizza Hut, but the pipe is physically not in the ground. MRS. ROWE-Okay, because that's one of the points I wanted to clarify, here, is that he told me that you can't ask Long John. you can't ask Pizza Hut. You can't even ask Ames unless the plaza owner indicates and interest to join the sewer district. It has to be strictly on a voluntary basis, and just bringing it up, that road would not connect Ponderosa or any of the other businesses on the other side. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MRS. ROWE-So it's only going to be connecting up this one side of the street. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. ROWE-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? MR. WHITE-If I could concern. Obviously, legitimate ones, but like yourself. make one comment in response to this lady's you have some concerns, and I think they're I've been sent up here to work with people MRS. ROWE-You told me, originally, you were going to take those six spaces out, too. MR. WHITE-If you'd not like to see those six spaces there, I don't think it's a real big deal. I'd like to sit down with you and work with you on this, and if you want to see a fence, some type of buffer in there that screens you, I'm not adverse to that. I want to work with you on this, and if you'd like to have a meeting, lets do it. I'd rather work with you than against you on this project, and I think the same goes for Mr. Olson or any of the other people along here. MR. ROWE-Well, Mr. Olson and I are probably speaking on behalf of some of the neighbors right now, as we've been asked to, in the past, on the Red Lobster issue. MR. WHITE-Okay. MRS. ROWE-But the thing is, we would be very happy, as a group, as a neighborhood group, to meet with you and discuss this. MR. WHITE-Lets do it. I'd like to do that, and Wal-Mart' s direction is, do it. Meet with these people. They don't want to be an unwanted neighbor. They really don't, and they're willing to spend a few bucks. They're not going to go to extremes, but if you want a fence here, we're just going to do it. MR. OLSON-What kind of a fence? MR. WHITE-I don't know. I think we need to talk about that. MR. BREWER-That's details that you can work out with him. shouldn't be done here. That MR. MACEWAN-You guys should get together. They're willing to do it. Get your neighborhood together and get a neighborhood meeting set up for these people and do it on your own, and get your concerns ironed out with them. MR. WHITE-I don't want to appear that we're coming up here, this is the plan, this is the way it's going to be, because it's not. We want to work with you on this. The garage will have the same hours as the store, which are typical store hours. I think like 9:30, 10 51 ',,-, -/ o'clock in the morning. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-Will you be changing tires at that time? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-By hand or by air gun? MR. WHITE-With an air gun. Again, if your concern is noise, then maybe we can do something back in here that'll help mitigate some of that noise. MR. MARTIN-Well, the thing I suggested to Kathy, maybe some beefed up insulation in the TBO garage there, maybe a stockade fence of a certain height. MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Increased plantings to supplement the existing trees already there. MR. WHITE-There's solutions to these problems, and I think we need to sit down, and you need to tell me what yours are, and we need to work out some solutions. MR. MACEWAN-An excellent idea. I don't know how many people have been on bypass seven, going from 87 over to 787. Along there they've got a great big pressure treated fence separating those homes, those residential homes. from the noise and sound of that highway, which might be an appropriate answer to this. Not expensive to build. It might do the job. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Okay. With that. maybe we can get down to. MRS. ROWE-Can I ask just one more question, Tim? operates 24 hours a day closer to Christmas time. on following those practices? Typically, Ames Are you planning MR. WHITE-I'm not aware of any instance where Wal-Mart's operated 24 hours a day. MRS. ROWE-Well, Zayre's did it first and Ames followed its tradition. MR. WHITE-Yes. I guess I can't say that will never happen because it's not my decision, but I've never seen it happen, and Wal-Mart. typically, does not do it. MRS. ROWE-Are we going to expect deliveries in the middle of the night to stock the store or anything? Are we going to expect to have trucks delivering in the middle of 'the night, at four o'clock in the morning, or are deliveries going to be done in the day time? MR. WHITE-Deliveries occur during the day, and, traffic for the Ames store would come in through this way it comes around, but then docks in that area, neighborhood. again, truck way, and this opposite your MR. LAPOINT-I didn't mean to interrupt you, Mr. Chairman, but I have a question on procedure. What we're doing tonight, and correct me if I'm wrong, is we're determining if the SEQRA application is complete. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-And possibly move from Sketch Plan to Preliminary. MR. MARTIN-Right, and that's not a big deal, or necessary. 52 '-.--' -- MR. LAPOINT-The second thing is we've got to notice the other involved agencies and start the 30 day clock. MR. MARTIN-Right. What you have to do is, there's a standardized resolution. here, developed by the Attorney's Office that will state your intent to be the lead agent. You're not yet. You're just asking for the involved agency's consent. In this case, it would be the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town Board, from the standpoint of their involvement with the sewer district, that type of thing, and then there's 30 days for them to respond, or if they don't respond within 30 days, then it's assumed that you have their consent, and then you'll be in a position to actually conduct the SEQRA Review at your second Planning Board meeting, because the 30 day time-frame doesn't expire by your first Planning Board meeting. MR. LAPOINT-So, functionally, the only absolute thing we can do tonight, with the two other options, is to start that 30 day clock. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's the most important issue, in terms of the time-frame of the project and the proposal. MR. LAPOINT-Now that's not linked to our decision, as to whether or not the SEQRA's complete tonight, is it? MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think that's necessarily. MR. LAPOINT-Again, I think we've sent them back to bring out some more things, plus we need the DOT comments. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I think you have some engineering concerns that you're going to want to have addressed. MR. BREWER-So we can wait on the SEQRA and do the other? MR. O'CONNOR-There are a couple of things that you can do, I think, in SEQRA. One, you're going to determine if this is a Type I project. MR. MARTIN-That's within the context of those resolutions. MR. O'CONNOR-Is that within the context of those resolutions? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and you're going to give notice of your intent to be lead agency, and if you get past that. then you can also make referrals to the County Planning Board so that they could start into the process also, and also refer the application to the ZBA. We filed a separate application with the ZBA, but I think it would be good for you to refer the application to the ZBA. We've got to come back and forth between the two Boards. We'd like to get everybody on board so we can get comments as early as we can from everybody to try and move the process along, neighbors and various Boards. MR. LAPOINT-I'd like to keep them separate, though. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-And Mr. Chairman, whenever you're ready, or if you want to take more comments, I'm ready to make a motion. MR. BREWER-No. Lets do it. MR. OLSON-One quick question. The motor oil that you're using, you're supply of motor oil that you use in your garage, do you keep your supply, as most quick lube operations do, in bulk storage, or do you keep it in quarts and dispense it into the automobile? MR. WHITE-I don't know the answer to that, but I will get it for 53 '---' '-"'" you. MR. LAPOINT-I think, if you're going to put in a new facility, the State's going to make you use bulk. There's brand new stuff, just now. Nobody in their right mind is going to do a TBO with quarts. MR. MACEWAN-You wouldn't get much done in an eight hour day. MR. BREWER-They'll have to meet the setbacks. MR. LAPOINT-Motor oil is, I think, typically over 200 degrees flashpoint, where Kathy was getting about the oil. It's not a hazardous substance, lube oil is not, gasoline is. I don't think there's any provisions for gasoline here. There's no gas station or anything like that. but I can see what you were getting at. If they have over 550 gallons in bulk, they'll have to have secondary containment. The tanks will be registered with DEC separately, and again, they're an involved agency who we're notifying here tonight, if we get to that point. MR. MARTIN-What I might suggest the Board to do. as a further contingency, have the applicant submit a hazardous materials data sheet that we can have on file and we'll file with the Fire Marshal and the Fire District. MR. LAPOINT-Would that be, functionally, to do that between Sketch and Preliminary? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it would be a matter, more, of site plan review, when you review the site plan, but something to file away. We have a form, Bill, in our office that we can supply you with that will ask you to list any hazardous materials that are to be stored on site, if there's cleaning solvent in the TBO, oil, that type of thing. MR. WHITE-Okay. I think I have a copy of that, Jim. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. WHITE-And we'll complete it. MR. BREWER-Okay, are you ready? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Subdivision No. 3-1993. National Realty and Develop.ent Corporation. for a proposal to subdivide a 17.74 acre parcel into 2 lots; one lot of 6.45 acres and a second lot of 11.28 acres. An existinq A.es retail store is located on the proposed 6.45 acre parcel and a proposed Wal-Mart retail store is to be located on the 11.28 acre parcel. The Planning Board will also be declaring its desire to be lead agency for the purpose of SEORA review. and the Planning Board is also seeking to be lead agent for the Zoning Board of Appeals during its variance process. and is also seekinq lead agency status with respect to site plan review. RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by National Realty & 54 '-----' -- Development Corporation for to subdivide a 17.74 acre parcel into two lots; one lot of 6.45 acres and a second lot of 11. 28 acres. An existinq Ames retail store is located on the proposed 6.45 acre parcel and a proposed Wal-Mart retail store is to be located on the 11.28 acre parcel~ and that the following other involved agencies be notified: The New York State Department of Transportation, The New York State Department of Health, The Warren County Planning Board, the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town Board of Queensbury, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Town Highway Department, and the Town Water Department, and the Town Wastewater Department, the Queensbury Town Beautification Committee, and that the Executive Director forward the Town of Queensbury letter dated 19 February 1993, "To Those Listed Below: The Town of Queensbury Planning Board is in receipt of the hereto attached long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for a site plan to construct a 116,097 square foot retail store located on the west side of Route 9 at Weeks Road. The project involves the physical alteration of 10 or more acres and the facility will be over 100,000 square feet and thus would make the site plan application a Type One Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review. The application requires a si te plan approval by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. Thus, the Planning Board, as the official agency to review site plans with the Town of Queensbury has concluded that it is the most involved agency and should be lead agency for the purposes of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review. Accordingly, this memorandum constitutes notice that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board is seeking lead agency status pursuant to SEQRA. Our records indicate that your agency may be an involved agency under Part 617 of Title 6 NYCRR and if your agency consents to the Planning Board being designated as lead agent, please indicate by signing the attached sheet, and return this form to: Town of Queensbury Planning Office 531 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 You have thirty (30) days from the date of this notice to object to this designation." 2) A coordinated SEQRA review is desired. 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days~ and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review~ and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with the copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Ruel 55 '---- ~ MR. MARTIN-Okay. The only thing, I would remind the Board that this is an all encompassing SEQRA. It's for variances, subdivision, and site plan. So you really have the gamut there. MRS. TARANA-And it's for both pieces of property. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-But you'll look into that, Jim, about dividing it, about the amount of variances, and let us know? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I ignored that here, two lots, two site plans, that type of thing. GENTLEMAN IN THE AUDIENCE-Can I ask you a question? Does this all mean, this is a reality, this is what's happening? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MARTIN-No. You're a long way away. MR. BREWER-This is very, very preliminary. MR. MARTIN-The other thing, while the Board's all here, I wanted to give you a little advanced notice. I've been trying to formulate, and we've gone over as a Staff, and I will be approaching the Town Board, and I've already approached the Town Planning Committee, of a list of planning issues and goals and objectives for like the first half of the year, as a Planning Department, that we'd like to undertake, and I want to discuss those with you. MR. LAPOINT-Could I jump in, because I didn't think we were quite done, here, with these guys. I wanted to make one more comment, is that I don't think we're ready to advise them to go from Sketch Plan to Preliminary, because we're still pending a DOT comment, and that I think that, functionally, the next phase we have to do is make sure the SEQRA application is complete, and I would want to see the DOT look at that. A lot of the questions we asked here. That's what you were getting at, my guess is. MR. 0' CONNOR-That's part of what I was getting at, but as I understand Sketch Plan approval, particularly on a two lot subdivision, what that is for is for your comments and your concerns, which I think we've heard tonight, and we, at our risk, would submit the application for Preliminary approval, if we think that we can work out those comments, and at that point, we then make actual, no recommendation, I think at the site plan, or the Sketch Plan, you are just making comments that we should consider in our submittal down the road. We got into the discussion once before that Sketch Plan is not really an approval by this Board. It's simply a comment by this Board as to what we've submitted to date. So I think ~, as far as the application status, are in a position to go to Preliminary, but I think we've got to complete SEQRA before we get there, which maybe will issue, which will answer your question, if you're thinking there's more that needs to be put on the table before we actually formulate the Preliminary plans. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't have a problem with that. I think I'm talking technicalities and maybe sort of raising an issue that's not an issue. I think we're all, I'm understanding of what you said. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I'm not ready to go to Preliminary just yet. I want to see the Highway stuff. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We are at a point, though, where we would ask you to refer this to the County Board, so they can start considering the application, under the 239M, Municipal. 56 '-" MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's a second motion. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And also make a referral to the ZBA. MR. LAPOINT-239M is what? MR. O'CONNOR-Is the review for variances and site plans. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We would refer this Sketch Plan to the ZBA for, to begin their review process now, start getting them their copies? MR. MARTIN-Right, because we already have the variance application as a matter of fact. MR. BREWER-And Warren County. MR. O'CONNOR-Somebody needs to give Planning Staff the direction to forward it to the County. MR. BREWER-Don't they do that automatically? MR. O'CONNOR-They do except when we need variances, you get into a fuzzy area. MR. MARTIN-The only other thing. we don't have a site application, if you were going to try and submit, refer on a plan application to the County. We don't actually have application. It was just thought to be premature, given the that you had subdivision and variances pending. plan site that fact MR. WHITE-So we should submit the site plan application with the Preliminary plans, once we're through the SEQRA process and we've received the input back from the involved agencies. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Bill and I haven't really talked all the way through, but a lot of developers don't like to do final engineering and have the expense of fiQal engineering with drafting and all that put together until you get your v,ariances and your subdivision put aside, and then they do a final engineering and they do a site plan, and in fact some Ordinances are set up on that basis. I don't know if you have that reservation or not. MR. WHITE-I'm hesitant to go too far into the details, engineering. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's why I didn't recommend the site plan, at this time, but what I'm saying is, I don't know how that can be referred on to the County, then, if you don't have a. MR. WHITE-Right, and we talked about this. MR. O'CONNOR-The variances could be, though. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm just saying the site plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. No. What we need is a referral to the County for the variances, at this point, and the subdivision application, if that gets to the County. I don't know if that gets to the County or not. MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think they do. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, then just the variance applications, if that could get referred to the County. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. 57 ''"-' ----/ MOTION THAT THE PLANNING STAFF FORWARD THE ZONING APPLICATIONS TO THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 19th day of January. 1993, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Now, will that be to the County before it gets back to us next month? MR. WHITE-That'll go to the County tomorrow or the next day. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes, but they won't. MR. WHITE-The County Planning Board will meet February 10th. MR. BREWER-Okay, then, fine, that'll be plenty of time. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but you also have a workshop with them, as well, the 3rd, and then it would go to the. MR. WHITE-We have a workshop meeting on the 3rd, and the County Planning. MR. MARTIN-It'll go to County Planning the 10th, I think that's the second Wednesday. MR. WHITE-We'd back to the Planning Board here on the 23rd, at the end of that 30 day period, once received the County and other involved agency comments. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-The neighbors are going to be notified twice in the process. You're going to be notified formally by the applicant, during the Preliminary Subdivision phase, which is next, and then you're going to be notified, again, by the Town during variances and site plan. So actually you're going to be notified three times. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Ruel MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My question is, you just made a referral to the County for the variance application. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-And my understanding is that we had to do an application with reference to the County and also to the subdivision. I don't have everything right in front of me, but my understanding was, if it's a subdivision, Section 239N, with 500 feet of a County or State highway. MR. BREWER-Well, if we've got to do that, we can do another motion real quick. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have a problem saying, if it's necessary. make a referral? MOTION THAT IF ITS NECESSARY. THE PLANNING STAFF WILL MAKE THE SUBDIVISION REFERRAL TO THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its àdoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: 58 -- -" AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. That's done. MR. MARTIN-Okay. With the Board, I was hoping to undertake some planning issues, a couple have already come down from the Town Board, for example, a planning study of the Route 149 corridor, and now as of last night, a planning analysis, so to speak, of the whole situation involving, that revolves around the Wood re-zoning, and those are a couple of things, I think, that are going to warrant possibly a workshop session from the Board. I'd like to get your input on that type of a, that type of work, and also just some general planning issues as well, and I wanted to take a moment of your time, in February, at one of the meetings there, to go through these in detail. It'll be in your packets and you'll have a chance to review it in advance. MR. MACEWAN-I know we requested to have Paul here tonight for this. Do you know why Paul wasn't here tonight for us? MR. MARTIN-I would ask that you, I think the best course is to ask through your Chairman. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I thought that when we talked about this last week in our organizational meeting, if we requested the Planning Department have either the Town Engineer or the Town Attorney present for us. MR. MARTIN-The Town Engineer will be coming next week. MR. MACEWAN-We'd like, I think, to have him here for next week, as well as Paul, because there's some issues up here that we want, we could have used him tonight. We had some questions, we could have used him tonight. MR. BREWER-What items next week? MR. MARTIN-Well, the way we're going to try and structure the agendas is from this point forward, is to have those items, irregardless of Old Business or New Business, engineering review required, or that Tom has issued opinion letters on, have those items first, so we can have him sit here, go through those projects, and then once those are done, he can leave and we can go on with the rest of the agenda. MR. MACEWAN-The stuff that we have on the agenda for next week, we have Joseph Guerra, Cerebral Palsey Association, we had some questions about that, didn't we? MR. MARTIN-Is that the School? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. He'll be here for that. MR. MACEWAN-And the other one I think that we were looking for was wi th the Newell and Raymond development. We had some questions regarding that. MR. MARTIN-That's a re-zoning request. MR. BREWER-That's a recommendation, isn't it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. There's no engineering on that, typically. The other one he'll be here for is Harrisena Church. 59 -- MR. BREWER-That's what I wanted to know. Did they get a variance for the setback on that? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. I can look and see. MR. BREWER-Because they're within nine feet of the property line, and it doesn't say on the agenda whether they received the variance or not. ROBERT ROWE MR. ROWE-Could I approach the Board before you adjourn? MR. LAPOINT-Sure. MR. ROWE-I'd like to know what happened to my subdivision. I started the project 10 months ago, and I still haven't gotten anything. You people tabled my application 56 days ago. Mr. Martin was supposed to contact me. MR. MACEWAN-Who are you. MR. ROWE-Robert Rowe. MR. MARTIN-We contacted the APA and the APA has told us that the information is still not there. That was the first response. MR. HARLICKER-No, the gentleman that was doing the review was out. MR. ROWE-He told me he was going to draft a letter and mail it. You people have gotten different rules for different people. My next door neighbor built his house without any permit from the APA at all. You people are holding this thing up. It's been 10 months. MR. MARTIN-We're not holding it up. anything until the APA moves on it. It's the APA. We can't do MR. ROWE-The APA's rules say that you people have the jurisdiction. If you guys had passed this thing three months ago, as soon as you pass it, the APA will pass it. The APA said we can't pass it until the Town of Queensbury passes it, and you people say you can't pass it until the APA passes it. MR. BREWER-We just did one tonight that the APA passed before we did. MR. LAPOINT-They didn't say anything. They didn't pass anything. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. ROWE-Their Rules and Regulations, I've got them right here. It says that the Town of Queensbury has the jurisdiction over all the land and everything. You people should have issued my permit first. The APA doesn't have any rule. They came down and flagged my wetland. They came down and did soil tests. I had to hire an engineer to design a septic system for my land. My neighbor didn't. He put seepage pits in. Adirondack Park says seepage pits aren't allowed in the Adirondack Park. My neighbor's got four of them. In fact, he's got two of them that are 90 feet from my wetland. I asked your inspectors how come they didn't check it, and he said it wasn't his job. MR. LAPOINT-Did we have that project? Did we see your neighbor? Who's your neighbor? MR. BREWER-We didn't have anything to do with that. MRS. PULVER-No. We didn't have anything to do with his neighbor. 60 ---- MR. BREWER-That's something you could take to the Town Board. MR. ROWE-I questioned your officials about my neighbor. His house is closer than 75 feet from the wetland. I questioned your official, and he looked on the map and said. well, it's a brook, that's a wetland. I have the same brook on my property, but that wetland was in there 390 feet on my property. On Luze rne Road, there's a guy building a house down there 30 feet from the wetland. Your official looks at the map and says the house is 115 feet from a wetland, but it's a brook. That wetland goes back there 70, 80 feet, you people are allowing that house to go in there. I've been to the Town, talked to everybody there is to talk to, and I still can't get. November 17th, you approved my variance for a Freshwater Permit. The 24th, you tabled the subdivision. If you people would have passed it, the Adirondack Park would have passed it a week later. MR. MACEWAN-It seemed like, I'm vaguely recalling that we needed to have some sort of documentation. MR. BREWER-We needed an approval. As I remember it, we needed an APA approval for the wetlands permit. MR. ROWE-The APA rules say that you have the jurisdictional role in the wetlands. They drew up the maps. I've got a registered letter right here, 1987, and they said they notified all the municipalities, the cities and towns that they have the full jurisdiction over the wetlands. MR. BREWER-Okay. Jim, can we get in contact with somebody tomorrow for this man? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Martin will contact somebody tomorrow. You can call him at his office, and he'll give you an answer. MR. ROWE-I called Tom Seeley from the Adirondack Park after I talked to Mr. Martin, and I said, the Town of Queensbury has got to have some kind of letter. He said, I'll draft a letter and mail it right out. MR. MARTIN-I haven't gotten anything, and the action they were waiting on from the Town was the variance. They've gotten that. MR. ROWE-It's been 56 days. MR. LAPOINT-Lets try to tie this in a loop for this gentleman. MR. ROWE-My daughter is waiting to sell here house. She wants to sell her house and build a house. MR. LAPOINT-It's important to be able to do that quick, because you want to finance it at today's rates, rather than 90 days from now, when Clinton's in full swing. MR. BREWER-Mr. Martin will make a call tomorrow to somebody at the APA. MR. ROWE-The Adirondack Park says you can't have seepage pits on your land unless there's no other alternatives. Your officials say we have full jurisdiction over the sewers. I mean, it cost me $400 for an engineer to design it, when you people say. MR. MACEWAN-The letter that you were stating about said that, you were saying that the Town has all jurisdiction over wetlands. Who in the Town? The Town Board? The Town Planning Department? MR. ROWE-I don't know. 61 --- '--"""" MR. HARLICKER-In the past, it was my understanding that the past practice was, is that the Town Planning Board referred, or deferred to the APA and once the APA issued their wetlands, the Planning Board would go along with it. That was my understanding of the past practices. So we're continuing those past practices with this gentleman here. MR. BREWER-Okay. So Mr. Martin will make a call tomorrow. You can call Mr. Martin some time tomorrow, and we'll have some kind of an answer. I won't guarantee you it'll be right, but you'll have some kind of an answer. MR. MARTIN-I'm not any happier about this than you, Mr. Rowe. I don't like a resident coming in here, and. MR. ROWE-I'll see you tomorrow. MR. MACEWAN-Do you want to adjourn the meeting? MR. BREWER-I'd like to. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Acting Chairman 62