Loading...
1993-02-23 -- -/ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23RD. 1993 INDEX SEQRA Review 4-93 John L. Polk, Jr. 1. Subdivision No. 5-1993 John L. Polk. Jr. SKETCH PLAN 4. Site Plan No. 50-92 Bob Buruchian 6. Freshwater Wetlands Robert Rowe Permit #3-92 9. Subdivision No. 16-1992 Robert Rowe PRELIMINARY STAGE 11. SEQRA Review 3-93 National Realty & Development Corp. 15. Petition 3-93 RECOMMENDATION ONLY Stanley H. & Beverly D. Juckett 57. Site Plan No. 3-93 Joseph Guerra 62. Site Plan No. 7-93 Daniel & Joan Harris 66. Site Plan No. 9-93 Douglas Petroski 70. Subdivision No. 6-1993 SKETCH PLAN Michael Vasiliou 72. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR IN THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '--' -" QUEBRSBURY PLARNING BOARD MBE~ING SBCORD RBGULAR KBETIRG FBBRUARY 23RD. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN EDWARD LAPOINT KATHLEEN ROWE EXBCUTIVB DIRBCTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANRER-SCOTT HARLICKER STBROGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-We've got a couple of things we have to do first. Minutes. CORRECTION OF MIRUTES January 19th, 1993: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE ~HB MI.U~BS OF JANUARY 19TH. 1993, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 23rd day of February t 1993, by the following vote: AYES. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES. NONE ABSENT. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Do we want to wait and see if anybody else gets here before we have the election, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess we can get right into the agenda, then. We'll have the first order of business. MRS. ROWE-Do you have enough to vote, because I can't vote on this. MR. BREWER-I guess, then, we could ask the applicant if he could wait, and do the second one. We don't have enough to do the first item, if she's going to excuse herself. would that be a problem, Mr. O'Connor, if we waited just for a few minutes to see if another Board member came? Because Kathy is going to excuse herself on this first item, and you are the first item. MR. O'CONNOR-That's fine. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then we'll skip right down to the second one. OLD BUSIRESS. SEQRA RBVIBW 4-93 JOHN L. POLK. JR. CROSS RBFERERCE AV 18-1993 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF IRPUT Notes from Staff, SEQRA Review No. 4-93 Cross Reference AV '8-1993, 1 '-' '- John L. Polk, Jr., Meeting Date. February 23, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.14 acre parcel into two lots. Each lot will be approximately one acre in area. The property is located off of Assembly Point Road on the east side of Canal Bay (Lake George) and is zoned WR-1A. The subdivision will result in two principle bUildings on the westerly lot and one principle building on the eastern lot. The subdivision will require several variances. The western lot will require variances to allow more than one principle building on the lot and to allow shoreline setbacks of less than 75' for the two bUildings. The eastern lot will require variances to allow for less than 40' of frontage on a Town Road and to allow a shoreline setback of less than 75' for the eXisting bUilding. The project is located in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area and the Adirondack Park. PROJECT ANALYSIS. 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 should be no physical change to the project site. No new construction should result from this project. The variances are for existing conditions and the subdivision does not involve a physical change to the project site. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The project is located on Lake George and is in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area; however, the variances and the subdivision should not affect the lake. 4. Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The action should not impact any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action effect surface or groundwater? The project should not affect surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The project should not alter drainage flow and 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 affect 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 an impact on any historic structure. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open space 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 effect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel and energy? 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 impacts on the environment; therefore, the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." HR. BREWER-Okay, and we have someone here representing the applicant. HR. AUFFREDOU-Hr. Chairman, my name is Martin Auffredou, of the Law Firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, and Rhodes, on behalf of Hr. Polk. 2 - -../ MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess, if there's no real outstanding Staff Notes, does anybody on the Board have any questions? Would you like to take us through SEQRA, Ed? RESOLUTION WHER DETERHIRATION or NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION SEORA REVIEW NO. 4-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the JOHR L. POLK. JR., and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of 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 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver MR. BREWER-Okay. SEQRA's approved. MR. AUFFREDOU-I guess, a point of procedure, as far as the scheduling of Sketch Plan review, or Preliminary plat review. When will that be done? MR. BREWER-I think, you're on Sketch Plan tonight. MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm on Sketch Plan tonight. I understand that. Were we about to proceed to that now, or? MR. BREWER-No. We're going to go through the agenda as it, well, I suppose we probably could, or would you rather just follow the agenda? MR. LAPOINT-He's sitting right here. We can go right through it, 3 ----- - if nobody has any questions. MR. BREWER-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISIOR RO. 5-1993 SKETCH PLAII TYPE I C.E.A. WR-1A JOHN L. POLK. JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY PT.. ON EAST SIDE or CARAL BAY HARRIS BAY PROPOSAL IS TO DIVIDE EXISTING LOT IRTO TWO CONFORMIRG LOTS, WESTERLY LOT WILL CONTAIN TWO EXISTIRG COTTAGES AND APPLICANT WILL CO.VEY A LOT TO DAUGHTERS OR OTHER PARTY. EASTERLY LOT WILL BE RETAINED BY APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE. AV 18-1993 (APA) TAX HAP NO. 6-3-1 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUIf Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1993 - Sketch Plan, John L. Polk, Jr., Meeting Date: February 23,1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.14 acre parcel into two lots. One lot will be 1.0 acres and the second will be 1.14 acres. The property is located off of Assembly Point Rod on Harris Bay (Lake George) and is zoned WR-1A. The subdivision will require several variances. The smaller lot will have two principle buildings on it where only one is allowed and will need relief to allow for less than a 75' shoreline setback for the two principle buildings. The larger lot will require variances to allow a lot with less than 40' of frontage on a Town road and to allow less than 75' shoreline setback for the principle building. PROJECT ANAJ.,YSIS: The main issues regarding this subdivision will be addressed during the variance proceedings. The septic system for lot 2 has to be shown on the plan. Since lot 2 has frontage on a Town road, access to the lot should be via the Town road. This would eliminate the need for access easements and would make the property more accessible for emergency vehicles. Currently the buildings are seasonal. The applicant should indicate if there are any intentions of converting the bUilding to a year round use as this may affect the septic systems. On the plan it does not appear that the building on lot 2 is hooked up to utilities. Service seems to end at the pole located on the lot. There is also a large irregular shape shown on lot 2 that is not labeled." MR. LAPOINT-I'd say, if nobody has questions, we could go right through it. MR. BREWER-Yes. I don't have any questions with it, as far as I can see. Does anybody have any questions? MR. AUFFREDOU-There is one thing I'd like to point out. This was before the Planning Board back in the fall, as a proposed three lot subdivision. We ran into some problems with the Zoning Board on the variance request. We were proposing to create substandard lots. Now, with this subdivision, we're proposing conforming lots that are certainly compatible with the neighborhood, two lots. As I've set forth in the application, it is Mr. Polk's intention to convey the westerly lot either to his daughters or to another party, at some point in the future. He is retired, living on a fixed income, and he just cannot keep up with the tax payments at this point, and he's looking for some relief, and again, this is the idea that we have for him. It's unfortunate that we couldn't get the three lot subdivision, but at that time, back in the fall, the Zoning Board of Appeals said, come back with a two lot subdivision and we think we can give you some approval there. So, we're back here asking for a two lot subdivision. We understand that it's in a Critical Environmental Area. We understand that you have a series of criteria and regulations which, if this weren't in a CEA, you could do some expedited review. We're kind of hoping that we can expedite this, in some fashion, so that I'm not back 4 --" here, and the applicant is not back here, on three different occasions. If we can't do that, that's fine, but I am making that request tonight. MR. BREWER-I think we may be able to accommodate you with Preliminary the first meeting of next month, and then go on to Final the following week, if that's any help to you. MR. AUFFREDOU-Sure. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-What I might suggest, if that were the preferred case, that upon the filing deadline, file both applications, so you're not caught. MR. AUFFREDOU-We've got everything filed. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Well, then, we can move for a motion. MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT IN THE CASE OF SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1993 JOHR L. POLK. JR. AT SKETCH PLAR TO MOVE TO PRELIMIRARY STAGE, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Proposal is to divide existing lot into two conforming lots. The westerly lot will contain two existing cottages, and the applicant wil convey a lot to daughters or other party. Easterly lot will be retained by the applicant, pending the variance approval by the ZBA. The applicant will meet the Staff requirements for additional information on the Preliminary site plan. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-And I also might suggest you put that, pending variance approval. MR. HARLICKER-Staff would just like to offer a couple of comments, here, before you guys take a vote on this. In reviewing the application, we noted the lot, I'm not sure which, the one on the easterly side, with the one house on it, does have access to a Town road, and we were wondering why access to that property is not proposed from that Town road, as opposed to granting the easements across the rear lot, if that's a possibility? MR. AUFFREDOU-I think that does go to the variance, but it's an obvious point. I'm not surprised you brought it up. The way that that road, I think it's about 17 or 18 feet, wide, the way that that road approaches the property, there is a wooded area on that part of the lot. There is a septic/leachfield area for the large cottage in that general area of the eastern most lot, and Mr. Polk has talked about getting access from that area, but he doesn't really have any intention to do that right now. You're talking about this Town road? Okay. This is a fairly wooded area through here. Mr. Polk has stated that he could, if necessary, get access to this lot from this road, but he doesn't intend to. The common driveway, the easement that extends through the entire property, has worked well through the years. He's not intending to change that, and he's comfortable with that. Remember, he's going to keep this lot. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. AUFFREDOU-If, at some point in time, a future owner wishes to have his or her own access, and not have to be worried or concerned about the easement access, I suppose at that point they could clear this area and get access from this Town road. 5 --- '-- MR. HARLICKER-Okay. As long as you're up there, there also appears to be a large, irregularly shaped feature outlined on that parcel you were just pOinting at. I was wondering what that was. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think, if I'm not mistaken, and Leon Steves is here, and I didn't want to bring him in, but I think that is the leachfield area for this, the septic system that services the large cottage. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. For the Preliminary, then, maybe, if the Board agrees with this, you might want to show just where the septic system is for that. MR. AUFFREDOU-We could do that. Sure. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Also, it does not appear that the bUilding on Lot 2 is hooked up to utili ties. It seemed to just end in the middle of the property there. I'm assuming that's a pole? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. It's fully serviced by utilities. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-It is seasonal use, though. MR. HARLICKER-Right. So all three buildings are gOing to be converted to year round use? MR. AUFFREDOU-Well, I don't know. Certainly, that's not Mr. Polk's intention, for this building, which is the oldest bUilding. It's a two story structure. It's been there for a very long time. These two cottages are seasonal, and I suppose it's a fair statement to say that a future owner could come forward and attempt to convert these buildings to year round use. It's not Mr. Polk's intention to do that, if the variances and subdivision applications are approved. His intention is only to change ownership. MR. HARLICKER-Those are all the issues that I had, at this level of review. AYES: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver MR. BREWER-Mr. O'Connor, Jim just went to see if he could get a hold of another Board member, just so you know. We'll proceed until someone else gets here, and then we'll get right to you. OLD BUSINBSS: SITE PLAN RO. 50-92 TYPE I (LK. GBORGE C.B.A.) LC-42A BOB BURUCHIAN OWNBR: SAMB AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAS...... SIDB OF R....... 9L ON DUNHAM'S BAY (OLD HOUN......AIRSIDE GRANGB HALL). RIGHT ABOVE DURRAH'S BAY LODGE ACROSS FROM BOAT. CO. SITB PLAR REVIEW TO OPERATE A BED & BRBAKFAS...... FOR UP TO 4 PBRSORS. (WARRBN COUR......Y PLARNIRG) (APA) TAX HAP NO. 10-1-22 LOT SIZE: + 1/2 ACRB SECTION: 179-13 SHARON DAVIES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay, Scott, do you have any Notes? I have none here from you. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. If you recall, we reviewed, this was back on the agenda, back in, I think it was December, December 15th. The reason it was brought back was because it had not been sent to County. It has, since, been sent to the County, and we got stuff back from them today, and they indicated that it would be approved. 6 '- '-"" MR. BREWER-They approved, and we have a copy of that? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, we do. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess the major issue was, all the neighbors were taken care of, and then it had to go to Warren County, and now you're back, and you're just, did we leave the public hearing open on this? MRS. DAVIES-Yes. MR. BREWER-We did? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. this application? Does anybody on the Board have any comments to I know we had some stipulations. MR. LAPOINT-I just had one question for Scott, because I don't have this in front of me. The Warren County Planning approval, that was unconditional, there's no comments there? MR. HARLICKER-Correct. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-We just got them late this afternoon. MR. BREWER-Do we have them here? MR. HARLICKER-No, you don't. MR. LAPOINT-No. They're not in our packets. That's why I asked. It was just a straight check, unconditional approval? MR. HARLICKER-Correct. MR. LAPOINT-That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anybody else? Okay. I'll ask, is there anybody here from the public who'd like to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RO COHHERT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Does anybody care to make a motion. and I would like to know, do you have a copy of the minutes, that we had some stipulations, I thought, we put in there for this. Because we have no information. MR. HARLICKER-That I s just what I was looking for. appear that we do, no. It doesn't MRS. DAVIES-I have the minutes. MR. BREWER-There was no motion made, though. about lights and. I think we talked MRS. DAVIES-Right. That's mentioned in there. MR. BREWER-And the parking should be limited to a certain amount of people, as I remember, wasn't it? MR. DAVIES-I don't think they put a limit on that. technically, have four cars. You could, MRS. ROWE-Well. if I remember right, he had cars that he kept on 7 -/ the property, that were older cars, that. MRS. DAVIES-Right. We had a discussion about that, and I think that we didn't put a limit on the numbers. MR. BREWER-This just says as to whether everybody was notified. That's the only thing on here. That was our motion at the last meeting. Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion, then? As long as we have no. MR. HARLICKER-This was a Type I Action. So there was a Long Environmental Assessment Form for this project. MR. BREWER-We didn't do that? MR. HARLICKER-You might want to. the motion's you rescinded at that last meeting, I don't recall. I think you might have rescinded everything. So, you might want to go back through and do the SEQRA again. MR. MACEWAN-I think what we did, we rescinded our approval, pending what we found out from the County. MR. BREWER-What Warren County did. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-And everything. if we approved it, was going to be contingent upon the County approving it. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-I'm sure that's what we did. MRS. CORINNE-Yes. Well, was there any discussion on that? Were they under a blanket approval, did you say? MR. HARLICKER-No. It was an individual. There was no comments at all issued with the paperwork we got. MRS. DAVIES-I was at the meeting. The parking issue did come up. I mean, they just wanted to see, I basically gave them these pictures that showed that 'it could accommodate the cars. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess with that, then, we can make a motion. Does someone care to make a motion? MR. LAPOINT-Lets be careful, because this one's bounced back to us twice on technicalities already. Did we do and complete the SEQRA Review? Are we done with that? Are we satisfied that we're done? Because if we're not, it's easy to go through it and be done with it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. To be on the safe side, I'd recommend taking the couple of minutes to go back through it again. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. If this comes back again. MR. BREWER-It wouldn't hurt to go through it again, I guess. Lets do it again. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. RBSOLUTIOR WHEN DB~ERKINATIOK OF NO SIGKlrICAKCE IS MADB RBSOLU~IOK RO. 50-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: 8 ~ --- WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application fori BOB BURUCHIAN. for a site plan to operate a Bed & Breakfast for up to four persons., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved. NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT. Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess now we can make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVB SITB PLAN NO. 50-92 BOB BURUCHIAR. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To operate a Bed & Breakfast for up to four persons. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver MR. BREWER-Mr. O'Connor, we did get a hold of Mr. Ruel, and he will be here. FRESHWATBR WBTLARDS PERMIT 13-92 G 26 SW 313 WBST MOURTAIH ROAD ZONBI SR-1A AERA OF PROPBRTY: 45-1992 1124-1992 SUB 116-1992 ROBERT ROWB PROPBRTY INVOLVED. TAX HAP NO. 123-1-34 CURRENT 2 ACRBS CROSS RBFBRENCE. AV 1 9 "--' -../ ROBERT ROWE, PRESENT HR. HARLICKER-He got his wetland permit. MR. BREWER-He does, and we have it? HR. HARLICKER-He got it, faxed to us, today. MR. BREWER-Okay. other. Great. We can do these one right after the STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit '3-92, Robert Rowe, Meeting Date I February 16, 1993 "The applicant is before the Board for a wetlands permit. The applicant also requested an area variance to allow construction within 75' of a wetlands. Hr. Rowe is also applying for a two lot subdivision. Hr. Rowe received the needed variance to build within 75' of a wetlands on 11/18/92. The wetland is jurisdictional to the APA. The applicant was told by the staff about the Board's policy of allowing the other agency to issue a permit prior to the Town." Today, I received a fax from the APA, and Mr. Rowe now has his wetlands permit. "Mr. Rowe has applied to the APA and is awaiting their determination. The APA had to wait until the applicant received the variance to begin processing the wetlands application. The staff contacted the APA on 2/1/93 to see where the application was in their review. They indicated that they are processing the application and did not see any problems with it. They should have a copy of the approval to the Town by 2/19 or 2/22. If for some reason the Planning Department has not received a copy of the approval by the day of the meeting, staff recommends granting approval conditioned on the receipt of the APA approval." MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have an updated map of this property? MR. ROWE-Well, my son-in-law brought nine of them up on Friday. Scott said he can't find them. I've got mine. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We don't have copies of it any place. He's got one with him. HR. BREWER-Could we look at the one you have with you? MR. ROWE-Sure. MR. BREWER-It's a pretty simple subdivision. Ed, do you want to look at this? MR. LAPOINT-I remember it from the last time. HR. BREWER-There may have been a couple of things that may have changed. HRS. ROWE-I was curious about something. Your fill that you're going to put in for the house, is there an attached garage? HR. ROWE-No. MRS. ROWE-NO. So, it's just going to be the house? And is some fill going to be put in the back behind the house, like for a play area or something? MR. ROWE-No. MRS. ROWE-No? MR. ROWE-The house is going down in a hole, and the dirt we've got up there is going to be in front of the house. 10 '--' -' MRS. ROWE-Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anybody else? MR. LAPOINT-What is it exactly we do with a Wetlands Permit? We're not approving or anything, are we? I mean. for the first item. The first item of business, here, is a Wetlands Permit. What are we doing, as a Board? MR. MARTIN-You're actually just issuing the permit. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-They already have that, though. MR. MARTIN-Which allows for the activity to occur as planned. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. With no further comments, does anybody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AND ACCEPT AND MAKE THE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-92 ROBERT ROWE AS ISSUED BY THE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: Which binds the applicant to the terms and conditions of that permit. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993. by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver MR. BREWER-Okay. That's approved. You've got your permit. Now we can go right to the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Just to make a note, in that motion. The motion was to accept. I think it should be, accept the permit, it should be to make the permit. MR. LAPOINT-To accept and approve and make the permit. MR. MARTIN-Just as a technicality. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. See, we're not issuing the permit. MR. MARTIN-No. We have a permit as well, the Town does. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Fine, then the Town shall issue that permit. MR. MARTIN-The APA already has theirs. SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A ROBERT ROWE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: WEST MT. RD., SOUTH OF SHERMAN AVENUE INTERSECTION. SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO 2 LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV' 124-1992 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-92 (APA) TAX MAP NO. 123-1-34 LOT SIZE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ROBERT ROWE. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 16-1992 - Preliminary Stage, 11 --- "-"'" Robert Rowe, Meeting Date: February 23, 1993 "Proiect DescriÞtion: The applicant is seeking preliminary approval to subdivide a 4.63 acre parcel into two lots. The new lot will be 1.95 acres and the remaining lot will be 2.58 acres. The property is located in the Adirondack Park on West Mountain Road just south of Clendon Brook Road and is known as tax parcel 121-1-34. The rear of the property is bounded by Clendon Brook and there is a freshwater wetlands on the property. The property is zoned SR-1A. The applicant is also required to get a freshwater wetlands permit and a variance to build within 75 feet of a wetland. The applicant is proposing to build a house on the second parcel only 22' from the wetland. Pro1ect Analvsis: The project was reviewed with consideration given to the provisions found in Section A183-10E. (1) of the Zoning Code: The applicant is not proposing any streets in his proposal; it is a simple two lot subdivision. Both of the lots will be hooked up to Town water. The lots will have individual septic systems. Since lot two is in a low lying area adjacent to a wetland, information should be provided to ensure that the proposed lot is able to support a septic system. The eXisting lot, which has a dwelling on it, has it's own septic system. Drainage could be a problem with the proposed new lot. It is located in a hollow and appears to be a natural catch basin for stormwater runoff and snowmelt in the spring. Because of the steep slope at the front of the property and along the side, access to the parcel could be a problem. Grading information should be provided showing how the problem of the steep slope will be mitigated. The lots are both over one acre and, therefore, meet the lot size requirement of the Zoning Code, as well as the other dimensional requirements. The proposed structure on lot two is located so it meets the setbacks for front, rear and side yards. The applicant received a variance for the house to be located 50 feet from the wetlands; the code requires 75 feet setback from a wetland. Since that time the applicant has revised his plans and will locate the house 60 feet from the wetlands. According to Section 179-30 C of the Zoning Code, all residential lots fronting on a collector or arterial road shall have two times the lot width permitted in the zone unless the ingress and egress are limited to one common driveway. In order to gain an exception to the two times the lot width requirement, the applicant has to show the common driveway on the subdivision plat and in a written legal document. There is a slim possibility that lot one, which has 2.58 acres, could be further subdivided in the future. The limiting factors to this possibility appear to be wetlands. and the road frontage requirements for arterial and collector roads. Recommendation: The Planning Staff believes that there are certain issues that need special consideration. Because of the nature of the property drainage, the septic system and the impact of development on the wetlands all have to be carefully examined. Because of the steep slope and frontage on an arterial road, access also should be looked at closely. If the applicant can show that the low elevation will not cause drainage problems, the property can support an up to code septic system, the development will not have a negative impact on the wetlands and safe access to the site can be provided. the Staff can recommend preliminary subdivision approval." MR. BREWER-Okay. comments? Would you like to make any comment to these MR. ROWE-I'll answer'any question you want to ask of me. MR. BREWER-Do you have any of the information that is being asked for, as far as drainage? MR. ROWE-I have a blueprint that was approved by the Adirondack Park for the septic system. MR. BREWER-Okay, and you'll have that for Final. MR. ROWE-I have the blueprints right here. 12 '--' -- HR. BREWER-NO, the blueprints, but I have some kind of report saying that be a problem. We have to prove that be a problem on your property. would say that you'd have to the drainage is not going to the drainage is not going to MR. ROWE-I've owned this land for 33 years and I never had any problem. We eliminated at least 30 feet, by fill already, and by putting a 56 foot house in there, you're eliminating 56 more. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but. MR. HARLICKER-I think part of it, too, is if you look the elevations that I gave you, it gives you some idea as to the grading that's going to be proposed for the project. MR. BREWER-But don't we have to have some documentation that says this is gOing to happen, rather than a piece of paper saying that it's going to? MR. HARLICKER-You can request it, but normally on a subdivision like this, it's not a required, on a simple two lot subdivision, we don't require full grading plans for it. Normally, we waive that. MR. ROWE-This land has all been surveyed, and the topo numbers are right there, on the road and the house. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anyone else on the Board have any questions? HR. LAPOINT-No. He could just, when he submits your Final Stage subdivision, just include the drawings with the septic attached. MR. ROWE-They're awful big drawings. HR. LAPOINT-NO. I understand. I'm just trying to make it easy so you get approval. I want you to get approval as quickly and smoothly as possible. MR. ROWE-So do I. MR. LAPOINT-I don't want to sit here, at Final, and debate whether or not your septic system's going to be okay. The best way for you to do that is for you to attach a set of those drawings to what you submit at Final, showing that they're engineered, and we'll go right over them and say, okay, it demonstrates there's an approvable septic system, Code septic system. MR. ROWE-The Adirondack Park wouldn't even give me approval on the wetlands, until they. MR. LAPOINT-I understand that, but our Staff is bringing this up to us. I would overlook it. I don't know about the rest of the people on the Board. I believe you. MR. ROWE-It'll be attached. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Some of the conditions in the APA Wetlands Permits do relate to location of the septic system. So that's addressed partially that way. The one outstanding issue that we discussed, also, is he's in the process, right now, of getting the legal documentation for the easements for access to the two lots, and that should be, hopefully, in place, or you should hopefully have it by the time Final approval comes around. MR. BREWER-The only other question that I had, and I don't have a problem with it, I just was curious, your driveway comes in, and then comes back around to the back of the house. MR. ROWE-Well, I gave my daughter a 20 foot right-of-way on my property. I have a big wide driveway now, and she's going to have a 20 foot easement on my property. She'll be coming almost into my 13 ~ '-' garage and making a U-turn. cellar. Her garage is gOing to be in her MR. BREWER-It's going to be in the cellar in the back? Okay. MRS. CORINNE-This is the correct drawing that we have here? MR. ROWE-Yes. MRS. CORINNE-With the shared driveway, do we have to have some statement about responsibility for the driveway and all that? MR. MARTIN-I think that's what Scott was referring to. MR. HARLICKER-Right. along with it. We need the legal documentation that goes MR. MARTIN-The actual easement language. MR. BREWER-Okay. We left the public hearing open on this. Is there anyone here from the pUblic that would like to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HBARIHG OPBR )to COHNBHIf PUBLIC HBARIHG CLOSBD MR. BREWER-Okay. We have to go through the Short Form? MR. LAPOINT-Long Form, right? MR. HARLICKER-Long Form. MR. BREWER-Long Form. RBSOLUTIOH _HBH DBTBRHI_ATIO_ or _0 SIG_IrICARCB IS HAD. RBSOLUTIOR BO. 16-1992, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for. ROBBRT ROWB, at Preliainary Stage, for the subdivision of property into two lots for residential purposes, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is sUbject to review under the State Environaental 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 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Fora 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 14 ~ -- 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 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote. AYES. Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan, Hr. LaPoint, Hrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES. NONE ABSENT. Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver MR. BREWER-Okay. Now, would somebody care to make a motion? MRS. TARAHA-Excuse me, before you do that, was the Staff satisfied with the things that you brought up, regarding the slope of the property, safe access onto the? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That information given to you there, in light of the com.ents from the APA. addressed everything. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm going to make my motion, so that you can add in the septic tank and show that, and if it's easy, and you talk to the Staff before you get to Final with this, and if there's still any question about the grades, just put a few spot elevations on the plan. that ought to do it, right? Okay. MO~IOR ~O APPROVE SUBDIVISIO. RO. 16-1992 ROBBR~ ROWI, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan. Subdivision of property into two lots, with the applicant's understanding that he'll meet the Staff's requirements for final, with respect to a Code septic system and spot elevations as required, and include the easements. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Hr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES. NONE ABSENT. Hr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver MR. BREWER-Okay. Now, we want to go back to the first item on the agenda, now that Roger's here. SEORA REVIBW 3-93 RA~IORAL RBALTY & DBVBLOPMBR~ CORP. - CROSS RBFERBRCB AV '11-1993. SUBDIVISIOR '3-1993. ARD FU~URB SI~B PLAR APPLICA~IORS MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, SEQRA Review 3-93 National Realty & Development Corp., Cross Reference. AV'11-1993, Subdiv. '3-1993, National Realty & Development Corp., Meeting Date: February 23, 1993 "I. Project Description. The project involves the re-development of approximately 17.74 acres of commercial property. The proeprty is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Weeks Road and Rt. 9. It is currently zoned HC-1A and contains 102,000 square feet of mixed commercial, retail and office space. This proposal 15 '- will remove 29,000 square feet of the existing bUilding and necessitate the re-location of four businesses. New construction will consist of a 116,097 square foot Wal-Mart stor with 621 parking spaces. The project includes minor peripheral landscaping in the parking area and the planting of trees and the placement of a stockade fence to provide screening and a buffer for the residential property to the south. The proposal also includes the subdivision of the 17.74 acre parcel into two lots. Lot one, which will contain the Wal-Mart store, is to be 11.28 acres; lot two, which will contain the remaining Ames store, will be 6.45 acres. In order to receive subdivision approval, the applicant will need several variances including permeability, side yard setback, buffer zone and parking lot landscaping. The project also involves the extension of the sewer district to allow the two stores to hook up. II. Review of Part I After reviewing Part I Project Information, the Planning Staff would like to see the answers to several questions clarified or modified to reflect staff's concerns. Most of the changes are clerical in nature but need to be completed prior to accepting the EAF as complete. Section A. Question 4a; What is the depth to bedrock? The answer given has to be substantiated by listing it's source. Section A. Question 8: What is the depth of the water table? As with the above question, the source of the answer has to be given. Section B. Question 2. How much natural material will be removed from the site? This question has to be answered. Section B. Question 16. Will the project generate solid waste? The answer yes requires a follow up answer regarding quantity generated. The answer should also list solid waste generated during the demolition and construction process. Section B. Question 19. Will the project routinely produce odors? The project will probably routinely produce odors during construction. Exhaust and dust will be created as a result of the construction process. Diesel fumes from trucks as well as exhaust from customer's vehicles will also be produced as a result of this project. Section B. Question 20. Will the project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? During construction the project will probably produce noise levels that exceed the aabient noise level. The noise from delivery trucks will also probably exceed ambient levels if those deliveries are made during the evenings. Section B. Question 23: Total anticipated water usage per day? The source of this answer should be given. It should also be clarified if the answer includes the water used by Ames. Section C. Question 7. What are the predominant land uses and zoning classifications within 1/4 mile radius of proposed action? Single family residential as well as plaza commercial are located within 1/4 mile of the project. Section C. Question 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses? It is the staff's belief that a 116,000 square foot retail store is not compatible with the adjacent single family residences. III. Review of Part 2 After reviewing Part 2 - Project Impacts and Their Magnitude, and Part 3 - Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts, the Planning Staff has the following comments and concerns regarding the environmental impacts of this project. A. EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF LAND There will be some impact on the land as a result of this project. Even though much of the site is vacant, it can not be considered undisturbed property. The topography of the site will be altered, and there will be the removal of most of the existing vegetation. The existing vegetation will remain in the buffer areas that abut the residential zones. The greatest impact on the land will be the creation of a large area of impermeability. This issue of large areas of impermeability has to be addressed. B. EVALUATION OF IMPACT ON WATER In reviewing the project's impacts on water the main concern centers on the expansion of impervious space. The site is currently mostly covered by either the existing building or the parking area. Of the existing 17.74 acres which comprise the project site, approximately 7.0 acres (39%) is permeable surface covered by some type of vegetation. When the project is is complete 2.48 acres (13.9%) will be permeable. It is possible that the large decrease in permeable area will affect groundwater. Pollution from the runoff and recharge of the aquifer are issues 16 -- ~ that need further review. Soil erosion and changes in the drainage patterns are also possible problem areas. Erosion, especially during construction, will have to be controlled through a proper erosion control plan. The drainage report, created to help mitigate stormwater management and drainage concerns, is currently being reviewed by Rist-Frost Associates. C. EVALUATION OF IMPACT ON AIR In reviewing the project's impact on air the main concern centers on exhaust from the vehicle trips generated by this project, from the delivery vehicles and from the odor created in the garden center and auto repair areas. The traffic study indicated that there will be over 1,000 trips generated by this project during peak hours on Saturday. Their impact on local air quality, particularly the adjacent residential neighborhoods, has to be addressed. The delivery trucks will access the loading dock by driving very close to the adjacent residential areas and the diesel exhaust generated by these vehicles is particularly offensive. The smells generated by the auto repair area and garden center and their impact on the residences has to be examined. D. EVALUATION OF IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES In reviewing the project's impact on aesthetics the dominant concern relates to the parking lot and the lack of landscaping. A 10.8 acre, 975 space parking lot will be a visual horror without landscaping. The site is extremely visible from a heavily traveled street and adjacent properties; therefore, care should be taken to ensure that the parking area is more than just acres of blacktop and white lines. Landscaped islands with trees will be pleasing aesthetically, improve air quality and provide shade. The project's impact on the adjacent residences can also be mitigated by adding landscaping and screening to the buffer areas to the west and south. The applicant should complete the Visual EAF Addendum. E. EVALUATION OF IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION According to the traffic study completed by Transportation Concepts the project will not have a negative impact on the signalized intersections located at Aviation Road/Rt. 9 and Northway Plaza/Rt. 9. The level of service at these intersections will remain unchanged. However, traffic at the unsignalized intersections near the project will be negatively affected by the project. The applicant proposes to signalize the intersection of the southern access to the site off Rt. 9. Vehicles from Weeks Road that will cut through the parking area to avoid the unsignalized intersection should be added to the study as should alternative designs of access and parking layout. Furthermore, by signalizing the Montray Road/Rt. 9 intersection, traffic from Sweet Road will be induced to use Montray as an access point to Rt. 9 and it is questionable if Hontray will be able to handle the increase in traffic. Since the project has a major impact on a state highway, the study should be sent to Department of Transportation for their review and comments." DOT did comment on the project, in a letter dated February 10th. It states that, 'We have begun our review of the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed 122,000 gross square foot retail development to be located on US Route 9 in the town of Queensbury, NY. The background traffic, growth rate, pass- by credit and trip distributions in the report are all acceptable. However, based on an investigation of the trip generation characteristics of some similar developments in the region, we have concluded that the potential trip generation for this project would best be estimated by using the ITE .815 Discount Store category, rather than the ITE '820 Shopping Center category used in the Traffic Impact Study. The Traffic Impact Study should be revised accordingly. We will resume our review of this project as soon as we receive the revised report. If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at 473-0494. Sincerely, Ken Carlson Senior Transportation Analyst' "F. EVALUATION OF IMPACT ON ENERGY The project will have a minor impact on the energy supply system. The project will require the extension of energy transmission to serve a major commercial use . Utilities, gas, electric, phone and water are all available to the site and should not require any major extensions or expansions. G. EVALUATION OF NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS The project will create noise and odors. These impacts will be generated both during and after construction. The impact of noise and odors generated during construction on the 17 '- ...- adjacent residences has to be addressed as well as the noise and odors generated by delivery trucks and general traffic uSing the si te. H. EVALUATION OF IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The project will create a demand for additional community services. Additional police and fire service will be required by the project. The project will also require the extension of the sewer service area to accommodate this site. The project's impact on the adjacent residences has to be addressed. The existing food store and dentist probably serve the residential areas; the impact of their forced relocation, as well as several other businesses, should be examined. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. IMPACT ON LAND The main concern regarding the project's impact on the land is the vast areas of impermeability. Measures that will mitigate the adverse impacts that large amounts of asphalt and pavement and bUilding area have on the land should be outlined. The large amount of acreage covered by asphalt will serve as an energy sponge and act as a large hot plate during hot summer days. One way to mitigate this would be to plant trees in landscaped islands. These trees would both cool the parking area and provide shaded areas to park cars and for customers to walk. Erosion is another concern that has to be addressed. An erosion control plan has to be developed that addresses erosion problems both during and after construction. B. IMPACT ON WATER The project could have an impact on ground water. The large amount of impervious area could impact groundwater recharge and quality. Pollution from the parking lot could seep in through the drainage system. A stormwater management plan should be developed as well as the drainage report, which is currently being reviewed by Rist- Frost Associates. Measures also have to be developed that will provide for the safe removal of the known septic system and any possible second systems. C. IMPACT ON AIß The main impact on the air will come from the exhaust from customers cars and diesel fumes from the delivery trucks. The adjacent residential areas will be the most affected. A means of mitigating this might be to route delivery trucks away from the residential property and around the end of the bUilding by Weeks Road. Odors created during construction will also impact the adjacent residences. The dust and smells associated with construction can be mitigated with proper measures and by limiting the hours when construction can take place. The odors associated with automobile repair and garden centers should also be addressed. D. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES It appears that the building will be sufficiently screened from the residential properties. However, the remainder of the site, particularly the parking lot, could use additional landscaping. The applicant is proposing 41 more spaces than required. This area could very easily be used to create landscaped islands throughout the parking lot. The possibility of a berm created along the Rt. 9 frontage as a means of mitigating the aesthetic impacts of the vast parking lot should be explored. ~ IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The impact that the traffic signal will have on Montray Road has to be addressed as does the probability of traffic cutting through the parking lot to avoid the unsignalized Weeks Rd./Rt. 9 intersection. Since the project is on a main state highway, DOT should review the traffic study for comments and recommendations. Alternative designs for parking layout and access should also be presented. F. IMPACT ON ENERGY The proposal will have a slight impact on the community's energy. This can be mitigated by ensuring that all construction be energy efficient and uses the best technology available to heat and cool the buildings. G. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS Noise is unavoidable during construction but its impact can be mitigated by limiting the hours of construction. Noise and odors generated by delivery trucks and customer traffic can be mitigated by routing traffic away from the residential areas. H. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The project will require the extension of the sewer district so that the site can be hooked up to sewer service. The impact that the extension will have on the area should be looked at. Items such as which properties will be included in the extension, its cost and the increased development intensity which could result from this extension should be examined. The impact of 18 '-" -' the forced relocation of businesses that served the neighboring residences should also be addressed. The project's physical impact on the adjacent residences should also be looked at. A 116,000 square foot retail store will impact the adjacent neighborhood. In light of the above concerns, there is sufficient information available to make a recommendation regarding a declaration of potential environmental impacts." MR. BREWER-Sufficient, or insufficient? MR. HARLICKER-Insufficient. There was a typo. MR. MACEWAN-A pretty significant one. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I've really got to understand that one. In light of the above concerns, there is, insufficient, is what you want that? MR. HARLICKER-Correct. MR. BREWER-Right. typo. That's not what was submitted to us. It's a MR. HARTIN-I wasn't aware of that typo. MR. HARLICKER-I wasn't either, until now. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd like to see if we could talk our way through some of the concerns. MR. BREWER-Well, we've got to go through Rist-Frost, and then we'll go through them, if you'd like, one at a time. Okay. Tom? BIIGIIIEER REPORIf Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated February 23, 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project data and has discussed the project with the applicant's engineer. Our review, at this stage of the project, is limited to the engineering aspects of proposed site development as related to Planning Board SEQRA determinations. The areas covered by our review are potential impacts from drainage/stormwater, traffic, sewage disposal, and erosion/ sedimentation. 1. The stormwater management concept provides for infiltration of increases in stormwater runoff. The project data reviewed discusses stormwater quality control but is not clear if stormwater quality will be controlled for all impervious areas. Site conditions are such that potential stormwater impacts can be mitigated. 2. The traffic study utilized existing traffic counts at the plaza. The traffic study characterizes the counts as typical peak hours. The existing traffic volumes used to project intersection levels of service (LOS) may not represent maximum peak hours due to seasonal fluctuations. Operational analysis conclusions made in the study address the typical peak hour condition. The projected traffic conditions during maximum peak hour should also be considered. 3. The traffic study demonstrates that a new traffic signal at the plaza entrance can maintain good levels of service for Route 9 through traffic. Diminished levels of service are projected for nearby side street intersections. The traffic study analysis is based upon a to snapshot H projection for 1993. The traffic study does not address the impact of the proposed retail development as background traffic continues to grow in the future. 4. Extension of a public sewer is proposed only to the Wal-Mart store lot." HR. BREWER-Tom, I'm sorry, but I don't have what you're reading. MR. YARHOWICH-Do you have earlier correspondence between? MR. BREWER-I've got a letter dated February 16th. 19 -- - MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. The letter that I'm reading is dated February 23rd, today's date. MR. MACEWAN-The February 23rd letter. MR. BREWER-I don't have it. MR. YARMOWICH-Did you receive some additional drawings showing sewer alignments, hilighted in green? MR. RUEL-Yes, these. MR. YARMOWICH-And with that was there a letter of our engineering review? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I've got that. MR. BREWER-I've got the map. I've got no letter. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the letter which you do have was a letter which was given to the engineer in an initial stage of review. The opening remark of the letter which I was reading from tonight alluded to the fact that I had discussed the project with Mr. Bill White of Flint Engineers. I've also discussed the project with their transportation consultant, and as a result of some of those discussions, a revised traffic analysis was submitted to me last week, and that's another item I don't know whether or not you're in receipt of. One of the pieces of information that was generated, as a result of the pre-review, was the request for the sewer alignment information, which was given to you, so that you could assess the potential impacts of that sewer construction as well. That was information not included in the original packet, and thought to be pertinent. So, what I'm reading from tonight is a letter which supersedes previous comments, because certain things in the letter which you have have been adequately addressed, from an engineerinq standpoint. MR. HARLICKER-We've got extra copies, here. MR. BREWER-The only reason I say that, is because when I look at this, it says, stormwater management concept is satisfactory, and then it goes down to say other thinqs, and you're reading something. I would just like to have a copy of what you're reading, so I know what you're reading. MR. YARMOWICH-I believe you'll be getting a copy. 23rd, 1993 letter supersedes other engineering directly to the applicant's engineer. This February comments made MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. YARMOWICH-Shall I continue? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. "Sewer should be extended to serve all wastewater sources on the site (Ames, Queen Diner, Wal-Mart) because suitable permeable areas for on-site sewage disposal systems for Ames or the Queen Diner will not remain. 5. The proposed sewer extensions appear feasible from a design standpoint. The selected alignment relies upon easements needed over four developed and one vacant parcel abutting the west side of Route 9. There will be off-site impacts from the sewer extension of this project. 6. Long term erosion and sedimentation does not appear to be an issue. Permanent stabilization of construction disturbances should be routine. Construction related impacts can be minimized through faithful installation and maintenance of standard practices." MR. BREWER-Okay. 20 "'--' ,-",0 MR. MARTIN-You have the Beautification Committee minutes, right? MR. BREWER-That's right here. Yes. MR. MARTIN-And also Warren County, they looked at the variances, and approved all four variances. You wouldn't have that. That's for the ZBA tomorrow night, but that's just as a matter of information. MR. BREWER-Okay. Should this be read into the record, Beautification, or not? MR. MARTIN-It's just. really, a description of the project. MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. O'Connor, would you like to go through Staff Comments one at a time? MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & 0' Connor, here representing the applicant, National Realty & Development Corporation. With me is Bill White from Flint Engineering who is the engineer for the project, and Shelly Johnston, who is the traffic consultant from Transportation Concepts. Bill is going to go through Staff Comments with you and try and explain where we are at, and where we've been since we last met. We met about a month ago and you determined that you would be Lead Agency, and gave notice to all other involved agencies. Since that time, we've been involved with various, a number of meetings, and Bill will run through those. The one thing that I had was Mr. LaPoint asked at the last meeting, as to the extent of the lease that's on the Ames retail store, that's part of this site. We have a letter that we will submit for your record, which states that the lease expires April 3rd, 2003, with three twelve year options. So it runs to 2,015, so approximately 25 years, 22 years, 22 years that still remains on the Ames lease, as a valid lease. I'd submit that at this point. I think maybe it's more appropriate when we get into the actual site plan, than when we get into the SEQRA, trying to distinguish, at this point, some of the comments of Staff, from Site Plan as to SEQRA, although I think we can address everything, if we go from A to Z, which is what we have to go through here, because if you have to go from here to the ZBA to get the variances that we need, the area variances, in order to come back to this Board with a subdivision application and a site plan application, and once we do get the variances in place, which we're hopefully that we're going to get, from the responses that we've had from different people that are reviewing it. We will start working on the sewer easements, that would mean the extension of the sewer district, with the Town Board, and then try and put it all in one package and present it to you as part of our site plan review. At the same time, we're working with the DOT, and Shelly will indicate. when she makes her presentation, for the traffic and the traffic signalization that we add to the project. So, I think we've got quite a bit to do, and we can do it on a line by line type basis, we'll go back to those Staff Comments and start with those. MR. BREWER-I don't have any objections. BILL WHITE MR. WHITE-I just want to go through some of the meetings that we have had since we were last at the Planning Board. There's been a total of six of them, four with other various involved groups, and two with the County Planning. Our first meeting after we had been to the Planning Board the last time was with County Planning. We had a workshop meeting with County Planning. We reviewed the project in detail with them, and received their comments on the application. That same night we met with some of the residents along the south property line who had been at a previous meeting and expressed their concern that their properties be adequately buffered from the development. We sat down with Mrs. Rowe, Mr. 21 '-' -- Olson, I believe, Mrs. West's son, three of the four or five people that abut the property on the south, and came to an agreement with them that we would provide a stockade fence along and parallel to the existing chainlink fence that's on the property. We will provide some additional plantings along that area. We would wrap that around the west property line, to a certain area, approximately about 50 feet, so that we also would buffer the people that are on the various southwest corner of the site, and I think we have an agreement with the residents, as far as a mi tigating plan for them that will help alleviate some of the potential impacts to their property. We've also met, as Mike mentioned, with the Queensbury Beautification Committee. We've prepared a detailed landscaping plan and presented that to them to review the types of materials and plantings that we propose, as well as the location of those plantings, and as you see from their correspondence, they've also made a favorable recommendation on the application. In addition, we met with Mike Shaw on the sewer district formation, and had some discussions with him about the alignment of the sewer and how he would like to see that done, and from that we developed a concept plan that we submitted to the Town Engineer, and your Town Engineer has now indicated that he feels that that's a, from a design standpoint, a feasible solution. We've also met with the Fire Marshall, to get his input and comments on the plan. He's in agreement with the plan as well. He had one small recommendation on a turning radius that we're going to comply with, and I think we've worked well with him, and I think we're going to come up with an acceptable plan that meets his concerns as well. Then our final meeting was, again, last night, wi th the County. We talked with them and got their formal recommendation and approvals on the variances. We received some correspondence, as well, in addition to our meetings. We've talked a little bit about the New York State DOT letter of February 10th, and we've resubmitted a revised traffic impact study to DOT. The DOT comments were that we use a different planned use category, which is a lesser generater of traffic than our previous analysis. Our previous analysis was probably more conservative, and Shelly will explain the details of that. So the actual traffic that will be generated from the site will be a little bit less than we had initially asked for, using this different data. We've also talked about the information that we've submitted to the Town Engineer, and correspondence, and I feel we've developed an adequate conceptual drainage plan. I'd like to now go into, and probably the best way is to go step by step through this Queensbury Planning Office "Note To File". The first issue that I see here is Depth To Bedrock. As I mentioned during my first presentation to the Board, we hired a geotechnical engineer from Rochester. They've done a fairly extensive soil prevention program on this site, consisting of approximately 24 different test pits and borings throughout the site, and we did that for two reasons. One, we want to make sure that we have adequate soils, so that we can design conventional foundations for the building that will support that, and we found, in fact, we do have soil materials that we can construct a conventional foundation system on, and secondly we asked them to look at the subsurface soils so that we could get a better handle on the types of materials we had and how permeable they might be to support an infiltration system for the stormwater, and what we've found is that we have very sandy soils out on the site, and they will support the type of infiltration basin that we were proposing. All that study that was done by the geotechnical engineer was compiled in a report. That report was presented to the Town Engineer as part of our drainage analysis. It's a fairly lengthy and fairly detailed report that was submitted. In that report, going back to the issue here, the Depth To Bedrock, the average depth of the borings was approximately 20 feet deep. He hit no bedrock in any of those borings, and that's typical of the soils that you would find. I think in the EAF I reported five to six feet plus, based on the information we had. Knowing that we had no excavation deeper than five or six feet, we knew that rock wasn't going to be a problem. Having now done a more detailed subsurface exploration program, we've found that it's, in fact, 20 feet deep. 22 " '-/ We had a similar situation with the water table depth. Of those 24 borings that were taken, we noted groundwater in only one of those borings. It was at a depth of 12 and a half feet, and again, the deepest excavation that we're going to have on this site is probably in the four to six foot range. So, quite a bit above the water table depth. The geotechnical engineer, in his report, didn't note that the groundwater table will fluctuate, as it does throughout several in there. Now there's a question on how much natural material is to be removed on the site. Now I take the definition of natural material to be soils or that, and we intend to not remove any native soils from the site. Now, if you interpret that as to the existing vegetation that would be removed, probably the trees that would be removed, we would mulch them, and use the mulch that we can for the landscaped islands. If there's excess mulch, that would be removed from the site. Whether the Board would consider that natural material or not, I guess, is up to you, but that's the situation we have as far as natural material. The existing asphalt pavement that's out there would be reconstructed entirely, and what we would propose to do with that asphalt pavement is to take it and mill it up, rather than remove it and haul it off to a landfill or a waste disposal site. The intent would be to grind up that material and reuse it as subbase material, not the actual asphalt, but the stone type aggregate material underneath the asphalt course, and that's a concept that's used quite often, and one that we've used quite a bit on other similar type developments. The issue of solid waste, will the project generate solid waste. Some of the solid waste that would be generated would be during the construction process, and that would be during the demolition of the building, and typically what would happen in a case like this is a contractor will come in and salvage all the buildings materials that he can, that have any value. They would be removed from the buildings that are going to be demolished, taken off site, and reused on other construction projects. The more, things like concrete block, other concrete materials, steel materials would not necessarily go to a landfill. Ir would generate solid waste, yes. Would it go to a landfill? Maybe, maybe not. It could be used as general fill material for other construction projects. It could be crushed, reused. I wouldn't say it would necessarily go to a landfill, but it is probably the contractor's option, how he wishes to handle the demolition debris. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-How would you use them for other construction projects? MR. WHITE-As general fill material. HR. MACEWAN-Your own projects, or someone else, like selling it off, or someone else? MR. WHITE-It would be the contractor's option. It's really up to the contractor to remove it in the most economical and efficient way. One of the things that maybe I didn't explain well enough is Wal-Mart's recycling program, and how they do recycle cardboard, plastic, and glass materials, and to that reason, this is now out of the construction phase and into the actual store operation. They generate a solid waste rate of approximately 20 tons per month, which is considerably lower than a typical retail store of this size, only because they do have a very impressive recycling and are environmentally conscious in that regard. So that's the rate, 20 tons per month, as far natural, as far as the solid waste that the project would actually generate. MR. LAPOINT-You put that right in here. That was in here already, wasn't it, or no? MR. WHITE-I think that was left blank. HR. LAPOINT-Left blank. Okay. So we can just fill that right in, 23 F .-.. 20 tons per month, right? MR. WHITE-Yes. In 19, will the project routinely produce odors. The during the actual operation of the store, the project will not produce any odors. The tire, battery, and oil area, as explained before, is not an area where a car pulls in, it runs while, and it's being tested and general maintenance is being done on it. It's an area where you pull a car in. You take the tires off, change their tires, change the oil, change the battery. It's not an auto repair area. So, it's no di fferent a situation than pulling in to a parking space, going in and shopping, and going out of the parking space. You're just pulling in to the tire, battery, and oil, having your battery changed, and pulling out of the tire, battery, and oil. MR. MACEWAN-What kind of a roofing system was proposed for the building? MR. WHITE-It's a flat roof. MR. MACEWAN-Asphalt roof? So there's odors. MR. WHITE-During the construction of the roof? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. WHITE-Yes, and also during construction, as we pave the asphalt, if they smell the asphalt, the asphalt pavement smell, but I'm not sure that this is different from any other type of construction. MR. BREWER-I think any type of construction, you're going to have odors, no matter what you do. MR. LAPOINT-The question is, will the project routinelY produce odors, and the answer is no. I mean, when you put an asphalt roof on, that creates an odor, and it's gone. You've got to keep in mind the question, will the project produce routinelY. MR. BREWER-The project itself routinely continue to produce odors. MR. MACEWAN-During construction, where it's asking. MR. BREWER-No. It's not aSking that. routinely produce odors. It says, will the project MR. MACEWAN-During construction, the very first line, the very first question. MR. LAPOINT-In the SEQRA? MR. MACEWAN-No. Question B. It says, the first line it says, the project will probably produce routine odors during construction. That's what I'm getting at. MR. O'CONNOR-That's in the Staff Comments? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-During the construction phase of the project. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Well, see, again, working from the have to answer the question, will the project odors, and the answer to that's no. I mean, about construction, it's not going to be construction. SEQRA itself, you routinely produce if you're talking routinely under MR. MACEWAN-I understand what you're saying. 24 -- ...-' MR. WHITE-As far as, during the operation, as I mentioned, the garden center produces no, I mean, it's an open area. There's plant materials there. They produce no odors. In fact, they probably help purify the air, with the plant materials that are actually out there. Diesel fumes from trucks. We've tried to locate the dock area for the proposed Wal-Mart store in an area furthest away from the residents and people that could potentially be impacted by it. It's a situation where a truck comes in, docks it, and turns itself off, at a loading dock. There's not, and you can see there's no provision for a storage or staging area for trucks. So they don't sit there and wait for a long period of time to use the dock. It's a two bay dock. So it has the capacity to handle two trucks. So the intent is not for a truck to arrive, wai t for another truck to unload and leave, and one truck be sitting there and idling while another truck pUlls in. So, it does have the provisions for that second dock. MR. HARLICKER-Could you outline the route that the trucks will take. as they come into the site? MR. WHITE-Sure. To the Wal-Mart store, the truck would use this entrance here, to come along here, back in to the dock, and exit out through Weeks Road. For the Ames store, the dock would be in this direction, where a truck would come in this way, back in this way, and then if it's a small truck, and it can meet the turning radiuses within the pavement area, it would come out back, and exit out Weeks Road. The larger semi tractor trailers that can't make this turn. would come back out this way, sort of the reverse direction as truck that would deliver to a Wal-Mart store would do. I think I had stated in my previous recitations that the amount of delivery vehicles that we will have, that was no more than three to five per day. The timing of the delivery vehicles are generally consistent with the store hours, which are 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the week, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays. MRS. TARANA-Would trucks deliver on Sunday, is that what you're saying? MR. WHITE-No, ma'am, that's the store hours. MRS. TARANA-But trucks wouldn't be delivering on Sundays? MR. WHITE-Not on Sundays, no. centers. They deliver from distribution MR. BREWER-Wal-Mart has their own trucks? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. WHITE-And when we talk about the next thing, which is the noise impact, the trucks that go to the Wal-Mart store, and to the Ames store, as well, are not refrigerated trucks, and the refrigeration unit on the truck is a very noisey type thing. We've had that concern with some other projects I've worked on on Wal-Mart stores, about refrigerated trucks being there idling over night. That's not the case of what we have here. I would say that we're removing a grocery store that does have refrigerated trucks. We're removing that from the site. So I would think, from a noise standpoint, that noises from delivery vehicles would actually be less. The only other thing I would point out, and I guess I would lump both the odors and the noise issue into this, is, when you consider these potential impacts, I think that goes back to reason why there's a 50 foot buffer in here. I would think that the reason that that 50 foot buffer's in the Ordinance is so that you have a buffer to help mitigate some of the neighbors, at least on the south side of this project, where the greatest impact would potentially be, maintain that 50 foot buffer area so that the noise and the short term odor impacts would be mi tiqated as much as 25 '---' -' possible. MR. BREWER-Would you say, routinely, the trucks ~ould be there at night, though, or not? MR. WHITE-No. MR. BREWER-Mostly during the day? MR. WHITE-Almost exclusively. MR. BREWER-Okay. HR. WHITE-They would be at or within an hour or two of the opening, actual store hours. I believe the next question relates to water usage, anticipated water useage per day. We had noted, in the Environmental Assessment, that they estimated 5,250 gallons per day. That is for the Wal-Mart store only, and that is based on historical data that Wal-Mart has, and it's approximately .05 gallons per day per square foot. It's a number that Wal-Mart has found, based on historical data and developing these stores across the country. MR. MACEWAN-What was that number again, please? MR. WHITE-.05, approximately. MR. MACEWAN-For the whole day? MR. WHITE-.05 gallons per day per square foot. Now, the Ames store, and that's based on actual data that Mr. Shaw provided, that he has for actually measuring water flows, I believe he reported at 4,615 gallons per day. Now that was for the entire shopping center with the grocery store now. HR. BREWER-Was that the same number we had the last time? I remember we talked about the water usage. MR. WHITE-Yes. That was Mr. Shaw's plan. MR. RUEL-Do those figures include air conditioning, water tower? HR. WHITE-Yes. That water's actually recycled throughout the building. It's not waste water. HR. RUEL-Some of it is. HR. WHITE-Some of it is. So we're looking at a total of probably in the range, and it's going to fluctuate seasonally, of nine to ten thousand gallons per day of water use. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. WHITE-The next question relates to the predominant land uses and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed action. HR. BREWER-I think, I don't mean to interrupt you, but if we've got questions that are already answered, I don't know why we're answering them again. Is that crazy to me? HR. WHITE-I'm not sure which ones are already answered. MR. BREWER-Well, I'm saying, like, this one here, what are predominant land uses and zoning classifications within a quarter mile radius of the proposed action, and then he answers the question. MR. WHITE-Okay. 26 --' MR. 0' CONNOR-You seem to take out multi-family residential and apartments for some reason. MR. BREWER-If there's something that you have to add, or you want to discuss, that's fine, but I just don't want to be here until two o'clock in the morning. MR. WHITE-Okay. Then lets jump right down to the next one, then. MR. BREWER-Or if anybody on the Board wants to know about any of the questions, I'd just as soon keep right on going with it. MR. WHITE-All right. I believe the next one, though, Section C. Question 8, and it's Staff's comments, belief, that a 116,000 square foot retail store is not compatible with the adjacent single family residences. I guess my only comment to that is that we're on a parcel of land that's zoned commercial, and we're developed. and we're staying out of the 50 foot residential buffer area, and the reason that there's a 50 foot buffer area there is to buffer this project from them, and if the Town of Queensbury did not intend the parcel to be developed commercial, then I would think the zoning classification would be somewhat different than it is today. That's also an existing use of the site, as a commercial si te, and I guess I would disagree with the comment that it's really not. that it's incompatible with the property. MR. MACEWAN-I just want to go back, just quickly, to Section C, Question 7, on the zoning around it. Scott, did you have something else in mind when you were asking that question? MR. HARLICKER-Well, no. I just thought that the single family residential and the plaza commercial also within the quarter mile, they weren't listed on the list, that's all. Just add those two to them. MR. BREWER-I didn't mean to try to ignore what you're asking, but I thought the question was answered. MR. HARLICKER-I didn't feel it was answered completely. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. WHITE-I guess we're into Part Two, now, Evaluation of Impact of Land. I guess I'm not, I don't understand the comment, it cannot be considered undisturbed property. The main, the area that's fairly undisturbed, much of the eXisting site is paved, but what is not and what's being developed appears, to me, to be undisturbed property, and, again, I think the comment says here, the greatest impact on the land is the creation of the large areas of impermeability, and that I believe we have addressed in that, come up with a stormwater management plan where we can provide stormwater infiltration and handle the increase in stormwater runoff. We've provided a landscaped plan with a greater quality of landscaped plantings that is typical of a commercial development. We've tried to compensate for not meeting the Town Code requirement by providing those types of drainage system and quality plantings, and that's something that we'll get into more with the Zoning Board, with the variances, tomorrow, and something I hope we'll discuss in the site plan review process, but, to me, I think we've looked at the concepts, and we believe that we can develop a project without a major environmental impact, and that's, I think, what we need to consider tonight, when we just review the SEQRA application. When we go to the site plan review process, we can talk about that a little bit further. MRS. TARANA-If we haven't seen that plan, though, how do we know that it would mitigate any environmental impact? MR. WHITE-I have submitted a concept on storwater drainage to the Town Engineer for his review. 27 '- MRS. TARANA-And what about the landscaping plan? MR. WHITE-The plan was submitted to the Beautification Committee. MRS. TARANA-That's what you had originally, that's what originally came to us? MR. WHITE-No. It's not that plan there. It's another plan that was submitted to the Beautification Committee. MRS. TARANA-I guess my question is, how are we gOing to do a SEQRA Review, if we don't know what these plans look like? MR. O'CONNOR-The landscaping plan? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We've submitted copies of that to Mr. Martin and he's distributed some to the Beautification Committee. MR. MARTIN-Yes. They were distributed out to the Beautification Committee. That's as far as I went with them, though. I didn't present them to this Board. MR. BREWER-Is it not necessary that we should look at them? MR. MARTIN-I figured it was an item at site plan. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought we would get to it at site plan, and typically we also thought that the Beautification Committee is the one that concerns itself mostly with the green effect. MR. WHITE-To me, the intent of gOing through the SEQRA is to go through, evaluate all the environmental impacts, and determine, can they be mitigated, and we feel they can be mitigated by putting plantings on the site. MRS. TARANA-But if we don't see it, how do we know it can be mitigated? MR. O'CONNOR-You will see it at site plan review. MRS. TARANA-But we're doing the SEQRA tonight. MR. MACEWAN-But we need to know that information before we do the SEQRA. MR. WHITE-But we've indicated we're going to put plantings in the end aisle. We've indicated that we're going to increase the plantings in the buffer area. MR. BREWER-Well, if you feel you want something, you have to ask him for it, if we don't feel we can do it without, what we think we need. MRS. TARANA-I don't know how anybody else feels. I'm not ready to say the project's mitigated by a plan that I haven't seen. MR. WHITE-Well, to me, the intent is to provide the environmental information, so that the applicant doesn't have to go through and prepare a detailed engineering and landscaping drawing. To ask an applicant to go through and prepare a detailed set of engineering drawings and landscaped plans, and then come back and have the Board say, gee, maybe we don't have a project that we can mitigate, here, is not consistent with the intent of the SEQRA law. MR. LAPOINT-I've got a suggestion. I think we should be working from the Rist-Frost letter, going through those items, One through Six, those that are real substantive issues, that are related to 28 "---- -- SEQRA, stop working from Staff Notes, work from the engineering comments on SEQRA, iron those out, and then we can chat about landscaping or whatever. I mean, these are the significant issues right here. That's my suggestion. I think it would really move things along. We could go item by item. MR. BREWER-Okay, but what Corinne is suggesting to me, that these are directly from SEQRA themselves. I mean, I don't have a problem with what you're saying. MR. LAPOINT-Well, the thing is, all the Staff Comments, except for the l,i ttle that's going to be dealt with in Rist-Frost' s Item Number One on stormwater management, I mean, then you get into, I mean, they don't get into the landscaping until you get into Question Four, where they talk about sui table permeable areas, which are going to be, like, synonymous with impermeable areas. We can talk about it there. It's just, it's laid out, I think, a little more succinctly, I think, in their letter. MRS. TARANA-What's the date of that letter? MR. LAPOINT-23 February. With all due respect to the Staff, they are editorializing a lot, in their SEQRA Review. I mean, and I'll go back to what I was making a point to Craig with. The question does not ask, if the proposed action will produce odors during construction. That's not the intent. That's not what was asked. MR. HARLICKER-Isn't construction one aspect of the project? MR. LAPOINT-It says, I'm just telling you, Scott, the question says, will project routinely produce odors. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-If they wanted to say, will produce odors during construction, they would have said that. They don't. So, when you add all that extra stuff into the comments, it's tough to clear those, because, I mean, here's what the State wants us to go through, and determine if there's environmental impact. When you add stuff to that, you circumvent that. MR. HARLICKER-I don't believe it's adding. Construction is part of the project. MR. LAPOINT-Construction is not routine. MR. HARLICKER-Well, sure it is. MR. LAPOINT-Routinely produce odors, okay, but it's all through the whole thing, which I why we should go from this letter, where we're succinct and to the point. MR. HARLICKER-I don't have a problem with going through the comments that way, not at all. MR. MACEWAN-What do you think, Tim? MR. BREWER-Well. my opinion is, I think we should go through everything. MR. MACEWAN-I think we should continue going on through the letter, I mean that's what we have the Staff for. MR. BREWER-I mean, like I said a minute ago, I don't want to be here until two o'clock, any more than anybody else does, but. MR. LAPOINT-Well, then, lets go through the letter. MR. BREWER-Well, there's six of us here. If everybody feels that we want to go through everything, we'll go through everything. If 29 '-- >..-' not, we'll go through Rist-Frost's letter. How does everybody else feel? I'm only one person. MR. MACEWAN-I agree with you. MR. RUEL-Okay. Yes. Lets do it your way. MR. LAPOINT-Keep going. MR. WHITE-I'll try not to be as long winded. I think we've dealt with review of Part 2, Section A, Evaluation of the Impact of Land, the impermeability issue. I'm moving on to B, if everyone is satisfied. It talks about the Impact on Water. PAUL DUSEK MR. DUSEK-Before you go on, for your record, Paul Dusek, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury. Corinne had raised a question concerning the Impact on Land, and the maps that are available on that, and I think it's mY understanding there are maps available, and I just wanted to point out that I heard something mentioned about the law, or the law of SEQRA, and I think the Board should know that if you want to see those maps, I think you're certainly entitled to see those maps, as part of the SEQRA Review, because part of what you do have to evaluate is the land impact, and determine whether or not there will be, or may be a significant impact on the land, and if you, and also SEQRA provides that you can request such information as you deem appropriate and necessary to make that determination. Since they're available, if you want them, I just thought I'd mention that you are entitled to those. MR. MARTIN-We have the landscaping plan in the office, I mean the map of it. I can go over and get it and bring it back. We have one copy of it. MRS. TARANA-Well, quite honestly, I'm not ready to vote on the SEQRA and say all these things, we have all these impacts and they're all going to be mitigated. I'm not ready to do that without seeing whatever's been presented in total. MR. MARTIN-I'll go get it. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we can continue. MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. WHITE-Part 2, Section B. Evaluation of Impact on Water. As I mentioned, we are proposing a system of infiltration basins, for groundwater, and there's a little bit of discussion in here about pollution. We have designed a system that has actual sumps in the catchbasin. So there's an area below the outfall for the catchbasin, where any type of materials that you would want to recharge back into the groundwater could settle out, and actually that water would sit there, and through periodic maintenance, that would be cleaned out. We're going to recharge all the stormwater that comes off this site. We're going to put it back into the ground, and there's a concern about, here, that we possibly would decrease the amount of groundwater and affect the aquifer. That's not the case, because what we are doing is recharging the water back in, versus a detention pond type system where it goes into a pond and out through a storm pipe and eventually off the site. We're recharging this water back into the ground. MRS. TARANA-Off the site to where? MR. YARMOWICH-Excuse me, Bill. You're saying it's your intention that this stormwater control concept infiltrate all the stormwater? MR. WHITE-No. The intent is that it not increase the runoff from the site. 30 '- -..-' MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. So there won't be any increase in runoff, but there will be some stormwater leaving the site? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-But no more than predevelopment, or no more than is there now? MR. WHITE-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. There would be a difference in potential impact between the two. If one were to control all the stormwater and allow no stormwater to leave the site, obviously, there's no potential for off site impact. There èurrently is a great deal of stormwater leaving that site, which you can't control without the project. MR. WHITE-We hope to achieve, and we can't tell you the answer to this until we do a detailed engineering design, but what we hope to achieve is to potentially reduce the amount of runoff that we have on the site, and those calculations will be during the site design for the project, submitted to your Town Engineer for his review, and I think it's gOing to be an improvement over the eXisting conditions. There's some talk, in here, about erosion control, in reference to an erosion control plan. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to develop an erosion control plan at this point, but we do mention in the Environmental Assessment Form that the site can be controlled with standard erosion control measures from the throughout the various infiltration basins, and I believe your Town Engineer, in his letter, agrees that the site has no unique features to it, such that potential erosion could be a problem that could not be mitigated on the site. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. WHITE-I'll move down to C. Evaluation of Impact on Air. I think that, given that some discussion in the last 10 minutes or so here, I think, I don't know if there's anything here I can say to you to address any of these. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. WHITE-Section D. The Evaluation of Impact on Aesthetic Resources. I guess I would disagree with the statement the site is extremely visible. My observations are the site, driving in both the north and south bound direction, it's quite unvisible, actually. There's the large steep area near the highway that screens a lot of this site, but it's not really the visible site. It's more so from the northbound than it is from southbound traffic, but I would disagree with the statement that it's an extremely visible site. Irregardless, we are planning on keeping that raised area in the front of the store. We are landscaping the islands, as it recommends it be done, and we are beefing up the landscaping in the buffer area, for the residents to the south. I think we're providing landscaping where it's available on the site. I think we do have adequate areas for shade throughout the perimeter of the site, and along the front of the site. MR. MACEWAN-I think what he was saying, regarding it being an extremely visible site, Scott, was that you were referring to, maybe, Weeks Road, next to it, and the adjacent apartments, and other buildings over there. MR. HARLICKER-From Weeks Road, and also if you're going to extend the parking lot all the way down to the front of the, you know. down to Route 9 there, what sort of grading is gOing to be involved to allow parking in there? It's got to be leveled off somewhat, so that rest of the site will be more visible, right? MR. WHITE-More visible than it is today? 31 "-" -- MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. WHITE-I don't think so. MR. BREWER-Are you going to change the grade? MR. WHITE-Yes, not necessarily along the front of the site. We're gOing to change the grade of the parking lot in the middle of the site. We're going to lower it there, so that it's more. MR. BREWER-Like you drive up and then down. MR. RUEL-Do you have an illustration to show the side view, the slope of the parking lot? MR. WHITE-The slope of the parking lot would be a three percent slope. MR. RUEL-Do you have an illustration showing that, with the landscaping, etc.? MR. WHITE-No, we haven't developed a conceptual. We have the landscaping plan developed. MR. RUEL-Yes, but everything you have is a top view. You don't have a side view? MR. WHITE-No, not of the parking lot right now. MR. RUEL-Well, I'm only concerned about whether it was visible or not, and that would indicate to me whether it was, because it's a steep slope now, and it's not very visible from the road, but if you reduce that slope, then the parking lot will be more visible from the road. MR. WHITE-Yes. Maybe I can do it better standing. The steep area that we're discussing is this area right in here, and that's an area that we're going to enhance with Flowering Crab type trees that we reviewed with the Beautification Committee. This area is right now a lot lower than this area here, and what we're going to do is change the slope of this part here, down, and hold the grade here, so that this doesn't change, and we're going to slant this more, so you're actually flatter in here, but this area would remain pretty much close to the same grade that it is now. MRS. TARANA-And that driveway as well, the driveway to the left of the Flowering Crabs, that's going to have the same slope as it has right now? MR. WHITE-No. Well, there's a pretty steep hump in this thing, if you've ever driven up it. It comes pretty flat, and then it humps. We're going go take that hump out of it, again, by reducing this area in here, and lowering it mostly to this site, not by changing the grade in here, again, along the front, or by changing the grade and dropping the middle area of the site. MR. RUEL-What you propose to do. change the grade in the parking lot, will, in fact, make the parking lot much more visible from that road than it is today, and you mentioned a moment ago that you thought it was not visible. MR. WHITE-I've driven in this direction many times, and especially with the snow piled up there, like I saw today, I couldn't even see the stores. MR. RUEL-From the road? MR. WHITE-From this point here. MR. RUEL-Yes. You couldn't see the parking lot either, now. 32 ---r HR. WHITE-No. MR. RUEL-But you will see it after you get done. MR. WHITE-I think a combination of lowering the grade in the middle, not changing it here, and providing this landscaping along here. HR. RUEL-Okay, the landscaping, yes. MR. WHITE-Yes. It's probably a little bit hard to see for you that far away, but we have a group of hardwood trees, and these are in the end islands, on the side of the parking lot. HR. RUEL-Do you propose to put any trees in the center of the parking lot, like islands in there somewhere? HR. WHITE-In this general area here? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. WHITE-Right, the way the plan stands right now, we don't have any in there, and we're trying to find a way to provide another island in this area. MR. RUEL-Yes. It would break it up. MR. WHITE-Yes, to try to help break that up a little bit. HR. BREWER-Yes. I think we can do that at site plan review. MR. WHITE-Yes. That's what I hoped. MR. RUEL-All right. I have another question. building is, what, 28 feet tall? The Wal-Mart MR. WHITE-Yes. HR. RUEL-Do you know what the height of the Ames building is? HR. WHITE-It's somewhat less than that. I think it's around 22, 23. MR. RUEL-Twenty? MR. WHITE-Twenty. HR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. HR. WHITE-Do you want me to come back to the landscaping plan, to address those, so we can settle that? HR. LAPOINT-Yes. You've got to get to the visual horror part of the. MR. 0' CONNOR-I think that's why we went to the Beautification Committee up front, because we wanted to see if we could address that question, or that possibility of a question, and get their input. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, because I mean, we have a conclusion in here that we have a visual horror, or potential for a visual horror, and then we have to complete a visual EAF addendum? HR. O'CONNOR-You also have a report from the Beautification Committee before you, which is the Board that that is normally referred to, that says they found our landscaping plan to be acceptable. HR. BREWER-That's right here, Ed. 33 .- --- MR. LAPOINT-I've got that. MR. O'CONNOR-We think that their conclusion is closer to the facts than the Staff Comment is, on that particular point. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Again, because I don't think, through a lot of these, we ~ren't resolving a darn we have to do is get to what the meat of this is. else think we need a visual EAF addendum to this? as we're going thing, and what Does everybody MR. BREWER-I think what he's talking about here, in my mind, is the inner parking lot? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You've got over 900 parking spaces there without any landscaping inside it. MR. BREWER-The inner parking lot, I think, is what's addressed here. MR. HARLICKER-From Staff's position, that's unacceptable. MR. LAPOINT-It's a horror, I know, but to some of us, it may not be. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-And that's, see, I just want to get down to whether or not we're gOing to need a visual EAF from us. MR. BREWER-I also think that if we feel, and I agree with Scott, that there should be something in the middle of the parking lot, but I think, in my mind, we can address that at site plan review, and if he's got more parking spaces than he needs, we can make him put some islands in there, and that can address that, I think, and that will be on my mind, when it comes to that. MR. RUEL-How does that answer the SEQRA question? anticipation of something, right? This is in MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. RUEL-And we must assume that it will be done, in order to meet the requirements of SEQRA, or do we answer SEQRA as though it doesn't exist? MR. O'CONNOR-If you say, impact is small to moderate, it can be mitigated. MR. MACEWAN-I'm satisfied with that. MR. BREWER-If we think that there's a large impact, then we can't do that, in my mind. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. BREWER-I don't know, legally, if we can, but if we say it's a small to moderate impact, it can be mitigated. MR. DUSEK-What was the question, Tim? MR. BREWER-Roger said, do we go on the presumption it's going to be taken care of, and I said, no. If we make, lets say, small to moderate impact and it can be mitigated, we can address it at site plan review, the internal plantings. MR. DUSEK-Well, I think the first thing you want to do is determine whether it's a small to moderate or a large impact. I think you can make that decision, and then you can also check the box as to whether or not you feel, regardless of whether it's a small or moderate or large, you could then check the box as to mitigated. 34 -- What happens if you check a large box, though, is that you will then have to complete Part 3 of the EAF, which addresses that large impact as to its importance. Just because a large impact is checked doesn't necessarily mean that it's gOing to be an EIS. It just means that you have to address it further to see whether or not you'd need one. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm hopeful that we will be able to complete Part 2 this evening. MR. BREWER-I'm hopeful we are, too. Well, we'll just keep plodding along and see what happens. MR. WHITE-Would you like move on to the next topic, the Evaluation of Impact on Transportation? MR. BREWER-I would. MR. WHITE-Shelly, maybe it would be best if I just turn that over to you, to answer some of the Staff Comments. SHELLY JOHNSTON MS. JOHNSTON-I will condense what my response to those comments are. Indeed we did get an initial letter of review from the DOT, in response to our first traffic impact study, of which everyone on the Planning Board has gotten a copy of. In addition, we got a comment letter from Rist-Frost, based on their preliminary review. The two letters of review have one thing in common. They both suggested that we use the ITE Category 815 Discount Store, instead of ITE Category 820 Shopping Center, and revise Traffic Impact Study accordingly. The first Traffic Impact Study is at, as Bill said, a more conservative evaluation of the potential impacts of this project. After speaking with DOT and understanding that they had collected local data at discount stores that is comparable to the ITE trip data, together those two sources of data has provided enough substantiation that we feel that discount rates may now be used. The reason they weren't used to begin with is because there wasn't a lot of historical data. That's why we went with a more conservative shopping center. Nonetheless, the result is a revised Traffic Impact Study, which I have just submitted to Jim Martin. I've also submitted to Rist-Frost last week, which I'll submit to DOT for their review. The result is a reduction in the peak hour trip generation estimate from Wal-Mart. It is now estimated that during Saturday peak hour, there will be approximately 658, as opposed to the over 1,000 trip, as referred to in Staff's Comment on air quality. Secondly, there was a comment on the impact on the unsignalized intersections of Weeks Road, Sweet Road, and Montray Road. Based on further investigation of the area, the driveway that intersects Route 9 in the vicinity of the project site, the grade and different geometry of Route 9, we revised our proposal to signalize the northern entrance of the site, across from Ponderosa. That is different than our initial proposal to signalize the intersection across from Montray Road. By signalizing the intersection across from Ponderosa, we will be able to provide a 300 foot long left turn lane. That left turn lane will be able to accommodate a 40 percent increase in what is typically the afternoon peak hour trip generation on this site. That left turn lane, we believe, will mitigate the impact that may be realized during this peak shopping season, and Christmas time. If there's going to be proposed a left turn lane at the southern driveway, minimal length, but in order to accommodate any traffic that may be turning at that southern driveway, during what we project would be probably most off peak time. MR. BREWER-So, before there was only one entrance/exit. Now there's going to be two? MS. JOHNSTON-There were two. 35 --' MR. BREWER-There were two? MS. JOHNSTON-Potentially. MR. BREWER-But the other exit or entrance was the road? MS. JOHNSTON-This was primarily going to be the main entrance and exit. Now we propose to signal this. and by signaling this, we believe it will attract most of the left turners up to this intersection, just because it'll be easier to make a left turn there, but we also propose to reconstruct this median to provide a designated left turn lane, so in case there are people that turn left into this southern driveway, those impacts will be mitigated, any potential impact of traffic waiting in that center median will be mitigated. In addition, the 300 foot long left turn lane that will be provided here will accommodate peak shopping trips. Furthermore, the traffic signal here will create gaps in the flow of traffic that's proceeding on Route 9, which right now, as everyone knows, there's no traffic signal there. The traffic continues at a pretty good clip, 45 miles an hour, 40 miles an hour. By introducing a traffic signal there, it would create gaps in the flow of traffic that would help facilitate turning off from these side streets. Also, another comment that was made was the impact on those unsignalized intersections and the change in Level of Service and reserve capacity. However, the reduced trip generation by using discount stores is going to sUbsequently reduce the impact on those unsignalized intersections. They would continue to remain the existing Level of Service D. MR. RUEL-I have a question for you. Have you been in on other traffic studies for other Wal-Hart locations? HS. JOHNSTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Are you aware of before and after percentage figures on the traffic, peak traffic, at Wal-Mart locations, what it was before Wal-Hart was there and what's the percentage increase after Wal-Hart is built, regardless of time period? MS. JOHNSTON-No. I don't have exposure to, and in the northeast region there are very few Wal-Marts that have been in business for any established period of time, so that the traffic patterns are, again, typical of p.m. peak hours and Saturday peak hours. Right now there's just not a lot of trip generation data for existing Wal-Marts. That's why DOT has gone out and counted discount stores that they feel are representative of Wal-Mart, because there simply isn't trip generation information available for Wal-Hart's in the northeastern region, just because it's a relatively new land use in this area. HR. RUEL-I'd like to have some sort of a figure, does it increase 20 percent, 30 percent? What is the average increase in traffic? MS. JOHNSTON-Obviously, the percentage would be depending on what the volume was on the adjacent street. MR. RUEL-That shouldn't have any bearing on it. MS. JOHNSTON-You're asking for a percentage increase in the volume of the traffic on that road, is that correct? MR. RUEL-Yes. Correct, at any time. MS. JOHNSTON-So the percentage increase would depend on what the initial traffic on whatever the adjacent highway would be. MR. RUEL-No. If there was a certain traffic number, does it increase, does it double and become 100 percent, or? You have no feel for it? 36 '--' -- MS. JOHNSTON-No, to answer your question, no, we don't, and we're trying to get information from Wal-Mart directly to provide that information. MR. RUEL-It would be pretty good information to have, should you try this again somewhere else. MS. JOHNSTON-It sure would. DOT is looking forward to this information that Wal-Mart will hopefully provide soon, and so are different municipalities, and also a consultant. MR. MARTIN-Roger, you're just asking for the impossible. asking for a traffic engineer to talk in layman's terms. doesn't happen. You're It just MS. JOHNSTON-I apologize. MR. YARMOWICH-Maybe I can put in perspective for you, Roger. It's like you go to, an interstate, if you put a truckstop with an enormous volume of traffic, there's no impact, because the percentage of volume increase next to an interstate is minor. If you put a truckstop on a small two lane road, and you all of a sudden add hundreds and hundreds of trips of traffic, the percentage of increase is a thousand fold. So, the answer to your question is, you can't characterize it, on a percentage increase basis. It has a lot to do with the road coming in. That's why intense trip generation developments make good sense, where transportation corridors are highly developed, interstate exchanges and things. MR. RUEL-How else can you evaluate it, though? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the point that's being made is that if you have a high capacity system getting to the development, the potential for an impact is usually reduced. If you have a low capacity system, the potential is higher. I don't know what Wal-Mart' s policy is, but most developers look for high capacity transportation systems. Route 9 is one of those. The general conclusion, by the revised traffic study, and I want to say that what was presented in the revised traffic study made a lot of sense, in terms of intersection relocation, because it prevents people from wanting to use Montray Road. It also prevents people from wanting to migrate as far through the parking lot, if they should so choose, from Weeks Road to get to that traffic light, but the point is, because Route 9 is a very high capacity road. It's a very high capacity road. There's four lanes there. The amount of change that this store is going to generate is less than if it were on a lesser capacity road. MR. RUEL-This is like Meet the Press, you know, I'm not getting an answer. MR. YARMOWICH-The answer is, is that the traffic study says that. in this case. given conservative values, the Level Of Service and the traffic flow on Route 9 will remain highly acceptable. MR. BREWER-Not a lot more cars, Roger. MR. YARMOWICH-You won't notice it much. MR. BREWER-You won't notice it. MR. RUEL-I don't believe that. MR. YARMOWICH-On Route 9 you won't notice it. Now, you will notice it on Weeks Road, Montray Road. You will notice it in the parking lot of the store. MR. RUEL-Where are all these people coming from, going to Wal- Marts? 37 MR. YARMOWICH-A lot of them are coming down Route 9. A lot of them are new destinations. MR. RUEL-Coming in the back roads? MR. YARMOWICH-No, but Route 9 has . the capacity to handle it. That's the point. MR. RUEL-I give up. Okay. MR. BREWER-You won't notice the amount of impact that it will have. MR. MACEWAN-I guess if you could turn around and say, if Route 9 was like Bay Street. a two lane highway, then you'd see a significant increase. Am I right on that? MR. YARHOWICH-If it were located on Bay Street, you wouldn't be able to get in and out at all. HR. RUEL-All right. HR. YARHOWICH-But because there's going to be a left turn lane and two through lanes, you can make it through there pretty easily. HR. RUEL-Okay. All right. I like that. MR. YAHMOWICH-Okay. I hope that helps. HRS. TARANA-Has the State approved that traffic light there? MS. JOHNSTON-No. The State, and in the letter that was submitted to the Staff, the State has approved, I'm going to tell you exactly what they have approved, the background traffic, growth rate, the pass- by credit, and the trip distribution. Right now the State is now in the process' of reevaluating the impacts based on the new trip generations. It will then go from the Planning section of DOT to the Traffic section of DOT. The Traffic section, they are the ones that determine if they like the traffic signal, our proposed mitigation measures, and the exact operation and design of that traffic light, but no, to answer your question, we haven't gotten any response back from the Traffic section of DOT. MR. BREWER-What happens if they say you can't put a light there, just hypothetically? MS. JOHN·STON-We would have to rethink, serious 1 y rethink, our strategy. MR. BREWER-Would you go back to the original plan that you had? MS. JOHNSTON-No. still the same. The original plan, the original site plan, is MR. BREWER-No. I don't mean the site plan. I mean the traffic. MS. JOHNSTON-No. If they don't give us a traffic signal at that location? Yes. We'll begin a dialogue and try and figure out how we're going to get access to that site. I thought you meant if we didn't have a traffic signal at all. MR. BREWER-No, no. I mean, if they say you can't put the signal there. You can just move it back down? MS. JOHNSTON-No. Right. That will be open for discussion, that we have to resolve many design. MR. WHITE-And another reason, too, why we propose that now at this other intersection is because that was the recommendation of the County people. They said you ought to take a look at that, and with the new numbers, we did take a harder look at it, and the 38 '-- ~ numbers justify it, but I think the bottom line here is if we can't mitigate the traffic, DOT's not going to approve it, and if DOT doesn't approve the plans, we don't have a plan. So, when you look at it from the environmental impact standpoint, you guys have, in this case, you've got the DOT behind you that says, we're not going to approve anything. MR. BREWER-It has gone back to DOT, and they are reviewing it. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, I'd caution this Board, even before, is to not necessarily rely sOlely on DOT. If you feel you need information and projections that DOT wouldn't solely require, for instance, right now, DOT is not requiring projections into the future. They're looking at today's conditions, because their mandate is a little different. They deal with traffic today. DOT is not in a planning mode, as far as traffic improvements on Route 9 and Aviation Road. You know that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-When do you expect to hear back from the State, regarding the new information you sent them? MS. JOHNSTON-They called me today, and they are obviously reviewing the revised traffic study. I don't expect them to be very long. I would say maybe two weeks. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I guess I would want to ask why you chose to go at that spot rather than up at Weeks Road? Weeks, and Sweet, and Route 9 are a major problem. I don't think coming out of the Ponderosa is a major problem. MS. JOHNSTON-That's probably true. The Ponderosa isn't a major problem. Coming out of the development would be. Right now, most of the traffic that's going to turn left into the site is going to see the traffic signal here, or if it's up here, the geometry at this intersection wouldn't be sufficient to allow people to get out of Sweet Road. If there was one signal at Weeks Road, the backup that would be caused by the traffic signal there would block Sweet Road. If both intersections were somehow signalized, with a split phasing and coordinated signal system somehow, the delay that would be caused to Route 9 would be excessive. So I doubt if DOT would approve that. We're trying to mitigate the impact that it has on the adjacent street traffic. MRS. TARANA-None of it makes any sense to me, because this conversation came up before, and you said the State wouldn't even consider that site, where you want to put the light now. MS. JOHNSTON-No. I don't believe I said that. MR. YARMOWICH-Warren County suggested that the traffic signal be moved. MRS. TARANA-No. project. I'm talking about the first time we saw this MR. BREWER-I think it was at Sweet Road. MS. JOHNSTON-I said the State, I didn't believe the State would consider putting a traffic signal at Weeks and Sweet Road. MRS. TARANA-Right, but then again we had another meeting, I said, why wouldn't you put a traffic light right opposite, because you've got your driveway right opposite Ponderosa, putting the light there? And you said that there wasn't enough traffic or something, the State wouldn't consider that there. Right? 39 -.. '---" MR. BREWER-I don't recall exactly where it was, but I think we're arguing a point that if they don't approve it, we're gOing to know. So I don't think we should just keep, we're gOing nowhere if we just sit here and argue about where they were gOing to put the light. MR. O'CONNOR-The State is going to actually be the one to dictate what we do or don't do. MR. BREWER-Right. Okay. MR. WHITE-Evaluation of Impact on Energy. There will be a minor impact on energy supply systems. The project will not require an extension of the energy transmission to service this. There is electric service and gas service to the existing buildings that are going to be demolished, for the Wal-Mart building. Evaluation of Noise and Odor Impacts. I don't know if I can tell you anything new that hasn't been discussed. If you see something there, I'd be glad to address it, but I think we've hit the noise and the odor quite a bit. The Impact on Growth of Character or Community. I guess I had a couple of things on this. I don't agree that this is a forced relocation. This is a business decision by the people that own the Plaza, not to renew the leases that are currently their tenants, and bring in a new tenant. Wal-Mart's not forcing anybody to relocate. What's got to happen with these people, if they chose to continue their business, they'll have to find a suitable space, but it's not an impact created by Wal-Mart. It's something, the developer could go in tomorrow and tell Wal-Mart, your lease. You're leaving. It's not something solely created by this. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. WHITE-The additional fire and police service, I think it's so minimal, and hopefully, it's nonexistent. Hopefully, we'd have no need for a fire service. I think it's such an nonimpact that I'm not going to even spend a lot of time on it. I think the Summary and Recommendations are pretty much a recap of everything we've talked about. I'm not sure that I see anything there. This summarizes everything that we have discussed tonight. so I'm not sure that there's anything else I can add, other than starting out with the Rist-Frost comments. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything from anybody else here that you'd want to know, pertaining to these? If not, we'll go to Tom's letter. MR. WHITE-This is the letter of today, February 23rd? MR. BREWER-Today. MR. WHITE-I think we've addressed the stormwater quality issue, anything we need to during the design, address stormwater quality. As I mentioned, we've provided a concept plan that provides a sump in the catchbasins, and it will require some regular maintenance. Wal-Mart, just so you know, this is just background information. has a fairly extensive program of parking lot maintenance, sweeping of the parking lots, cleaning with the washing street machines of their parking lots, because they want to maintain a clean image, and they work very strongly at that. MR. HARLICKER-Does that include, also, the Ames parking lot, or would you just be doing the parking lot associated with Wal-Mart? MR. WHITE-Wal-Mart will maintain their own property. maintain their property. Ames will MR. HARLICKER-Okay. parking lot for Ames? So, you Okay. won't be doing anything with the 40 ~ ----- MR. YARMOWICH-Well, that parkinq lot will be reconstructed, right? MR. WHITE-Yes. It will be reconstructed, and we'll be installing catchbasins to collect the stormwater from their parking lot. MR. HARLICKER-Okay, but once that's done, it's up to them to do what they want with it. MR. WHITE-Once it's constructed, Ames owns that side of the parcel, and Wal-Mart owns the other side. Ames can maintain it. I do feel, though, I guess we could certainly come up with something acceptable for the Town Engineer on the stormwater quality control, and there's also new New York State DEC Requlations on stormwater runoff, and a new SPDES Permit is required for stormwater runoff that DEC takes a pretty hard look at that type of stuff right now. We'll have to certainly come up with a plan acceptable to them as well. Number Two and Three are traffic items that I believe we discussed, unless, Tom, you think there's somethinq that maybe Shelly hasn't addressed in her previous statements? MR. YARMOWICH-I guess what we're talkinq about, in fact, are there, your traffic study is based upon what's characterized as typical traffic counts because of the time of year in which you took them. The question is. and this goes beyond normal design practices, because we're not talking a design arena here. If this Board is interested, and I suggested that they might be, what kind of traffic would be expected beyond a typical day. What you have is a normal, typical day, every day rush hour in Queensbury, which I think is what the traffic study is saying this, the baseline is taken from. Is it of interest what happens to our transportation systems on a worse than typical day? And I raise the issue only so that the Board would feel whether or not they feel whether or not they've covered that ground sUfficiently in their determination, and it's up to the Board if they feel that that's been properly answered or not, or are they interested in that, even. MS. JOHNSTON-As I stated before, the way that we tried to address those potential increases in peak demands at this site during Christmas season is to make sure that we provide enough storage space for the left turning vehicles into the site. It's possible that we could develop alternative signal timinq plans for this signal that could be activated during peak season times, during summer, for example. Other than those, we haven't addressed future development potential in the corridor, if that's what. MR. YARMOWICH-The reason being, we're strictly talking in the SEQRA environment. Normally, I'd agree entirely with the concept behind transportation engineering. You can't design for 99.9 percent success in your transportation systems. It's just not practical, from a cost perspective. However, the SEQRA is aSkinq you to look at, what's the worst case going to be, and I'm suggesting that this traffic study may not really identify that for you. Now it also should be understood that, in reality, we're not able to develop cost effective transportation systems that can deal with the worst case. We all know that we have reasonably good transportation systems in Queensbury, and yet sometimes they fail, but how often are they going to fail, and what's qoing to be the failure mode? Is it going to be Route 9? Is it going to be the parking lot of the shopping center? Everyone who does responsible transportation planning wants to see Route 9 stay in good shape and let the side streets fail if they may, or the store, the development fail before Route 9 fails. That's the desirable effect, and if the consultants who are doing the traffic study generate that kind of picture, maybe the Board will feel more comfortable with making their detemination on whether or not the project is insignificant, in terms of traffic impacts, and I think that that may be missinq. MR. BREWER-So, what do you think? You agree with Tom? MRS. TARANA-Yes. There are certain days you can just visually see 41 -- "-'" that the traffic question about it. is much worse than other days. There's no I don't know what can be done about it, but. MR. BREWER-I guess what you have to take into consideration is the overall picture of two or three days out of a year, is that? MRS. TARANA-It's not two or three days out of a year. MR. BREWER-How many days is it? MRS. TARANA-A good part of the summer. Probably all of July and August, people literally cannot get out of Weeks Road, Sweet Road, and you see them going down. trying to get out of Montray. They can't get out of Montray, be~ause they can't see to take a left turn to go south. I think the traffic there is much worse than anybody knows, unless you're there all the time. MR. O'CONNOR-This design that we're looking at, as I understand it, may, from a layman's purpose. and what I've heard a couple of times, presented allows for some intervals, because of the signalization of the entrance that's going to be opposite this site, because it will allow some breaks in traffic, where, right now, you don't have a signal to give you the break, and it's just preventing flow, and that's why the people sit there. The traffic on Route 9 is going to have to pause from time to time. It's like you didn't used to be able to get out of Country Club Road, which is unsignalized, but now because Glenwood Avenue is signalized, when you come down Country Club Road, you sit there, you can get out. You've got to wait for that light to either change one way or another, but you get a pause between the one that's on Glenwood Avenue, and the one that's, Lafayette Street extension, between the two of those, because of the way it breaks up, and maybe I'm oversimplifying it. because I'm doing it as a layman, but that's going to help those side streets to some degree, and it's the reason that they moved this away from, or the County suggested strongly that we move away from Montray Road, because you had an incline coming up into that intersection, and you have a problem kind of like the Greenway North Extension, where you're coming up a banked intersection to get to a traffic light. They said go back there. You've got a better approach to it, and they encouraged the people to go back there. So, you may have this side effect to some access to Route 9 from those side streets, simply by putting the signal in there. MR. YARMOWICH-Some of these Board members would remember that in the Route 149 corridor between the Municipal Center and Route 149, eastbound, there was a great deal of study done on synchronization so that traffic would platoon, that's a pretty good term. In fact, that's what this analysis is based on, that concept where platoons of traffic are formed, they move out the highway, they clear the zone, and then people can leave the side streets. That's an effective tool, and it's done up and down Bay Road. What you experience and are accustomed to at this site is free movement of traffic up and down Route 9. There will be a traffic light installed with this project, and that's going to change things. The amount of delay would typically be minimal, up to, they're projecting 30 seconds maximum on a typical day, peak rush hours, which isn't a significant delay, but in easy terms, the concept of platooning, and it got through problems before, is what this whole approach to mitigation and traffic is about, whether or not that's an adequate, if that performed adequately, because I've been looking at the real, maximum, hours. It's something that we may want to ask of them. MR. BREWER-We can ask her that. MR. YARMOWICH-I mean, in many cases, it's not a big deal, but we're talking about a brand new signal, here, something that's never really. nobody's had any experience with. We're not just talking about adding a lane, and a left turn movement. We're talking about 42 -... - adding a whole new signal. MR. BREWER-Are we correct in saying that we can ask him for someone else to look at this, to see if it's the right concept to do? MR. O'CONNOR-I thought that Rist-Frost had done that? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, if this Board is comfortable in saying that, if typical traffic patterns around Queensbury would be insignificant, or not significant to you, the deviation between peak maximum traffic patterns and typical traffic patterns are not significant to you as Board members, you don't need the additional data. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-I guess that boils it down to the perspective that I have. MS. JOHNSTON-I think it's also important to note that we're not, in the traffic impact study, we didn't analyze an average hour of a day. We analyzed the peak hour when generally the traffic volumes on Route 9 are high, and the traffic generated by the site would be high, and the combination of the two is generally considered a higher impact than all other hours of the day, of typical operation. So, just to clarify so the Board doesn't think we've analyzed just an average hour, this is a peak hour. on a daily basis, of potential impacts generated by this site. At other hours during the day, the impacts would be less. None of us, we do recognize that there will be seasonal influences, but just so you know, we have analyzed the peak hours. MR. BREWER-I'm satisfied. MR. MACEWAN-Does that satisify you, Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I'm not sure, if I am or not, to tell you the truth. I think one of the problems that we're looking at with traffic in Queensbury now, like at the Aviation project we're looking at, at the intersection of Aviation and Route 9, Quaker and Route 9, we're looking at that for peak hours, basically. That's the kind of thing you're getting at, aren't you? MR. YARMOWICH-That happens to be an influence of maximum peak hours, where maximum peak hours have become a significant issue, at that location. MRS. TARANA-And couldn't this also impact that? It's only a short ways up the road. MR. YARMOWICH-Maybe the people who are familiar with traffic counts and have analyzed traffic situations there can shed some light on that. I don't work with the data, as this traffic consultant has. MR. O'CONNOR-There is a traffic study underway by, I think, the County. MS. JOHNSTON-Underway by our firm, Transportation Concepts, to evaluate that Aviation Road corridor, if that's what you're alluding to. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I don't know if that answers all the questions or not, but that not a simple process. It's an involved process. MRS. TARANA-Is this the one that's been going on for a year and a half? MS. JOHNSTON-Not a year and a half, several months. MRS. TARANA-Yes. 43 -- -...-' MR. O'CONNOR-What we're basically talking about is adding, roughly, 50,000 square feet of retail space. I don't know if that's going to have that significant an impact by trip generation. Right along that same corridor, I think we just recently, not too long ago, approved the plaza up over the hill, which I don't know total square footage. MR. MACEWAN-It was pretty significant, wasn't it, size wise? MR. MARTIN-I think it was in the neighborhood of 64,000 square feet. MR. LAPOINT-Sixty-eight thousand. MR. BREWER-Sixty-eight thousand? MR. LAPOINT-The Dexter. MR. BREWER-Mt. Royal? MR. MARTIN-Mt. Royal. MR. BREWER-Is that the one you're talking about, where the Mt. Royal was? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I don't think you, and I don't necessarily say that you don't do this, but I don't think that we have, with this size project, asked somebody to do a corridor study on the road. MR. MACEWAN-Ed, do you have any thoughts, comments? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Failure is when you've got empty roads and empty parking lots and nobody out. That's failure. If you've got peak traffic, that's a good thing, in my opinion. MR. BREWER-Okay. We can move on then. MR. WHITE-We're done with the transportation issue? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. WHITE-Number Four, extension of public sewer is proposed only to the Wal-Mart store. I've discussed this with Mr. Yarmowich, and we would propose to now extend the sewer along the frontage of the entire site, provide sewer service to the Queen Diner, the Ames, and the Wal-Mart store. He says that the proposed sewer extensions appear feasible from a design standpoint. The selected alignment relies upon easments needed. There will be off-site impacts from the sewer extension of this project. That's true. The alignment that we presented to Rist-Frost for their review did show an extension of the sewer outside the right-of-way, which would require easements from the property owners. Our desire would be to extend the sewer wi thin the right-of-way and not require the easements, and we're going to meet with Mr. Shaw, and hopefully, again, with the Town Engineer, and talk and come up with the best alignment, but I think the key, here, for the purposes of SEQRA, is that it is a feasible thing from a design standpoint, and that the details of it, if you go outside the right-of-way, and have to get the easements, or if we can stay within the right-of-way, it can certainly be worked out when we reach the design phase of the project, and I believe the last comment is sort of an agreement that the erosion and sediment is not going to be an issue. MR. BREWER-Right. through this? Okay. How does everybody feel about going MR. LAPOINT-I'm ready. MR. WHITE-Would you like to look at the landscaping plan again? 44 ',--", ..-' MRS. TARAHA-Just qUickly, yes. MR. WHITE-You can see here where we've shown on our concept plan, our concept of providing plantings in the end islands, the perimeter here. We have shown existing vegetation here and also some plantings up in front, and the more detailed plans that we presented to the Beautification Committee followed that same concept of plantings in the end islands. The spots you can see here and here throughout the site are plantings in the end islands, with deciduous trees that are smaller type trees, Sea Green Junipers, also low lying bushes in this end island. So we put a combination of a large deciduous trees and smaller plantings in the islands. Here's where we show the eight foot high stockade fence, and also added in here a mixture of pines and maples, deciduous and coniferous trees in here. We wanted to put the pines in there for the fOilage. The plantings that are landscape architect has chosen along the front here are a Flowering Crab type, some different colors. These island areas in here, we propose some Sea Green Junipers in this area, to add some more greenery to the site. MRS. TARANA-And with the amount of parking that you need, you'll be able to put some plantings in the middle somehow? Is that your plan to do that, to break up the middle parking area? MR. WHITE-Well, as far as, what we're going to, and work with you on the site plan review process, is to provide some type of islands in this area here so we can provide some additional landscaping in this area to break this parking lot up a little bit. MRS. TARAHA-And you have room to do that with the number of parking spots you need? MR. WHITE-I think what we can do is shift a couple of these bays over, and make them a little bit tighter. We don't want to make them too tight, because I want to make sure the cars can circulate around here, not that landscaping isn't a legal concern, but I don't want them banging their doors and hitting each other. MR. O'CONNOR-There are a couple of strips there that show 61 feet from toe to toe, and Jim Martin has suggested that we try very hard to pick up that one foot and utilize it together. There are, like, three stalls, and we'll work it into the grading plan and come up with a plan that works. MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets go through SEQRA. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. What we want to do is we go through this, and if you have objections to what we summarized, let us know, because this turns into a motion, at the end, I think. MR. RUEL-Do you have another copy of that? I don't have one. MR. BREWER-Don't we have to go down through each of these here? MR. LAPOINT-That's what I'm doing. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. MARTIN-I think only if you have a real concern, Tim, then you can start looking at those examples of thresholds. MR. LAPOINT-For example, we just said yes, so we can go down through, and things that would apply to yes are construction grades over 15 percent, which is no, depth to water table of less than, that's not it, a thousand vehicles or more, that's not it. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. WHITE-We checked it, because it says to check Column Two if it exceeds that amount. It doesn't exceed that amount, but it is a small to moderate impact. 45 '-' ---' MR. LAPOINT-You see, I usually read through these really fast, but there's all these little sub-bullets. MR. RUEL-Right. There's no column for No Impact. MR. LAPOINT-Well, no. You say no. MR. BREWER-We say no if there's no impact. MR. RUEL-Okay. There's no column. Okay. MR. LAPOINT-So, we're going to say, yes, but small to moderate impact on the physical change to the project site. Do we all agree? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Lets go back to Number One. If you're going to say, Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site, yes, then what of those sub-categories or thresholds? MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. I disagree with everybody else, and I would have just went through and said no. but I'm not going to argue with everybody else. MR. BREWER-If it's going to have a physical change. MR. MARTIN-Well, if you say yes, then you have to indicate where in those thresholds are they having this small to moderate impact. MR. O'CONNOR-At one time or another, we might have had more than 1,000 vehicles. Right now, we have 971 vehicles. Maybe we misled you. MR. BREWER-Just on your parcel? MR. O'CONNOR-On both parcels. MR. DUSEK-I might make just one other comment on that. If you don't find a category that's under one, you can add your own. MR. LAPOINT-You can add your own? Okay. We'll do that. MR. MACEWAN-Right at the end. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Lets go back to Number One again, okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Now, I'd say, no, it doesn't, because it doesn't meet any of those bullets. So, if somebody else wants to say yes, you've got to come up with another. MR. BREWER-I would say yes, small to moderate, because they're eliminating and reconstructing a much larger building. I mean, it's a small to moderate impact, but they are doing it. MR. MARTIN-That's a reasonable comment under Other Impacts, if you want to, if that's the consensus of the Board, that's a fair statement, then. MR. YARMOWICH-No would be a change in use. You're going from a car wash to a restaurant. That's no impact on the land. MR. LAPOINT-Right. This is from a department store to a department store, right? MR. YARMOWICH-That's from no parking to a lot of parking. MR. LAPOINT-There's a lot of parking there. 46 '-" -..-' MR. HARTIN-Tim's talking about the southernly most portion of the site. there, that's currently undisturbed. MR. BREWER-How big is that bUilding right now? MR. O'CONNOR-Twenty-nine thousand square feet. MR. BREWER-Twenty-nine thousand? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that's being removed. MR. BREWER-That's being removed, and you're adding how much? MR. O'CONNOR-One hundred and sixteen and some change. MR. BREWER-That's a substantial amount of a building that you're putting up. To me it is. MR. HARTIN-It's certainly within the Board's review, here, to make that comment. MR. O'CONNOR-So, you're just gOing to say, under Other Impacts, you're going to say constructing larger bUildings? MR. BREWER-Yes. That's all. MR. O'CONNOR-Small to moderate? MR. BREWER-Small to moderate impact. MR. MARTIN-So you want to indicate that phrase, then, under Other Impacts? MR. LAPOINT-Well, lets get Roger's question in. Go ahead, Roger. MR. RUEL-The word impact is definitely negative, right? HR. MARTIN-No, they're saying yes. MR. RUEL-The word impact, here, in the columns, is neqati ve, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-Right. Yes. HR. RUEL-All right. You could have a positive impact, but these impacts are neqative? MR. YARMOWICH-Right. Potential significant negative impact. MR. RUEL-It doesn't say that. MR. DUSEK-I don't know that I would agree with that. I think what they're trying to say there is that, is there going to be an impact, any kind of impact. Later on you'll determine whether it's a negative or positive impact. MR. RUEL-I don't think you would indicate that as a postive impact. There's no room for it here. Everything here is neqative. MR. O'CONNOR-Under SEQRA, you're suppose to indicate either negative or positive. HR. MARTIN-Yes. I think you would indicate it under Other Impacts. If you came across one of these items here, and this particular project, in your view, had a positive impact. then you could put it under Other Impacts. MR. RUEL-Under Other? HR. HARTIN-Yes. 47 '-. -- MR. DUSEK-When you go through this, you're just looking for impacts, any kind of impacts. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. MR. MARTIN-So, just to be in agreement here, so we know, because we're going to have the one, here, for Tim to sign. This is yes, in reply to Number One, and then under Other Impacts, we're going to use Tim's phrase there regarding the increased building size and all that, and list it as small to moderate. MR. LAPOINT-Agreed. Okay. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. MARTIN-Did you say you're going to need a SPDES Permit? MR. YARMOWICH-Not now. MR. WHITE-Under the new regulations, yes, there are SPDES Permits required for stormwater. They're not issuing the permits, but you need to know this. MR. YARMOWICH-As far as this Board is concerned, the answer is no. MR. WHITE-At this point, no. MR. YARMOWICH-The rules are there. but the program's vacant. MR. RUEL-You have stated there will be no increase in groundwater, right? MR. WHITE-No increase in the surface water runoff. MR. RUEL-That's what you said, right? MR. WHITE-Over what presently exists on the site. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-They have to design this so they don't increase surface water runoff over what's already there, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-The institution of any infiltration system will have a significant positive impact on what's already there, regardless of whether or not it increases a design rate, because all the little storms get caught and taken care of, where they don't now. So, it will be positive. There will be an impact. It will be positive. MR. O'CONNOR-Under Other Impacts would you add, off site drainage would be decreased? MR. YARMOWICH-Right. It will improve off site drainage. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, Improve off site runoff conditions, and that'll be small to moderate. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I agree with you. MR. LAPOINT-I would say there's no Impact on Air. MR. BREWER-I'll agree. MRS. TARANA-I agree. MR. MACEWAN-I agree. MR. RUEL-How many vehicles per hour have they indicated? MR. BREWER-They're hoping 10,000 an hour, Roger. They don't know 48 ~ for sure. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know. With the Clinton Administration there, it's going to hit over 1,000. MS. JOHNSTON-The Saturday peak hour, 658 trips. MR. RUEL-Six fifty eight? So it's definitely under 1,000? Okay. Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Impact On Aesthetic Resources. Will proposed action affect Aesthetic Resources? I say no. MR. BREWER-I would say, no. HR. RUEL-I say no. MR. HACEWAN-I agree. MR. LAPOINT-Impact on Transportation. Will there be an affect to the existing transportation systems? HR. RUEL-There is no existing transportation systems. HR. BREWER-Yes, there is. isn't it? The road is a transportation system, MS. JOHNSTON-Yes, it is. MR. BREWER-And they're altering it by putting a light in. MS. JOHNSTON-The transportation system consists of Route 9 and Weeks Road and Sweet Road and Montray Road. MR. RUEL-I thought they meant trains or buses. MR. O'CONNOR-If you say, yes, and you say, alteration of present patterns, small to moderate. MR. BREWER-Yes, that's what I would say. MR. LAPOINT-Small to moderate. I've got two votes there. MR. RUEL-Small impact? MR. LAPOINT-Small to moderate impact, on the alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. MR. BREWER-Now, wait a minute. I think we might be doing something wrong. Don't we have to? MRS. TARANA-Yes. that? Doesn't that go in Column Two, if you answer MR. RUEL-What Number are you on, Ed? MR. BREWER-Fourteen. HR. LAPOINT-Fourteen. MRS. TARANA-Examples that would apply to Column Two, alteration of present patterns of movement. We're saying yes. MR. YARMOWICH-It could be. It could also be small to moderate. HR. BREWER-Small to moderate. Right. MRS. TARANA-I don't know that I'm convinced that it's small to moderate. I think the alteration patterns have changed significantly. I think people could start moving from Bay Road to 49 '- -./ Glenwood to Country Club, to Sweet and allover trying to avoid the whole intersection at Quaker and Aviation. MR. BREWER-They do that now, don't they? MRS. TARANA-Yes, and there's no Wal-Mart there. MR. BREWER-So how would that change? How's that going to change, if they do that now? MRS. TARANA-Well, I think the impact would be greater. People would be cutting through there to go to that store. I'm not sure of what small to moderate and potentially large, what the difference is? MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn't affect the level of service on Route 9, and the Level Of Service on the side streets make impact. increased a little bit, be improved, not increased. MRS. TARANA-I think they could be increased a lot. MR. O'CONNOR-But I mean, it may be improved, also, because of this, as I said, the pauses and the platoonings of the traffic. MR. LAPOINT-I think it's small. I think you have to go with what the traffic engineer shows and what our consultant says. It doesn't look like we're going to change the Level of Service anywhere. So, it has to be small to moderate, and I would have said, no all together, but I'll go with small to moderate. MR. RUEL-Transportation Impact? Small. MR. MACEWAN-Small to moderate. MR. BREWER-Small to moderate it is. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. LaPoint, could I just get you go to go back to 15? If you go to the second category there. I don't know whether you'd say this is a major commercial use. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Let me read that, then. Okay. Back to Number 15. Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences to serve a major commercial or industrial use. I can't imagine you're going to be pulling in, the gas main's going to say the same. The gas main's there. MR. YARMOWICH-The service is already there. MR. MARTIN-You shouldn't confuse this with the pUblic sewer system. This is clearly energy transmission. MR. LAPOINT-No, it's not. Gas and electricity. MR. YARMOWICH-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Anything that's stored would be more efficient than what's there now. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. I just wanted to discuss it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I still say no. MR. BREWER-I agree. MR. RUEL-I agree. MR. LAPOINT-Back to Noise and Odor Impacts. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the project? Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would 50 - act as noise screens. MR. BREWER-I see the opposite. They're adding barriers. They're adding trees and the fence. I mean. they are removing some, but they're putting more in, correct? MRS. TARANA-What about the large trucks going down Weeks Road? Do they make a vibration? MR. BREWER-They do now. MRS. TARANA-Yes, but there are not five or six trucks going in there a day. MR. BREWER-There probably are, with the Sysco, and Ames. MRS. TARANA-I don't think there are. I doubt it. MR. BREWER-I think that there are. Our small business, that I work at, we have. MRS. TARANA-But you're talking ~ trucks, right? MR. WHITE-The trucks that would service the Wal-Mart store are large, yes. MRS. TARANA-Yes. The Sysco trucks are not, I mean, they might have one or two big trucks. MR. O'CONNOR-You're not talking about refrigerated trucks. The big trucks probably will make less noise than the smaller box trucks that Sysco uses. MRS. TARANA-I'm just wondering about the vibration on the road. There's none of that? Those houses are right along there. MR. RUEL-This question assumes that we know what the local ambient noise level is. MR. MARTIN-Do you have any idea what the existing deliveries are to the site? Is it a matter of smaller trucks of a greater quantity and number of deliveries, as opposed to a Wal-Mart, which has organized delivery days and times and schedules on larger trucks, requiring less trips? MR. WHITE-No. I don't have any real data on the existing site. I can just relate to my experiences on the maybe six or seven times I've actually been to the site and have stayed there for a half an hour and observed what's going on, and I've seen both the larger trucks and the smaller trucks come to the Ames. I've seen mostly the smaller trucks go to the Sysco, definitely smaller trucks go to the smaller shops that are there. So, Ames does get some of the larger deliveries. MR. MARTIN-The other question I would have is how much of the undeveloped area south of the existing parking lot, how many acres exists there, or what's the square footage, of that open area on the southern edge, today? What's that dimension? MRS. TARANA-You mean between Ray Supply and this property? MR. MARTIN-well, the pavement now. of area? between, like, the neighborhood and the edge of What's that area measure? What's the quantity MR. WHITE-I could scale it exactly for you, but I would say it's approximately 150, 200 feet. MR. MARTIN-One hundred and fifty by? 51 -- --- MR. YARMOWICH-Two hundred and thirty feet. MR. MARTIN-By how deep, how long? MR. YARMOWICH-Along this way? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Six hundred and fifty. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So you've got a little over two acres now, right, essentially? MR. WHITE-That is open space and isn't paved. MR. MARTIN-Right, and it's going, now, to an area that's 50 feet wide. So. I don't want to influence the Board, but I would just draw your attention to the proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. I'm not saying of a large magnitude, but I think you might want to consider that as a small to moderate. MR. RUEL-Where's the loading platform, on the west side? MR. WHITE-The dock area is this area right here. MR. BREWER-Are there trees, there, that's taken out, Jim? MR. RUEL-I thought there was the Ames building there? MR. BREWER-I understand what you're saying, and what I'm saying is if that's just a meadow, with just grass in there, there's no trees. MR. YARMOWICH-It's mostly wooded, scrubby kind of stuff. MR. BREWER-I don't recall a lot of it being wooded. MRS. TARANA-Scrubby little short skinny things. MR. MARTIN-There's a lot of poplar trees, as I recall, of maybe 20, 30 feet in height. MR. 0' CONNOR-The tree line is probably a portion, the southern boundary, it's going to be 50 feet from the southerly boundary. So, there will be a removal on some of it, probably of 150 feet of shrub pine, some of it to the west side of the site will be less than that. It might be 125 feet of scrub pine. On the topographical map that was part of the kit. it wasn't shown, the existing tree line. MR. MARTIN-I'll grant that the applicant's going to replace and replant, put the fence up, and that type of thing, but I just wanted to point out that dimensional reduction, there. MR. O'CONNOR-When we met with the neighbors, we talked about, at one time we had larger trees proposed on the south boundary, but because we were going to build the stockade fence, what they suggested, and what we ended up agreeing to was putting more trees on the lower level, that actually fill in the existing bigger trees, to make a more natural buffer in front of the fencing, as it presently exists. So there's a little bit of a trade off. MR. RUEL-It depends on the type of trees. It doesn't do any good in the winter. MR. WHITE-Yes. That's why we proposed a combination of pines and coniferous trees. MR. BREWER-All right. So, what do we want to do? Do we want to 52 '-"" answer that yes, in the small to moderate, near that, or do we not? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Small to moderate. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? I guess my vote is I don't see it as beinq any different from what's there now. I'd say, no. MR. BREWER-I'll agree with you. MRS. TARANA-I think I would say, yes, but very small, small to moderate. Well, I think there could be an additional demand on the police and fire and ambulance and that, realistically speaking. The building's larqer. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Small. Create demand for additional community services. MR. MACEWAN-I guess small to moderate. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, and under one area for sure, that it will create opportunities in the construction trades. That's for sure. MR. BREWER-I don't see that it's goinq to create additional police and fire, because there's an existing bUilding there that the police patrol now. MR. MACEWAN-Would the sewer district fall under a community service? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but, aqain, the overall headinq on this is Impact on Growth and Character of community or neighborhood. MR. MARTIN-You're doinq a SEQRA Review of the entire project, not seqmenting it. So you're looking at the variances and all that. The proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. What's considered here is a variance on permeability. MR. LAPOINT-I'd add that, under Other, we're goinq to say that we're. MR. BREWER-No. I would say it would set a precedent. MR. MARTIN-Well, that right there, the proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects, the third bullet up. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Good. I agree with that. We'd have one box checked small to moderate, and then under Other, we'd have creation of construction opportunities, or under employment. MR. BREWER-Proposed action will create employment. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Is there or is there likely to be pUblic controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-No. MRS. TARANA-I thought there was? MR. BREWER-We haven't said that there was any potential adverse environmental impacts, thouqh? 53 '-' ~ MR. LAPOINT-Well, it's in the eye of the beholder. MR. MARTIN-I think you'd want to consider their meetings they've had with the neighbors, in looking at this question. MR. MACEWAN-Have the neighbor's concerns really been environmental? MR. MARTIN-Well, you're looking at public controversy. MR. 0' CONNOR-I think we had a very successful meeting with the neighbors. We met with Mrs. Rowe and with Dan Olson, and with the son of the other immediate owner in the area where the building is going to adjoin the residential area, and we seemed to satisfy their concerns, their potential impact, and questions that they had as to the privacy. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think Mrs. Rowe's satisfied. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, she left us with the feeling that she understood that we were trying to be reasonable with her, that we had a right to utilize our property in a commercial nature, the same as she had a right to use it, in effect that because she's residential, her pri vacy would be left as much to her as it could be, and she understood there was a balancing. I think she would be much ,happier if this was a total park next to her, and not a commercial site, and that she wasn't bombarded, because she's gone through all the problems that she's gone through on the other side of the site, and now this is on this end of the site, but I honestly think, and I'm sorry she left. She left with the idea we were trying to be reasonable with her. MR. MARTIN-The other item I would point out is this was, although not a public hearing scheduled and notified, this was a part of your regularly noticed agenda, and as some members of this Board know, SEQRA Reviews, even, will turn out the public, right, Tim? MR. BREWER-They certainly will. MR. O'CONNOR-And we did tell Mr. Olson, and as I understood it Mr. Olson and Mrs. Rowe were gOing to act as spokesmen for that neighborhood, and advise them of the specific meetings. In fact, we told them of all the meetings. We told them of the meeting with the Beautification Committee. We told them of the meeting with the County Planning Board meeting, as well as with you, and I really have not had anybody in attendance. I think, Dan Olson's opinion was he was very happy with what he was going to see coming in here, compared, and maybe this is a poor comparison, to what they presently have. They have a little, site. He doesn't like the refrigerated vehicles that are left there unattended for a long period of time. I think we really have satisfied those few that we have spoken to. To the extent that you do, you always have a little bit of conflict. There's a balancing act between residential and commercial, when they abut each other. MR. MACEWAN-I was just asking a question. I'm satisifed with what he's saying. I was asking it from an environmental standpoint. I guess the way I was wording it was that everybody who's spoken against this thing from the neighborhood haven't really said it from any environmental issues. They just flat out didn't want it. That was mY interpretation, and I guess the question I'm asking, are there any public controversies due to an environmental standpoint, right? And I'm saying I don't think there are. MR. RUEL-You could take almost any complaint and make it environmental, very easily, especially after you review this. MR. BREWER-Right. What's your answer? MR. RUEL-No. 54 '----' --- MR. LAPOINT-I make three. MR. BREWER-I make four. No. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm going to move on, now. Okay. Now based upon what I just went through, I'm ready to make a motion for a negative declaration or no significant environmental effect. Before I do that, are we going to talk, or what? Does anybody else want to do it? Are we ready now? MRS. TARANA-What are you going to do? MR. LAPOINT-I'm going to make a motion for a negative declaration. MR. MARTIN-We have a prepared resolution from the Town Attorney, regarding your acceptance of Lead Agency Status, and also at the end, there's a statement that if you're going to find a negative declaration. I think Paul could probably take us through this, the prepared resolution accepting Lead Agency Status, and then. I don't think they've formally done that yet. MR. DUSEK-They haven't done this? MR. MARTIN-No. HR. DUSEK-Do they have a copy of this resolution? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay. Is it filled out, like it is for me, in terms of putting the names in? MR. HARLICKER-No. It's just blank. MR. DUSEK-Just blank? I think it's just a matter of reading through the resolution, Ed, as you were about to do so. You can use this instead of your other form that you normally use. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. You've got one that's filled out, because I've just got a blank one. MR. DUSEK-It should have, here, let me take a look at it. MR. LAPOINT-It was in tonight's package. HR. DUSEK-Yes. This is it. All you have to do, you're just going to put their name in there. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. DUSEK-When you get down to Resolved, you hereby recognize yourself as lead agent. That's easy. Resolved that you have determined that the information determined as follows. Now there's two parts of this. This one here says that there will not, an environmental impact statement will not be required. This one here says that you do need one. So you're only going to pick one of those. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. DUSEK-And you have to state your reasons, at the very end, which you'll add verbally, based on what you have here, and then that's it. HR. LAPOINT-Okay. Great. Let me start again. RBSOLU'lIOR ACKROWLBDGIRG LBAD AGBRCY S'lA'lUS IN CORRBCi'IOR WI'lH SBORA RBVIBW RO. 3-93 RA'lIORAL RBAL'lY & DBVBLOPHBR'l CORP. RBSOLU'lIOR RO.. 55 ",,--. -..-' INTRODUCBD BY. Bdward LaPoint WHO MOVBD ITS ADOPTIOR SBCORDBD BY. Crai<r MacEwan WHEREAS, in connection with the SEORA REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 3-93 NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. CROSS REFERENCE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1993, AND CROSS REFERENCE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1993 AND ALL FUTURE SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the désire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as followsr 1) An Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action, as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the following reasons. As outlined in our previous Part II review for this evening, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under 5617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES. Hr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT. Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. O'CONNOR-Is there anything specific, off hand, that you want us to try to address, in the site plan, that we haven't touched on? MRS. TARANA-The parking lot. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Something more definitive on the parking lot. MRS. TARANA-And if there's any way you can keep, I think people are going to be rushing to get out of that light. I think they're going to be coming from the Weeks Road project. I think they're all gOing to be trying to get over to that light, unless it works that there's a gap, like you say, and they can get out. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. 56 ',- -- MR. BREWER-Thank you. MRS. TARANA-Will we have an architectural site plan when you come to site plan? That would be good. RIM BUSIRISS. PI~I~IOR 3-93 RBCOKMIRDA~IOM ORLY S~AØLIY H. & BIVIRLY D. JUCKB~~ OMRIR. SAHI AS AeOn CURRBR~ ZORI. srR-1A PROPOSID ZOMI. RC-1A (MARRIM COUR~Y PLARRIMG) ~AX HAP RO. 109-1-6 LO~ SIZI. 36.000 SQ. rT. JOHN WYNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STArr IRPU-r Notes from Staff, Petition 3-93 Stanley H. & Beverly D. Juckett, Meeting Date. February 23, 1993 "A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The applicant is seeking to re-zone a 36,000 square foot lot from SFR- 1A to NC-1A. The property currently has a use variance that allows a real estate and insurance office. The tax parcel is number 109- 1-6. A site visit was made to the property on 2/11/93. Access to the site is from Ridge Road. The property appeared to be well maintained. There were no outstanding physical characteristics to the site; it is a level lot with mature trees behind the existing structure. B. EXISTING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS: The parcel is part of a small subdivision that was done along the east side of Ridge Road just north of Quaker Road. (see Map 1) The property is made up of three original lots that have been combined into one lot. The parcel has commercial uses on both the north and south sides. To the rear are large tracts of vacant land that is zoned for single family residential and land conservation; across the street, on the west side of Ridge Road, are single family homes. C. ZONE CHANGE ANALYSIS. 1. What need is met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? It appears that the applicant is seeking a zone change to allow a more reasonable use of the property that is compatible with the residential uses across the street. Because of the adjacent commercial uses, the traffic on Ridge Road, the proximity to Quaker Road and its inclusion in the sewer district, a more reasonable use of the property would be commercial or office. 2. What proposed zones, if any, can meet the stated need? Commercial Residential and Neighborhood Commercial are the zones that would allow commercial and offices uses that would be compatible with single family residential uses. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The property is bounded on the south by highway commercial to the east, west and north by single family residential. Any re-zoning would have to be compatible with the residential zones. Both the commercial residential and neighborhood commercial would be compatible. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The property is flat and should not present any developmental constraints. The existing structure is used as office space with parking available in front. There is room on the property for expansion of both the structure and parking area. 5. How will the proposed zoning affect public facilities? The proposed re-zoning should have little affect on public facilities. The property is located in the Quaker Ridge Sewer District and is serviced by town water. 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? The property has commercial uses on both the north and south and fronts a regional arterial road. Even though the property is across the street from a residential zone, the above factor and the property's proximity to the Quaker Road/Ridge Road intersection would seem to justify a re-zoning to allow a commercial or office use." And just an aside on that one. A recent drive-by the site, I would try to notice how many of the properties across the street actually have access, access their property from Ridge Road across the street from the proposed re- zoning, and I think there was just one property that had actual access off of Ridge Road, across the street. The rest of them had 57 ~ ,- access off the side roads to the rear back in there. "7. What are the environmental impacts of the change? The environmental impact of the change would be minimal. The site is currently serviced by sewer and water and could accommodate a more intense use without any significant environmental impacts. An increase in traffic to the site, that would result from a re-zoning to commercial, could require site modifications to ensure that there will not be any traffic problems relating to ingress and egress. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The re-zoning is compatible in that it allows commercial or office uses in an area that is served by sewer and water and located on a regional arterial road. 9. How are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal? Because of the traffic, sewer and water service, adjacent commercial uses, and the proximity to Quaker Road, a more reasonable use of the site would be a low intensity commercial/office use. This would make the best use of a parcel that is located within the sewer district. D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The proposal for a zone change for this particular piece of property from SFR-1A to NC-1A requires careful consideration. The change will allow for commercial and office uses adjacent to residential property. Therefore, any uses allowed in the zone should be compatible with residential uses. There does not appear to be any physical constraints on the site. The fact that it is serviced by sewer and water enhances its desirability as a commercial site. The applicant is requesting a re-zoning to HC- lA. The Zoning Code states that the purpose of the neighborhood commercial zone is to service outlying areas and enabling residents to purchase staples without traveling to a major commercial center. Staff believes that this zone does not really fit the situation of this particular parcel. This property appears to be in an area of transition that is adjacent to a residential zone and major arterial roads. Therefore, a more applicable re-zoning would be to Commercial Residential (CR-15). The purpose of the CR-15 zone is to service residential zones that are in transition from residential to commercial on narrow arterial roads. This zone allows for both single family residential uses and some commercial uses whereas the NC-1A zone does not. The smaller sizes allowed in the CR-15 zone would also make better use of the site's inclusion in the sewer district. The current situation affecting the Juckett property also affects several other adjacent and nearby properties on the east side of Ridge Road. (see map 2) Consideration should be given to including these parcels in the re-zoning. It is the sensible action to undertake. The logical extension of that action would be to include the four other adjacent and nearby properties on the east side of Ridge Road. The development pressures and constraints that are currently causing the applicant's to seek a re-zoning of their property will soon be affecting the neighboring parcels. A proper re-zoning of the applicant's property would be to CR-15 instead of the HC-1A that the applicant requested. The CR-15 zone is better suited to this particular situation than NC- lA. The property is not in an outlying area, it is in an area of transition; the property is serviced by water and sewer and can therefore handle more intense development than the NC-1A allows. The site's location on a regional arterial, as well as its proximity to Quaker Road, also supports a re-zoning of the property to CR-15." MR. HARLICKER-Warren County had comments on this, and I tend to agree with their comments, or Staff does, I guess, which would be me. They disapprove of the re-zoning, and their comment is that it would seem to be spot zoning, the re-zoning of this particular parcel and not any of the adjacent parcels. So, any vote on the Board's part, I believe, would require a majority plus one, on this. ·MRS. TARANA-They denied it, you mean? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They denied it, because they felt it was spot zoning. just that one particular. the re-zoning of just the Juckett 58 '--' '-../ property in particular. MRS. TARANA-Can we make a motion or a resolution or something to extend that? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Your decision tonight is a recommendation to the Town Board on this re-zoning, and if you wish to recommend that the adjacent properties be included in the re-zoning, I would suspect that's your prerogative to do that. MR. BREWER-Yes, but wouldn't that mean that the adjacent property owners would have to apply also? MR. HARLICKER-Not necessarily. No. The Town, on its own, can decide to undertake a re-zoning. They'll have to be notified that they'll be involved in the process. We can't just say, hey, we're re-zoning your property, but the Town on its own can undertake a re-zoning. MR. BREWER-Well, they applied for re-zoning. MR. HARLICKER-No. Just the Juckett's applied for the re-zoning. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would the applicant like to respond to any of these items? MR. WYNN-My name is John Wynn. I'm an attorney for the applicant. Well. the question of spot zoning is a particular objection. The question of spot zoning is one that you can agree with and appropriately say that it's all a good idea and would be appropriate, be that you don't necessarily want to get involved in spot zoning, it would be questionable from a legal point of view, but as far as changing several other lots in the area, I think yes, it is a zone that should be changed. As far as whether its commercial residential or neighborhood commercial, I think probably commercial residential is more appropriate. As far as your question, could otber lots be cbanged also, yes, I tbink. in that particular area, if you look on Page One of the application, you'll see the property immediately to tbe south of the Juckett property is commercial as well. MR. BREWER-Was it by variance thougb, right? MR. WYNN-Right, and of course the Juckett variance bas been in effect for almost 20 years, and in essence wbat you have is Quaker Road followed by Conklin Plumbing, and then a real estate and insurance office. So, it's really semi commercial there. MR. BREWER-I guess tbe only thing I would say to that is where does it stop? I mean, you can stop at the last single family lot there, and then you've got vacant residential, and they say, well, I want to be included, and tbe next guy says, well. I want to be included, you can go all the way to 149 with it. MR. WYNN-Well, that's what you've done witb Quaker Road. It's all commercial now. The same tbing' s bappening with Route 9 and Aviation Road. I mean, as an area becomes commercial and attracts shoppers from Granville and other areas. MR. BREWER-I agree with you, but beyond tbat point of the Beauty Parlor, or wbatever it is tbere, on botb sides of the road it's all residential, isn't it? MR. WYNN-Well, I tbink the Staff had a good point, that on the other side of tbe road, both tbose bouses going up are accessed from the side road. so that they don't bave driveways leading on to Ridge Road. I think tbey set it up that way just because of the high traffic on Ridge Road. MR. RUEL-You sbow commercial properties on both sides of the 59 ~ Juckett property. MR. WYNN-That's correct. MR. RUEL-And what is the zoning across the street? MR. BREWER-Single family residential. MR. WYNN-This is single family residential, but as the staff said, most of them don't front towards this property. Although they have land that borders on Ridge Road, it's accessed separately. MR. BREWER-Well, I don't know. I'm looking at the uses allowed in. MR. MACEWAN-What's the difference in uses allowed between NC-1A. and CR? MR. HARLICKER-Well, one of the big things is that the CR zone allows for single family houses, so the existing houses there would not become nonconforming, whereas neighborhood commercial doesn't allow, it allows for apartments above the buildings, but not for single families. Neighborhood Commercial, I think, is a zone that was set up to service areas typically in the northern end of the township, where general commercial facilities aren't usually available. They can set up a drugstore. a pharmacy, and a small grocery market to service the immediate area. I don't think that's the case, that fits the bill with this area of the Town. I think it's more an area of transition, at least that little section there is. To the north of these four lots or so is a rather large parcel. almost 11 and a third acres. I believe that's owned by, I have it noted here as Earle Town. So, I think it was part of the PUD proposal that's floating around some place. MR. RUEL-Are you saying that CR zoning is part of the Master Plan? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's purpose is to, you know, certain areas, residential zones. MR. RUEL-This is recommended in the Master Plan, for the northern part? MR. HARLICKER-NO, not the specific CR zone, I'm saying commercial uses in general are encouraged to locate in areas that have sewer and water along major arterial roads, in areas adjacent to a major intersection, that sort of thing. MR. RUEL-Is the Planning Staff recommending CR? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Over NC? MR. HARLICKER-Correct. MR. BREWER-So what does that do to his application, if we make a recommendation to the Town Board to re-zone this as CR-15? We would deny his application and he'd have to go through it again? MR. WYNN-No. It's granted as amended. MR. BREWER-Can we do that, Scott, grant the application as amended? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You could make, essentially, you could make pretty much whatever recommendation you'd like to make. ">"; HR. BREWER-But then comes the problem, does it have to go back to the Warren County for CR-15? MR. HARLICKER-Well, they denied it anyway. 60 '--' '-" MR. BREWER-Yes, but it's not the same application. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-This application is definitely NC, right? MR. HARLICKER-Right. That was the zone they applied for. MR. BREWER-Right. So we can deny this or approve this. MR. RUEL-Just NC? MR. BREWER-Right, NC. That's the way we've got to look at it. That's what the application is. MR. RUEL-If we go CR, he has to start over again. MR. LAPOINT-No. This is just a recommendation. MR. BREWER-Right. So we could just make a recommendation whether he should go to NC-1A, or. MR. WYNN-Mr. Chairman, I think what the application says is that this particular area is not necessarily compatible with single family residences. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. WYNN-It's based on the answer to Number Three, that it's a transi tion zone between Highway Com.ercial and Single Family. What's requested is, in Paragraph Two, what would meet the need. Well, it says Neighborhood Commercial would. That doesn't mean that this Board can't say, we think that Commercial Residential is more appropriate, and that's what we go along with. MRS. TARANA-Is the Beauty Shop Highway Commercial? MR. BREWER-That's just a variance to operate a business. MRS. TARANA-It's Single Family? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. WYNN-I don't think there's a family living in it. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but the zoning is Single Family Residential. MR. WYNN-The zoning is Single Family Residential. Mr. Juckett had residential towards the back. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess, then, what I'm looking for is if somebody wants to make a resolution, or a recommendation, not a resolution. You can make a recommendation not to re-zone it Neighborhood Commercial, but we would recollmend to re-zone, if that's what you want to do. MRS. TARANA-I agree with Scott. appropriate. I think the CR is more MR. MACEWAN-I agree. MR. LAPOINT-Go ahead and make a motion. recommendation. I mean, it's just a "0'11011 '10 RBCOIIHBIID A CHUGB III 'BB ZOIlB I'RO" SIIIGLB I'AHILY RBSIDBII'IIAL '10 CR-15 I'OR PB'II'IIOII I'OR 3-93 S'IAIILBY B. & BBVBRLY D. JUCKB'I'I, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following 61 -- ',--- vote: AYES. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT. Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe SIlfB PLAR RO. 3-93 IfYPB I DR. JOSBPH GUBRRA ZORB, WR-1A. C.B.A. OWRBR, J. GUBRRA. A. CAHPIBLLO LOCAlfIOII, SBBLYB RD. CLBVBRDALB If 0 CORSlfRUC,. A SBCOIID SlfORY ON All BJ:ISlfIIIG SIIIGLB SlfORY HONB. (WARRBII COUlllfY PLAIIIIIIIG) (APA) IfAJ: NAP 110. 16-1-32 LOIf SIZB, 28.000 SQ. FIf. SBClfIOII, 179-79F JOSEPH ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT SlfAFF INPUIf Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 3-93, Dr. Joseph Guerra, Meeting Date. January 26, 1993 "Pro1ect Description. The applicant is proposing to construct a second floor addition to a single family house. The addition is approximately 950 square feet for a total of approximately 3,250 square feet. The property is located on Seelye Road in Cleverdale. The lot is zoned WR-1A with frontage on Lake George. The project is located in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area, and therefore, is a Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA and requires a long environmental assessment form. Project Analvsis. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code. 1. The location, arrangement. size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The applicant has not provided elevation of the proposed addition at this time; therefore, compatibility can not be reviewed at this time. The applicant's agent indicated that elevation will be provided at the meeting for the Board's review. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The project should not impact vehicular traffic access. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sUfficiency of off-street parking and loading; The project should not impact parking. The existing parking is sufficient as its arrangement. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; The project should not impact pedestrian access. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The project is not creating any additional impervious area and should not impact stormwater drainage. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The site is currently served by a private water supply and on site septic system, these will remain unchanged. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The project will not require any landscaping nor should it remove any existing vegetation. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The project should not impact emergency access or require additional hydrants. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The project should not be impacted by areas that are susceptible to flooding, ponding, or erosion. Recommendation. The Planning Staff recommends approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-If you want to give us a little breakdown of the elevations there. MR. ROULIER-Yes. I'. Joe Roulier. I'm representing Dr. Guerra. Just to give you a little background on this, over the last, two. 62 ~ ~' three years, we've made two applications for a variance, one was for an expansion to the left side of the house as you look at it right now, to increase two bedrooms on the first floor, and that was denied, and then another proposal was made to expand two bedrooms in the rear of house, and that was subsequently tabled. Now, recommendations were made at both of those meetings to consider a second story on the house. After several discussions with Dr. Guerra and his wife, we finally came up with this plan, and that's the current proposal. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-I'm looking at it from here. It looks like it's compatible with the existing structure. So Staff doesn't have a problem with the way it looks. That's assuming that colors are going to match, and siding, or whatever. Are there gOing to be any modifications done to the eXisting structure? MR. ROULIER-What I'm hoping to, the current structure is a blue trim white vynal house. What I'm hoping will be done when the project is completed is that we'll probably go to a natural type of siding, that may be more compatible, but at this particular time, I cannot say with 100 percent assurity what the exterior will be. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Is this going to remain a seasonal residence? MR. ROULIER-The property is a year round home on Lake George. MR. HARLICKER-It is? MR. ROULIER-It's used on the weekends and for vacations, but the doctor has indicated to me that within the next two to three years, he may be retiring, and if he does, then he would be using it on a year round basis. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Now, what's incorporated into the addition, is it extra bedrooms upstairs there? MR. ROULIER-Well, I'll tell you what' 11 happen to the house itself. Where you see the middle floor, the window area to the left and in the back of that are two bedrooms. Those two bedrooms will be consolidated into one bedroom, the two very small bedrooms will be consolidated into one, so that the entire addition upstairs will consist of one bedroom, one additional bathroom, and a sitting room to the right. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. So as of now there's two bedrooms, and after the addition, there'll still only be two bedrooms? MR. ROULIER-There's, right now, there's four bedrooms in the house. MR. HARLICKER-Four bedrooms? Okay. MR. ROULIER-There's four very small bedrooms on the main floor of the house. Two of them will be consolidated into one bedroom. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. ROULIER-And the additional bedroom will be upstairs, so that we will still have four. MR. HARLICKER-So there's no increase. I was going to ask about the problem with the septic system, but since the bedrooms are the same. MR. ROULIER-Yes. No, we're not gOing to five, and we're not going to three. It will remain the same. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. He just answered my question regarding adeqaucy of sewage disposal. I would like some assurances, maybe, 63 '"--' -.../ RBSOLU~IOM MO. 3-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for. DR. JOSBPH GUBRRA. to construct a second story on an existing boae, 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 Adirondack Park Agency 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 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote. AYES. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES. NONE ABSENT. Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. BREWER-Okay. Would someone care to make a motion? MO~IOM ~O APPROVB SI~B PLAM MO. 3-93 DR. JOSBPH GUBRRA, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan. Seelye Road, Cleverdale, to construct a second story on an existing single story home, conditions regarding a septic system as proposed by Warren County Planning Board should be met. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote. AYES. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT. Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe SI~B PLAM MO. 7-93 ~YPB. UMLIS~BD DAMIBL & JOAM HARRIS ZOMBa HC-1A OWMBR. SAMB AS ABOVB LOCA~IO.. 128 LAXB GBORGB ROAD 65 --- that the existing system is adequate to service the four bedrooms that are there now. I mean, we were up there over the weekend, or over the week. MR. BREWER-Tbat's in Warren County, Scott, Warren County has that condition in their approval, tbat tbe septic system conforms to Town Code, or be brought up to Code, rigbt? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BREWER-So we can put that in our motion. MR. HARLICKER-There's also a long form EAF tbat was submitted with this, because of its location within tbe Critical Environmental Area. MR. BREWER-Okay, and we do have Warren County Planning Board approved with the condition that the septic system conforms to tbe Town Code, or tbat it be brought up to Code. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on tbe Board bave questions? MR. RUEL-How many square feet in tbe existing structure? MR. ROULIER-The existing structure, I believe tbat I indicated that on tbe application. It's 2850 square feet. MR. RUEL-And you're adding? MR. ROULIER-We'll be increasing the structure by approximately 950 square feet. MR. RUEL-Thirty-seven? MR. ROULIER-Approximately. MR. RUEL-The septic system will be taken care of? MR. BREWER-We'll make it a condition of the motion. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. ROULIER-I don't know if you bad an opportunity to visit the property? MR. RUEL-No. MR. ROULIER-If you look tbe main portion of the house, the middle area of the house right now, and then you look at the second story addition, what we're really doing is just taking the existing roof that is now on the main portion of the house and just literally raising that up. That's wbat we're doing. Scott has been to the property to confirm that. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HBARIRG OPBRBD RO COMMBR'f PUBLIC HBARIRG CLOSBD MR. BREWER-Okay. Ed, do you want to go through SEORA? RESOLU'fIOR VHBR DB'fBRMIRA'fIOR OP RO SIGRIPICARCB IS MADB 64 '- -- (SUBSBIf MOlfBL) PROPOSAL IS If 0 RBLOCA,.B BXISlfIBG MODBRB 4 UBllf MOOD fRAME MOlfBL BUILDIBG fROM ADJACBB,. PROPBRlfY. CROSS RBfBRBBCB. UV '7-1992 (MARRB. COUBlfY PLABBIBG) (BBAUlflfICAlfIOR COMMI,.lfBB) If AX MAP BO. 7.-1-8 LOIf SIZB. 2.79 ACRBS SBClfIO. 179-23(D)(3)(b)[22] BOB HARRIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRBSENT MRS. TARANA-And could I just say something to these people? This was the best application I think I've ever seen presented to us. You did a good job. HR. HARRIS-I was an engineer before I retired, so you're seeing some of the effects. MRS. TARANA-I saw somebody who knew what he was doing filling this out. STAFf IBPUIf Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-93, Daniel & Joan Harris, Meeting Date. February 23, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The applicant is proposing to relocate a modern four unit motel building from adjacent property. The project site is located on Route 9 approximately .6 miles north of Quaker Road, is zoned HC-1A and is 2.79 acres in size. On 2/17/93 the applicant received a variance to allow a third principal building on a lot where there is only enough acres to permit two principal buildings. PROJECT ABALYSIS. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E of the Zoning Code. 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs: The new motel units are wood and should be compatible with the existing bUildings. Lighting on the new building will be similar to what is on the eXisting buildings and no new signs are proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls: The proposed building will not impact vehicular traffic access. The existing traffic patterns will not be changed. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading: The applicant is proposing six new spaces and one handicapped space for a total of 32 spaces. The code requires 1 space for each room: there are a total of 20 rooms requiring 20 parking spaces. The proposal exceeds the required number of spaces by 12. Four of the new spaces will be located adjacent to the relocated building and 14 will be in front of the existing units. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: The proposal should not impact pedestrian accessbility. The new units will have sufficient parking adjacent to them so that customers will not have to walk far to their rooms. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities: The project should not impact stormwater drainage. The minor increase in impervious surface should not impact stormwater drainage. The additional 6 parking spaces should not significantly affect drainage. The parking area will be stone and should allow for some water to seep through. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities: The site is serviced by Town water which should be adequate to service the 4 new units. The sewage disposal for the new units will be through an on site system of seepage tanks. The system, which includes 3 tanks, is subject to permit review by the building department. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants: No additional landscaping is proposed. Some type of evergreen screening could be planted between the new units and the property line to the north. This would help screen the units from future commercial development that will occur on the adjacent property. 8. The adequacy of fire 66 '--' ....-" lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The fire hydrant is located on the south end of the site and emergency access should be adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. There does not appear to be areas that are susceptible to ponding, flooding or erosion. RECOMMENDATION I The Planning Staff recommends approval of this site plan and that evergreen screening be placed between the north property line and the new units." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have the ZBA Area Variance approved. MR. HARRIS-I'. Bob Harris. I'm Dan's father. The area that they're talking putting shrubbery has a lot of talk trees in there right now. It's very densely wooded, and I don't think shrubs would do too well. MR. HARLICKER-If you'd get some sort of, what I'm just suggesting is that it's going to commercial development going on to the north of that, and I don't know, are there windows off the back of the units, so that they're going to be overlooking this? MR. HARRIS-No. There's no rear windows. MR. HARLICKER-There isn't? Okay. MR. HARRIS-It would not benefit us any, and at the moment the other area's heavily wooded. I don't know what they're going to do eventually, but we left all the shurbs and trees purposely. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Right. People aren't going to be looking out the back of the units, because there aren't any windows there. right? MR. HARRIS-Right. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. HR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. RUEL-What does the word "relocate" mean? MR. HARRIS-It means a very expensive bringing a mover in and dragging it across the ground. HR. RUEL-And how far are you moving it? HR. HARRIS-A thousand feet. MR. MARTIN-It's there on the previous site plan. HR. HARRIS-The site right next door, where the old Mount Royale was. MR. MARTIN-You can see it from the road. MR. RUEL-It was next door? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. RUEL-Guido Passarelli's? HR. HARRIS-Yes. It turns out that we formerly owned the property and we built that particular building. So we know it's built well. MR. RUEL-So you just had to put a foundation in? HR. HARRIS-Right. MR. RUEL-I see, and you have adequate water in your existing place, 67 '- -- water pressure, for four more rooms? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. RUEL-And hot water? MR. HARRIS-There's going to be a heater in this particular building. MR. RUEL-It'll have it's own heater? MR. HARRIS-Yes. It's going to be a fire heater, yes. MR. RUEL-Because most motels I've been in always run out of hot water. MR. HARRIS-We've had problems with flames blowing out the side of the heater. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Anyone from the public. PUBLIC HBARIBG OPB.BD NO COHHBNIf PUBLIC HBARI.G CLOSBD MR. BREWER-Ed, we've got a Short Form for this, right? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. RBSOLUlfIO. BO. 7-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for. DA.IBL & JOAN HARRIS. the proposal is to relocate an existing modern four unit wood frame motel building from an adjacent property, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved. NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and 68 '--' --- file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Dul y adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote. AYES. Hr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES. NONE ABSENT. Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. BREWER-Okay. Would someone care to make a motion? MO'l'IOR '1'0 APPROVI SIT. PLAII RO. 7-93 DARIIL & JOAR HARRIS, Introduced by Craig HacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana. Location 120 Lake George Road, for proposal to relocate an existing modern 4 unit wood frame motel bUilding from adjacent property, in accordance with Use Variance No. 7-1992. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Hr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT. Hrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe SI'I'I PLAR RO. 9-93 'I'YPB II WR-1A DOUGLAS PB'I'ROSKI OWRBR. SAMI AS ABOVB C.I.A. LOCA'I'IOR. PI'I'ZGBRALD RD., GLIR LK. PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD A DOCK AS A BOAT SLIP 8' X 22'. (WAaRBR COUR'I'Y PLANRIRG) TAX MAP RO. 41-1-17 LOT SIZB. .434 ACRBS SBC'I'IOR 179-16 D(3)A[2] CHARLES BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAPF IRPU'I' Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-93, Douglas Petroski, Meeting Date. February 23, 1993 "Project Description. The applicant is proposing to construct a U-shaped dock. The property is located on Glen Lake off of Fitzgerald Road and has 117 feet of shoreline. The dock will consist of one slip located 20 feet froll the northeastern property line. There is approximately 440 square feet of dock surface area and it extends 20 feet into the lake. Pro1ect Analysis. The project was compared to the criteria listed in Section 179-60 (b) which pertains to docks and moorings. It was determined that the proposal complies with the criteria of Section 179-60 (b). Recommendation. The Planning Staff recommends approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-There are a couple of letters from the neighbors I think should be noted here. One from the Kims, which state they have no objections to Dr. Petroski's proposal, and one from, I believe it's the Kanes, Margaret Kane. "As neighbors of the applicant, we are familiar with the proposed projects. We have no objections to your granting approval of both these issues." I say that because the County reviewed this and they disapproved the site plan, and they stated that the Board believes that it is overbuilding of docks on a parcel that size. It is over use of the property. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you have a lIap or something you'd like to put up, Mr. Barber? MR. BARBER-I have Tax Haps. MR. BREWER-I've got two applications here, one for a porch and one 69 "--' - for a dock. We're just doing the dock tonight? MR. HARLICKER-Just the dock. MR. BREWER-Just the dock tonight? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there any existing? I mean, we could not get to the, we got to the house. We couldn't get down to the water to see what was there. Is there a dock there now? MR. BARBER-Yes. There's an existing dock right there now which will be torn out, and replaced with the U-shaped dock, which actually is probably smaller than the two new docks. It's an L- shaped pretty large wood dock that's there. MR. HARLICKER-I wasn't able to get down either. On the site plan there's a dock existing on the, that's north. I guess it would be the west property line, or the opposite side? MR. BARBER-Yes, to the west. MR. HARLICKER-That's going to remain? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. That's what I thought, and I think that might have been what the County's concern was relating to. MR. BREWER-This dock right here that you're talking about, Scott? That's going to remain? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BREWER-Well, if he's got 117 feet? MR. HARLICKER-He's allowed two docks. MR. BREWER-Is he allowed two docks. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BARBER-We meet the requirement. MR. MACEWAN-And you said Warren County denied it? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-For what reason? Was there a reason? MR. HARLICKER-The Board believes that it is overbuilding of docks on a parcel that size, and it is overuse of the property. MRS. TARANA-But he meets the requirements. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. He meets the requirements. MR. HARLICKER-That's what their comments were. MR. BARBER-We've done this to other properties within the last year and a half. the same situation with the docks. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, you're willing to make precautions as to when you're doing this, that you won't spill anything into the lake and all that? MR. BARBER-There's actually no machinery involved. It's all going to be done by hand. 70 .- -- MR. BREWER-You're going to build the dock and tben just put it into the water? MR. BARBER-Yes, witb the radon steel, as tbe prints show. There's concrete, but it's behind the mean water line. We've been through that here before. It does not effect any kind of engineering. MRS. TARANA-Do the people next door to this property, Gordon's I guess, do tbey have a dock? Is it near a dock that they have? MR. BARBER-There is a dock, but I'm not sure, I tbink it's like 30 feet away. MRS. TARANA-I'm just trying to figure out why Warren County would say that. MR. HARTIN-I think it's like Scott says. The one dock is eXisting there, and they just felt that another one is too much. MR. MACEWAN-Tbat's all you can have? You can't have any more? MR. BARBER-Well, we had approval, two years ago we got approval on a similar situation, just down tbe lake, in front of Warren County. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else bave any questions witb it? MR. MARTIN-It's a Type II Action. MR. HARLICKER-No SEORA. MR. BREWER-Wby wouldn't that bave a SEORA at Glen Lake? HR. LAPOINT-It's stupid. The law is so stupid. You do it for a, you put a second story on a building, and you need a SEORA, and you go put something in a lake, and you don't need a SEQRA. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's replacing, it's an accessory use. The only time uses are Type I in tbe Critical Environmental Areas is if they're an Unlisted Action. MR. BREWER-You're saying tbere are two docks there now? MR. BARBER-On Petroski's property. There's a boathouse and another dock, yes. MR. BREWER-Well, that's not a replacement, if you're taking a boathouse out and putting a dock in. MR. HARTIN-No, no. Tbe boatbouse is staying. MR. BREWER-Tbat's the one here. So what was bere? MR. BARBER-An L-shaped. Here's the boathouse. Here's tbe proposed right bere. Now tbere's an L-shaped. MR. BREWER-So, you're taking the L-shaped out and putting the U- shaped in? MR. BARBER-Yes, rigbt in tbe same place, yes, wbicb is about tbe same size or a little bit bigger. probably. MR. BREWER-You said smaller before. MR. BARBER-No. These are smaller, tbe new ones. Tbe big wood dock is a little bit bigger. MR. BREWER-Tbe L is bigger? MR. BARBER-Yes. 71 '-' ,,- MR. BREWER-All right. All right. We'll open the pUblic hearing. Anybody here? PUBLIC HEARIRG OPBRBD 110 COHNBII'f PUBLIC HBARIIIG CLOSBD MR. BREWER-Does anybody care to make a motion? MO'fION 'f0 APPROVB SI'fB PLAII 110. 9-93 DOUGLAS PB'fROSKI, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan. The proposal is to build a dock as a boat slip, 8 foot by 22 foot. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the fOllowing vote. AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES. NONE ABSENT. Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. BARBER-I don't think they realized there was an existing dock there. MR. BREWER-Well, to be honest with you, we couldn't get to it to see what was there. MR. BARBER-All right. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. SUBDIVISIOR 110. 6-1993 SKB'fCH PLAII 'fYPB, URLIS'fBD SR-1A MICHABL VASILIOU OWIIBR. SAMB AS ABOVB LOCA'fIOII, BAS'f SIDB O~ WBS'f H'f. RD.. ABOU'f 1/4 MILB SOU'fH O~ SHBIUlAR AVBRUB WI'fH APPROXIMA'fBLY a88' O~ ~ROR'fAGB 011 WBS'f M'f. RD. PROPOSAL IS ~OR A 10 LO'f SUBDIVISIOR. RBQUBS'fIRG CLUS'fBR DBVILOPMBR'f. (APA) 'fAX MAP 110. 121-1-60.1. 60.2 SIC'fIOII, SUBDIVISIOR RBGULA'fIOIIS MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LEON STEVES, PRESENT S'fAl'~ IRPU'f Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 6-1993 - Sketch Plan, Michael Vasiliou, Meeting Date: February 23, 1993 "Project DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to subdivide an 11.62 acre parcel in to 10 lots. The project contains a .614 acre wetland and involves the construction of a road. The property is located on the east side of West Mountain Road and is zoned SR-1A. The applicant is seeking to use the clustering provision to allow for the creation of undersized lots. The lots will range in size from .65 acres to 1.48 acres. The wetlands will be on a separate lot. The lots will be serviced by Town water and will have individual on site septic systems. Project Analysis. In order to allow for the maximum number of lots on the property and to allow for half of them to be undersized, the applicant is seeking to utilize the clustering provision. The objectives of clustering are to allow a development pattern which preserves outstanding natural features. provides an efficient use of landing, resulting in a saall network of streets and utilities and allows for a development pattern in harmony with the land use intensity, transportation and community facilities objectives of the Coaprehensive Plan. It does not appear that this proposal fulfills these objectives. It does not preserve any outstanding natural or geological features or prevent the disruption of natural drainage features. It does not result in a 72 -- -....,./ smaller street or utility network. It is the Staff's opinion that the main purpose of the clustering provision is to allow for the clustering of units in a smaller area than would be allowed by a conventional subdivision; thereby allowing for the preservation of open space for the community and the saving of infrastructure cost to the developer. It is the staff's view that the applicant is seeking to use the clustering provision to get the maximum number of units on this parcel not to meet any of the objectives as outlined in Section A183-33 of the Zoning Code. The applicant also submitted an alternate sketch plan with lots meeting the minimum lot area and width. This plan results with 2 very odd shaped parcels and one lot with frontage and access on West Mountain Road. Because of the shape of the lots, which result in large areas of narrow and useless acreage, and the lot with access from West Mountain Road, staff finds this alternative design undesirable. A better alternative would be for nine lots all with frontage and access on Stephanie Circle. It is possible that even though the property is zoned SR-1A, it is not shaped in a way that would support a ten lot subdivision and therefore, a nine lot subdivision would be preferable for this particular property." MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have someone here for the applicant? MR. 0' CONNOR-Yes. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Tarana, Gentlemen, I'm Michael O'Connor from the Law Firm of Little and O'Connor, and I'm here representing the applicant, Michael J. Vasiliou, and Mr. Vasiliou is with me, on my right, and with us also is Leon Steves, from VanDusen and Steves, who are the surveyors for this particular project. We do take issue with Staff's co.ments. What we have proposed under the clustering, we do think very efficiently does use the land, and it does result in a smaller network of utilities and streets, and we do think it's in harmony wi th the land use intensity. It's a one acre zone. I think even since the one acre zone was developed, there have been very few developments that have come through with one acre zoning, that have actually come in with one acre zoning in that particular area. I've got a small portion of the Tax Map area, and there's an area i.mediately to the east of the property that's a significant wet area that probably is never going to be developed. It's the back of Bill Potvin's property. Those lots that are in Clendon Ridge are not significantly different than what lots we've proposed. If you look across West Mountain Road, the only area that's actually developed into a subdivision area is much smaller lots than we propose. I'll pass that out so you get an idea. MR. STEVES-You're second sheet should show that. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm kind of glad that we're last on the agenda because we can maybe talk a little bit more frankly than what we would if we had a whole bunch of pUblic out there. Mr. Vasiliou paid $105,000 for his property. By the time he actually has it ready to start building houses on there, he probably is going to have another $80,000 development, that's going to cover survey. It's going to cover legal. It's going to cover the road construction, and have a number of lots ready to go, and if you just look at that particular part of it, and you talk about 10 lots, you're talking about a pass through cost of $18,500 per lot. If you talk about nine lots, you're talking about a pass through cost of $20,500 plus. So, it may be nice to say, for one reason or another, it would be good, preferred, nine lots as opposed to ten lots. You're talking about an additional $2,000 if you're going to pass through to those other nine lot owners, without adding anything in there for add ons for cost, some type of return based upon folding lots over some period of time. The objectives of clustering are set forth, I think, in Page 47, and I think we fall within that. It is going to be a little bit. It is going to be a little bit subjective whether or not we fall entirely, the one that we might not have a problem with is, we might have a problem with, is outstanding natural topographical geological features and scenic vistas. They just aren't on that site. I believe Leon could lead 73 ,-------- '- -..-' you through a little bit, this is not haphazard as to what we propose. There are two or three other scenarios that were looked upon before we came up with these to as what we'd like to suggest to you as what our proposal is. MR. BREWER-Just for the record. and I'll speak for myself, the economics of a project, I don't think, falls within the boundaries of the Planning Board's decision. Whether he can afford to do it or not afford to do it, or whether it's gOing to put another $1,000 or $2,000 in the lot, I don't think is our concern. MR. 0' CONNOR-I think it does, if you look specifically under clustering, because under Section C2, it says, an efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utili ties and streets. That's talking about an efficient use of the land, that refers to, I think, the economic impact. That's not relying solely upon that. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. 0' CONNOR-I rely more upon the density that it's zoned, the cluster information that's provided for. We're not asking for a variance. We're simply asking for a utilization of what's there. MR. BREWER-And I agree with what you're saying, but I just don't think that. MR. STEVES-If I could go through my scenario, I don't mean to interrupt you, but if I could go through my scenario, perhaps you could see what we're talking about on the costs, which relate to this. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STEVES-I hear what you're saying, too. MR. O'CONNOR-I'. not trying to argue hardship. MR. BREWER-No. I'm not saying a hardship, but I'm just saying that if he bought this property for $20.000, and he still wanted to do this, that wouldn't be entered into the picture, but because he paid more money for it, it should be entered into the picture, and I don't think it has any relevance to it. The price that he paid for that property shouldn't be our concern. MR. O'CONNOR-It could still be relative in the same relationship, whether you paid $20,000 or $105,000, you're still going to have the same relationship. by dividing by nine or dividing by ten. MR. BREWER-And I'm not trying to give you a hard time. MR. STEVES-This is Mike's map, so I'm going to mark it up. One of the scenarios that we considered in this development is a series of cul-de-sac, which would have, in this case, two cul-de-sacs, one on each side of the property, which would allow five half acre size lots, if you will, around it. One of the problems with that is that although this road that you see here appears to be longer, it actually, in essence, is shorter, because if you take the cul-de- sac itself, you have 500 feet of road leading to it, plus 400 feet of cul-de-sac, that's 900 feet. Each of these are 800 feet, plus 100 feet in length leading to it, much longer. So there's the economics of it there. We also considered another option would be putting in a knuckle along here and here, which would give us a similar effect to a cul-de-sac. reducing the cul-de-sac length and road frontage, but it would give us perhaps a series of lots around the knuckle, but the problem with it is you're building it on West Mountain Road, which we're trying to get away from. I wouldn't want to live on West Mountain Road myself. I don't know anybody that would. The traffic is like the thru-way. We'd get away from, with the knuckle we'd get away from the double lot width. We'd get into a similar development on the road. So that with the cul-de- 74 ---. '--'" sac arrangement is a better arrangement, but it still creates a greater expense than a single entry road would. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look. too, we could show the standard, the standard one doesn't make a lot of sense. MR. BREWER-And I'm not saying that I don't agree with what you're doing there, because when we went and looked at it, I thought it was an excellent plan. I'll just tell you that so, I don't want you to think that I'm. MR. STEVES-This is the scenario here that we went through to show 10 one acre sized lots, each of them having 1 50 foot of actual width, double lot width on the lot that borders West Mountain Road, all others would border the internal road. Each of them would be one acre in size, with odd configurations of three acre and one acre. As part of the traditions of clustering, this is the condi tion you could ask for. and we would supply it to you. Anticipating that you would ask for it. This is the plan that we prefer because it gives us internalization. It gets all the houses off of West Mountain Road. MR. MARTIN-Is that on Town water there, Leon? MR. STEVES-Yes. It is. I believe we show a hydrant right off the front, right there. MR. MARTIN-Yes, okay. MRS. TARANA-Where's the tenth lot? Have I got the right one? Is this the good plan? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MRS. TARANA-That's got nine lots on it, right? MR. STEVES-No. That's the one. That's not the good one, but that's the one that shows the conventional subdivision. MRS. TARANA-But that's Stephanie Circle behind it, right? MR. STEVES-Yes. The old one has Stephanie Circle. MRS. TARANA-Yes. but this is the one that we should be looking at. MR. STEVES-The one that has Stephanie Circle here, has all 10 lots, the other plan that's the conventional subdivision has the lots. MRS. TARANA-The one lot on West Mountain Road. MR. STEVES-Right, with nine lots within Stephanie Lane. MR. RUEL-I have a question about the circle. That radius, is it 75 feet? MR. STEVES-Yes. sir. MR. RUEL-Does that meet the latest requirements? I thought there were some changes in that size of radius? MR. STEVES-Are there any published changes? I haven't seen any. MR. RUEL-No? MR. MARTIN-No, not that I'm aware of. MR. STEVES-In fact I think this exceeds the minimum standard, I think it's 70 feet, and this is 75. MR. RUEL-Yes. I have one near where I live, and they have a hell 75 -- '-../ of a time with the snow plow, they can't make the circle. MR. STEVES-I don't know where you live, but these they can make the circle. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. I want to ask you about the central part of that circle, who's responsible for it, the maintenance of that property? MR. STEVES-The Town of Oueensbury. MR. RUEL-The Town? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. RUEL-And another question, couldn't you buy the land from Springer and Maille? What's he going to do with 40 feet? It's right there on West Mountain Road. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know what's there. What's there Mike? MR. STEVES-Nothing. That's just. MICHAEL VASILIOU MR. VASILIOU-Nothing's on that property. MR. LAPOINT-How many square feet, range of houses? MR. VASILIOU-We're looking at about 1800 and up, in that range. We're looking at house prices at about $160 to $200.000, somewhere in that neighborhood. MR. LAPOINT-This is the same sized cul-de-sac that you live on, right at the end of, I've looked at your house. MR. VASILIOU-Phase III of The Pines. MR. LAPOINT-Right. bigger. Yes. That's a 75 foot cul-de-sac? That's MR. VASILIOU-No. I think that's a smaller one. MR. LAPOINT-That's smaller? MR. VASILIOU-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's fine. MR. RUEL-Does anyone here know what blazed and painted trees are? MR. STEVES-I'll explain it to you. MR. RUEL-What are blazed and painted trees? You've got it on your map here. MR. STEVES-Yes. When you go into the woods, particularly in the woods, you mark a line, you don't have any fences or anything like that, you blaze a tree, you scar it, and you scar a tree, if it were a line tree, you'd scar it on two sides. If it was a tree that was just off the line, you would scar it on three sides, and then paint it. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. STEVES-In surveying, that's what we do. We do it for DEC all the time. You've seen their lines in the woods, all painted up, only they do it 40 or 50 apart. MR. RUEL-What's that block building to be removed? What is that 76 ~ ..-' anyway? MR. STEVES-That's a single family house right there. MR. RUEL-What is it? MR. STEVES-A single family house. MR. VASILIOU-It's quite old. quite dilapidated. MR. RUEL-Is it vacant? MR. VASILIOU-It's vacant. MRS. TARANA-What is this little piece of property right here, lands of Maynard Springer? Do they own a little strip right in here? Is there a house there? MR. BREWER-No. HRS. TARANA-Nothing there? MR. BREWER-How big is that, 40 by what? MR. VASILIOU-By 60. MR. STEVES-Sixty, yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We're just at Sketch Plan. What we ought to be doing is hustling up our comments to let them know if we can proceed to Preliminary, and if they can, what they should change about this. MR. HARTIN-And if you're in agreement with this concept. MR. LAPOINT-That's right. MR. MACEWAN-I don't have any problems with the concept at all. MR. BREWER-There's no way you could adjust any of the lines to make. like that 28,000 square foot lot a little bigger? Like if you cOile over into here, over in this corner is 64,000, well over an acre, 45,000, you don't have a problem. Here you've got 55, over here. MR. STEVES-We could do that by dog legging the lot, but if you go back to the similar configuration of that lot right there. MR. BREWER-You would never end up with 10 inside here? MR. STEVES-No. Well, no. I don't see how you could. MR. HARLICKER-Maybe this site was not meant to hold 10 lots. They've got the wetlands on there. They've got that other little intrusion there off of West Mountain Road. MR. LAPOINT-Didn't you grow up in Boston or sOlie place, where there's 50, 60,000 people per acre. MR. HARLICKER-Actually suburban Minnesota, quarter acre lots. MR. BREWER-Well, no, I'm just looking at it. seeing if it's possible that you could do it. MR. HARLICKER-They presented this scheme where they did do it. It's just that they've got some rather odd shaped lots, and the one wi th frontage on West Mountain Road, which I think should be avoided if at all possible. MR. VASILIOU-And we feel that the odd shaped lot should be avoided, 77 ~ '-/ if at all possible, too. MR. O'CONNOR-That would kind of isolate that lot from the neighborhood. The idea is to try to make it all part of one neighborhood. We do have two curb cuts right now, because we do have two tax maps, two parcels. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Planning Staff. Is there a minimum road frontage? MR. MARTIN-Forty feet. MR. HARLICKER-Forty feet. MR. BREWER-Forty feet. MR. RUEL-Forty? To put a driveway in there. MR. HARTIN-Driveways may be 12, 15 feet wide. Yes. MR. RUEL-Where is Clendon Brook, in relation to this property? MR. STEVES-The actual Brook itself? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STEVES-Is to the east of this property. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's off where the wetlands is. HR. RUEL-I see. The wetlands are part of it? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. RUEL-I see, and this wetlands is. what. just dedicated land? MR. HARTIN-This is in the APA, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This is in the APA. MR. BREWER-I thought the Hountain was the line for that? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MARTIN-No. That's why Mr. Rowe, who you talked to earlier tonight, he's in the APA. MR. BREWER-That's right across the street from this, pretty much. MR. HARTIN-Yes. Now was that flagging of the wetlands done by you, Leon, or was that done by the APA? MR. STEVES-No, by the APA. MR. MARTIN-Good. MR. BREWER-Okay. How does everybody feel about it? Do you want to let him go on through? MR. RUEL-I have no objections to anything that I've seen so far. MR. MACEWAN-Me neither. MR. LAPOINT-I'm ready. MR. BREWER-I guess we're ready. I'll just note my objection, not against the plan, but I would like to see that he could get 10 lots out of there. I won't try to hold you up or anything, but I would like to see 10 lots, if it's at all possible, an acre each. 78 ~ MR. 0' CONNOR-Do we need a specific resolution authorizing the clustered? MR. MARTIH-No, a recommendation, at this point. moving it on to Preliminary, including the cluster provision, I think would be sufficient. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. HO~ION ~O RBCOHHBND WI~H RBSPBC~ ~O SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1993 SKB~CH PLAN HXCKABL VASILIOU ~HA~ HB PROCBBD ~O ~HB PRBLIHINARY S~AGB or ~HB PROCBSS. CONSIDBRING S~Arr'S COHHB.~S A.D COHHB.~S HADB HBRB ~ONIGH~ BY ~HB BOARD, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana. Requesting a cluster development. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993, by the fOllowing vote. AYES. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES. NONE ABSENT. Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. O'CONNOR-When we do come in for Final, you do have to make a notation, by resolution I think, make a notation on the Zoning Map, that this particular parcel has been approved on the subdivision map. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's what would allow the substandard lots. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. You'll make that real easy for us. You'll have it all set right up so that we can make such a siaple. MR. O'CONNOR-Tim raised the point, I'm not sure where you stood, with Wal-Mart. Last month we came in and asked for Sketch Plan approval of their subdivision proposal. Jim has the recollection that maybe it was tabled at that time for SEQRA to be taken. MR. HARTIN-I'm fairly sure that you just tabled it. MR. O'CONNOR-And I have the recollection that we didn't, and took your comments, because I had a general discussion with him that on Sketch Plan you really don't make approval. you just make your comments known MR. BREWER-Yes, but we still have to make an approval to let it go to Preliminary. HR. MARTIN-Just like you just did, a recommendation to approve. MR. O'CONNOR-I would like to ask, then, so that I have an understanding that you indicate that you have given Sketch Plan approval, so that our next submittal, on the subdivision portion of Wal-Mart, can be for Preliminary subdivision, along with the site plan. MR. LAPOINT-You've got to check the record to make sure that's what we did. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I wouldn't want to say anything like that until we check the minutes. MR. BREWER-If we have a meeting the second, if it's not done, can we do it then? MR. HARTIN-Yes. It's not a public hearing or anything like that. 79 '"'" "--' MR. LAPOINT-I'm pretty sure, because I made the motion. I think we did. MR. BREWER-If we didn't, we can tie it up at the second, and if we did, then we can give them an extension to file. HR. HARTIN-No. You can do it the second if you didn't, because there's no public hearing or anything. MR. BREWER-I guess I'm trying to understand what you're saying, is if we didn't, then you'll have to come back at Sketch, and then we have to do it again. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm saying that, for safety sake, I'd rather presume you didn't and ask you to make a motion right now. MR. BREWER-If we didn't, we can do it the second. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. VASILIOU-Thank you, folks. MR. MARTIN-There was a letter written to the Chairman of the Planning Board. They weren't aware that I'd been removed, from William Backus, regarding the Raynor's Clearview Estates subdivision. Remember that on Clearview Lane, off of Haviland Road, next to Hiland Park? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Remember there was the issue of those two small 10 foot strips of land? MR. BREWER-Yes. I can remember. There was one here and one there. MR. MARTIN-Right. I just bring this to you because it was written to the Chairman. It was, I think, included in your packets. There's a concern over the fact that Raynor, in the deed that they're proposing for conveyance of the property was part of the Planning Board resolution. They're restricting the deed by saying no access off of C1earview Lane directly through their property. MR. BREWER-I thought that they were going to deed that to somebody, or something? MR. MARTIN-Yes, they were, the Frieghbergers. HR. BREWER-Both pieces. Remember the long strip on the right, and then there was one at the end? MR. MARTIN-Across the top, that was gOing to some guy that lived in England, literally? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. HARTIN-Well, they're restricting the 10 foot piece along Clearview Lane, next to Frieberger, by no access through. MR. BREWER-And that's what we were afraid of at the time, I remember, if they gave it to him or sold it to him, that they wouldn't let him go over it. MR. HARTIN-So this is a matter of, I see it as a matter of private, between the two property owners, and I referred this on to Paul, to get his opinion on it as well, but I just wanted to bring it up to you. HR. LAPOINT-I agree with you that they've got to work it out. We did the best we could, when we subdivided that, to make sure it was the best thing possible, and it was the best thing possible, and if 80 ---- ~ the people want to screw themselves afterwards. MR. BREWER-Then they can't do anything with that subdivision, if they don't straighten that mess out, can they? Because I think, if I remember. that they didn't want to deed that to them, and they own that property or something, then they wouldn't have any access to the property. HR. MARTIN-He went on the record. I recall, Hr. Raynor did, that he made those two 10 foot strips because he wanted to get money back for his cost of putting Clearview Lane in, a road. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-So he thought he would sell those two 10 foot strips to recoop some of his cost of the road. because he didn't want other people taking advantage of the road that he'd built. MR. BREWER-Right. HR. MARTIN-My question to Paul, I mean, what involvement does the Town have in this? I see this as a matter between two private individuals. MR. LAPOINT-That's right. HR. BREWER-Right. Our motion stands, and that's. HR. MARTIN-It could effect the subdivision. I believe it was a condition of approval, that the conveyance occur. MR. HARLICKER-So if they don't buy it, you've got two undersized lots. MR. HARTIN-Well, they were in existence. We didn't create the 10 foot strips in the new subdivision. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-They were there. We were trying to clean it up. MR. BREWER-Right. There was even some talk of giving it to the Town, and they didn't want to do that. The Town didn't want it. MR. MARTIN-So that's what that's all about, in case you saw it and you were wondering. I referred it on to Paul, and I'm going to wait and see what his reply is, but I think it's an issue between two private property owners. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman 81