1993-06-22
---
--
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 22ND. 1993
INDEX
Site Plan No. 24-93
Site Plan No. 28-93
Site Plan No. 29-93
Site Plan No. 30-93
Site Plan No. 32-93
Site Plan No. 31-93
David & Suzanne Barnes
Cumberland Farms, Inc.
Corner. Quaker & Ridge Rds.
Cumberland Farms. Inc.
US Route 9 & Kendrick Rd.
AMG Industries
Guido Passarelli
National Realty & Development
Corp.
Site Plan No. 33-93
Zaremba Group. Inc.
Freshwater Wetlands
Permit FW1-93
Garth Allen
Subdivision No. 12-1993
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Garth Allen
1.
7.
11.
13.
26.
38.
70.
75.
---....
77.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAL ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS
MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
~
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 22ND. 1993
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN
CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY
GEORGE STARK
EDWARD LAPOINT
MEMBERS ABSENT
CAROL PULVER
ROGER RUEL
CRAIG MACEWAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN
PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER
TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST. TOM YARMOWICH
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 24-93 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 DAVID & SUZANNE BARNES
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: INDIANA AVE. & LUZERNE RD.
EXPANSION OF +1.200 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING AUTO BODY REPAIR SHOP TO
HOUSE SPRAY BOOTH. CROSS REFERENCE: UV138-1993 CROSS REFERENCE:
AV 147-1993 TAX MAP NO. 127-4-1.2.3.17 LOT SIZE: 48.000 SQ. FT.
SECTION 179-18 D
DAVID & SUZANNE BARNES PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 24-93. David & Suzanne Barnes.
Meeting Date: June 22. 1993 "Pr01ect DescriPtion: The applicant
is proposing to construct a 1.320 square foot addition to an
eXisting auto repair facility. The addition will be used as a
spray booth. The use is a preexisting nonconforming use and
received a variance to allow for the expansion. Pr01ect Analysis:
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
bUilding. lighting and signs; The addition should be compatible
with existing structure. However. the site is in need of
improvement. Landscaping should be provided around the perimeter.
The damaged vehicles should be stored in a screened area. as should
the scrap metal. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular
traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road
widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; The
addition will not impact traffic flow. 3. The location.
arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and
loading; The addition will impact vehicle parking. 4. The
adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic safety and
circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with
vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; The addition
will not impact pedestrian access. 5. The adequacy of stormwater
drainage facilities; The applicant needs to indicate the drainage
and stormwater management system. 6. The adequacy of water supply
and sewage disposal facilities; The addition should not impact the
water supply and sewage disposal system. 7. The adequacy. type
and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other sui table 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
- 1 -
~
replacement of dead plants; Landscaping should be planted around
the perimeter. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency
zones and the provision of fire hydrants; This is not an issue.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping
in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding. and/or erosion.
This is not an issue. Recommendation: Providing improvements are
made to the landscaping around the perimeter. staff can recommend
approval of this application."
MR. HARLICKER-There's a copy of a variance that they received on
June 16th.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Barnes. I guess the only question I have is.
the first question I have is about the single family home in the
back. Is anybody going to continue to live in that?
MR. BARNES-Yes.
eight years.
They've been living in there for about seven,
MR. BREWER-Does there have to be any setbacks for that house to the
building. of the commercial building. or not?
MR. BARNES-Yes. There's 18 feet.
MR. HARLICKER-I don't believe so.
MR. MARTIN-I don't think so. It's on the same lot.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-So that doesn't make any difference? Okay. Are you
willing to put some plantings in around the perimeter of the
property?
MR. BARNES-Well. if you look at the building. we've already got
shrubbery around the building. I'll tell you. too. if you live in
that area. you don't put anything around. that area. Not to be
smart or anything. but if you did. they're going to rip it out. the
kids are.
MR. STARK-I think he meant inside the fence.
MR. BREWER-Inside the fence.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Inside the fence.
MR. BARNES-Well. I'm not going to tell you I'm going to. because I
probably won't. okay. The simple reason is in the winter time. if
you try to plow. you can't. You can't plow the yard with the
shrubbery around the fence. Do you know what I mean?
MR. HARLICKER-Well. you could leave an area open for storage of
snow.
MR. BARNES-Yes. but the winters we have. you've got to use almost
every inch you've got. you know?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Well. I guess the Staff is recommending that you put
something there. Dave.
MR. HARLICKER-And what about screening. of putting the cars that
are in disrepair. I won't say junk cars. but the cars that have
been damaged and the scrap metal. screening that stuff somehow.
putting them behind a stockade fence or doing something to screen
those.
MR. BARNES-Well. probably after we get the building done we can put
them in back of that building. there'll be a fence there. When the
- 2 -
---
new building's UP. because you're going to have like 20 feet out
there. We could put it in there. but most of them are in and out.
We don't keep them that long. The wrecks are usually in and out.
They're not there that long.
MR. BREWER-And we also got a letter from Kip Grant. about the
"Paint booth construction must comply with the requirements of
National Fire Protection Association Standard 33 "Spray Application
Using Flammable and Combustible Materials".
MR. BARNES-That'll be done when it's put in. because the Company
that'll be putting that in inspects all that.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So we can make that a stipulation. and you're not
willing to put any shrubs in?
MR. BARNES-Well. we can put some in. but.
MR. BREWER-Just to dress it up. Just because it's a run down area
doesn't mean it should stay that way forever.
MR. BARNES-No. but the thing is. like I told you. if we were to put
them outside the fence. probably by tomorrow morning they'd be on
somebody else's property.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have a question?
MR. LAPOINT-This is a chain link fence you have around?
MR. BARNES-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Is there any way you can put the green slated?
MR. BARNES-I would. but I've got a beautiful building there. and
I'd like people to see that building. It's all brick. if you've
been down by there to see it. We spent a lot of money on that
brick building. If the customers can't see the building. they're
going to think it's another building. They're not going to think
it's a body shop. That's why we're really putting the brick there.
In fact. if you look at mine. I've probably got the nicest one in
the whole area. really.
MR. LAPOINT-I guess. the landscaping. I tend to agree that.
MR. BREWER-You've got almost a 1.000 feet of perimeter.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. That there's certainly. in keeping with the rest
of the neighborhood.
MR. BARNES-I've got shrubbery around the building. if you look at
it.
MR. BREWER-Just
MR. BARNES-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Did
put some small Maple trees in around. or something.
we could put something in there later.
the Beautification Committee look at it?
MR. BREWER-I don't know. Did the Beautification Committee look at
this?
MR. LAPOINT-I guess if we hear the public hearing. and hear what
they have to say with respect to the landscaping. I think that
would do a lot to sway me one way or the other.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. HARLICKER-No. they didn't.
MR. BREWER-Why not?
- 3 -
~
MR. HARLICKER-Well. we send them a list of projects. and they
decide if they want to review them or not. I don't know why they
choose to review certain projects and not other ones.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Nobody else has got anything?
MRS. TARANA-I just wanted to check with Staff to make sure that the
Hazardous Materials Report Form was signed. Our copy's not signed.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Yes.
this is in your packet.
Kip Grant also has a. I don't know if
It should be in your packet.
MR. BREWER-Yes. I just read it.
MR. HARLICKER-You read it already? Okay.
MR. BREWER-Okay. There is a pUblic hearing. I'll open that public
hearing. Is there anybody here to speak on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-We've got to do a Short Form?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 24-93. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for
its adoption. seconded by George Stark:
MR. LAPOINT-"Could Action Result in Any Adverse Effects Associated
With the Following: Existing air quality. surface or groundwater
quality or quantity. noise levels. existing traffic patterns. solid
waste production or disposal. potential for erosion. drainage or
flooding problems?"
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. LAPOINT-I've got a quick question for the applicant.
a vendor come in and take care of all of your waste
paints. that type of thing?
You have
solvents.
MR. BARNES-Yes. We have a company comes in.
MR. LAPOINT-That's existing now.
MR. BARNES-Safety Clean comes in.
MR. LAPOINT-That's existing now. and it'll just be expanded into
your paint booth. right?
MR. BARNES-Yes, well, it's the same product that will be used.
MR. LAPOINT-So nothing's changing there.
MR. BARNES-No.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an
application for: DAVID & SUZANNE BARNES. for the expansion of
1200+ square feet to the existing auto body repair shop to house
spray paint booth.. and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
- 4 -
State Environmental Quality Review Act.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency is 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 22nd day of June. 1993. by the fOllowing vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Hr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan
MR. BREWER-I'd like to just. before we start a motion. when would
construction begin?
MR. BARNES-It's probably going to be. probably a month or so.
HR. BREWER-And last. what. a month. two months?
MR. BARNES-Yes, probably a couple of months.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion?
HR. LAPOINT-Okay. I just want to make sure. before I do. that
we're all in agreement on the stipulations. I'm going to. Number
One will be compliance with NFPA Standard 33. and make sure we're
squared away on our landscaping.
MRS. TARANA-Well. how do we feel about that? I mean. the Staff
mentions it several times in their notes. I think there could be
something.
MR. BREWER-I don't want an overabundance of it, but he should have
something.
MR. LAPOINT-I guess I'd go with. to the extent possible. he should
keep the scrap steel and junk cars out of sight. to the extent
possible. I drive by there frequently. and it's like any other
auto repair. It just changes every day. and there's certainly
wrecks out there. I mean. it's the nature of the business. and I
think what we have to keep in mind is that this spray paint booth
has a marginal impact on what's already there. That if he now has
the ability to do five more cars a month. I don't know.
- 5 -
'-
HR. BARNES-Well. see. really. we're not going to really do any
more. for the simple reason that. we don't even want to put this
in. but we're going to have to put it in. We've got one spray
booth now. but you know what it is. they could come in tomorrow
morning and say. you're out of business.
MR. LAPOINT-Right.
business per se.
So actually it's not an expansion of the
HR. BARNES-Not really.
room in the long run.
We're not going to really have any more
HR. LAPOINT-Right. So I guess if he weren't even. if he were not
here at all tonight. without expanding his spray paint. you know.
nothing would change.
MR. BREWER-It's just a necessity to update your shop. pretty much
like the one down on Bay that just got approved. He has to put a
certain standard of a paint booth in.
MR. LAPOINT-I guess I'm comfortable with him just doing the best
job he can to keep a professional business appearance uP. myself.
MRS. TARANA-I don't remember looking at the fence or anything. to
tell you the truth. I don't remember really what it looks like.
I'm just basing my opinion on the Staff. This is an opportunity to
upgrade the property a little bit.
MR. BREWER-You have an entrance on Luzerne Road. David. and an
entrance on Indiana?
MR. BARNES-Yes.
MR. BREWER-How about if we asked you to dress up those two areas.
on either side of the driveway coming in?
MR. BARNES-What do you want done?
MR. BREWER-Thirty foot pine. I don't know. Just some shrubs or.
four foot hemlocks or whatever. it doesn't have to be hemlock.
MR. BARNES-Yes. Just shrubbery. right?
HR. BREWER-That's just a shrub that came to my mind.
MR. BARNES-See. we're not using that fence on Indiana Avenue.
Maybe we could keep it on the Luzerne Road.
MR. HARTIN-The one thing I want to have the Board begin to mention
to applicants is that landscaping now is a matter of your
Certificate of Occupancy. and your Certificate of Occupancy will
not be issued. If they make a stipulation to this landscaping.
just don't take it lightly, because I'll be by to look at it. and
I will not issue a CO if the landscaping is not in compliance with
this resolution.
MR. BARNES-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. How about four shrubs total. minimum three foot
tall. two each side of each entrance.
HR. BREWER-Beautiful.
MR. BARNES-Okay.
HR. LAPOINT-I'm just trying to build a consensus so we can move on.
MR. BARNES-Okay.
MR. BREWER-That's fine.
- 6 -
--
MR. BARNES-They've got to start out at three foot. right?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. again. evergreen type shrubs?
MR. BREWER-Evergreen. whatever.
MR. LAPOINT-I hate doing this. Mr. Barnes, because. again. I think
it puts a burden on our enforcement people. but. again. I want to
make a motion that can get 4-0.
MR. BARNES-We keep the place looking good.
see it. It's kept up.
If you go by. you'll
MR. LAPOINT-I agree. Okay. I'm ready.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-93 DAVID AND SUZANNE BARNES.
Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded
by Corinne Tarana:
For the construction of a spray paint booth expansion to the
existing auto body repair shop. with the following stipulations:
One. that the paint booth construction comply with the requirements
of NFPA Standard 33 spray applications using flammable and
combustible materials. and. two. that the applicant install within
60 days a minimum of four evergreen shrubs at least three foot
tall. one on each side of each entrance.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel
SITE PLAN NO. 28-93 TYPE: UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS. INC.
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER & RIDGE RDS.
PROPOSAL IS REQUESTING OVERHEAD CANOPY OVER GAS ISLANDS TO BE
ADDED. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 143-1993 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE -
6-7-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 6-9-93 TAX MAP NO. 109-3-36 LOT
SIZE: 1.25 ACRES SECTION 179-23 D (1)
STEVE NOFTLE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 28-93. Cumberland Farms. Inc.
Ridge & Quaker Roads. Meeting Date: June 22. 1993 "Proiect
Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a canopy for
existing gas pumps. The canopy is to be 24' x 46' in size.
proiect Analysis: 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 canopy should be compatible
with the existing structure. The applicant should provide
elevations showing what the canopy will look like. 2. The
adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and
circulation, including intersections. road widths. pavement
surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; Project will not impact
vehicular traffic flow. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance
and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; This is not an
issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic
access and circulation. walkway structures. control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian
convenience; This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater
drainage facilities; Applicant indicated that runoff from the
canopy will be directed via an interior pipe to the existing
drainage system. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage
disposal facilities; This is not an issue. 7. The adequacy. type
and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other sui table plantings.
- 7 -
'-"
landscaping and buffering 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; This is not an issue. 8. The
adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision
of fire hydrants; Built into the canopy will be fire suppression
system. This system will be subject to review by the fire
department. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways
and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding
and/or erosion. This is not an issue. Recommendation: The
Planning Staff recommends approval of this application."
MR. HARLICKER-They also received a variance for this. because it's
constructed within a 75 feet setback of a Travel Corridor Overlay
District. and one of the items or conditions of that zoning
approval was that they don't want any signage on the overhang.
Warren County said. "No County Impact". Beautification Committee
said that the canopy to match building. professional maintenance.
all plantings to remain. and that was the gist of their comments.
also.
MR. BREWER-Okay. and it was to Warren County. and approved. "No
County Impact". We have. again. from Kip Grant. does everybody
have that letter. from Mr. Grant?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
MR. BREWER-"The new canopy must not interfere with existing fire
suppression system. If a new fire system is to be part of the
canopy. it must be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
listing and only after engineered drawings are presented to my
office for review." So that will have to be reviewed by Kip
before.
MR. MARTIN-That would be part of the building permit process.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant?
MRS. TARANA-Can we see what the canopy is supposed to look like?
MR. BREWER-Do you have a drawing of the canopy?
MR. NOFTLE-I do.
MR. BREWER-Could you bring it up. please?
MR. NOFTLE-Last week I gave three for the variance. Steve Noftle.
I just have one additional comment.
MRS. TARANA-Will this be like the one that's up in Warrensburg? Is
there one in Warrensburg?
MR. MARTIN-There's one in Glens Falls. too. I think.
MR. BREWER-There's. yes. one on Bay Street.
Corinth Road.
There's one on the
MRS. TARANA-Okay. I guess Warrensburg's the one I looked at and
remembered comparing it to.
MR. NOFTLE-It's similar to that.
the Warrensburg one. I'm not
signage on it. this wouldn't.
MR. BREWER-Would that be considered signage?
I'm not sure of the dimensions on
sure. I think Warrensburg has
MR. NOFTLE-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-No. Well. yes. Yes. that's the one the Zoning Board
looked at. and they don't even want that. They just want the blue
- 8 -
stripe. or whatever.
MR. NOFTLE-No "Self Service". or anything.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Should we put that in our motion?
MR. MARTIN-I would.
MR. BREWER-We probably should. and you don't have a problem seeing
Kip. the Fire Marshal. with the?
MR. NOFTLE-No.
MR. BREWER-I hate to jump ahead of ourselves. but are both canopies
going to be the same? The one here and the one up on?
MR. NOFTLE-This one is larger than the one up on.
MR. BREWER-The same type of a canopy?
MR. NOFTLE-The same type. This is a four steel column. where Route
9 is going to be a two steel.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-The other factor about the one on Route 9 is it's
supplying fire coverage. where there is none there at all now.
MR. BREWER-Okay. We have a public hearing. I'll open the public
hearing. Is there anybody here to speak on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARIHG CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Are we going to do another Short Form?
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 28-93. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for
its adoption. seconded by George Stark:
WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an
application for: CUMBERLAND FARMS. INC.. to install an overhead
canopy over the gas islands. 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
- 9 -
--
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 22nd day of June. 1993. by the fOllowing vote:
AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel
MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion?
MR. LAPOINT-I've got a question. Mr. Chairman. If this canopy were
to say. "Gulf" or "Self Serve" on it. it would have to comply with
our Sign Ordinance?
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. MARTIN-Which is impossible to do. without a variance.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. So if they were to have that signage on there.
then they'd have to go back for a variance. The applicant agrees.
just to repeat. because I want to be clear. that we're not going to
have "Gulf". or "Self Serve" on the canopy?
MR. NOFTLE-That' s correct. There's not a problem with that. I
just have one question. Is the variance related to the number of
square footage percentage?
MR. MARTIN-I think it would be the number of signs that you would
need relief from.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So we have two stipulations. the way I see it.
one that he comply with any and all requirements stipulated by the
Fire Marshall. before obtaining a building permit. and. two. that
there be no signage on the canopy.
MR. BREWER-That's it.
MR. LAPOINT-Ready to roll?
MR. BREWER-Ready.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-93 CUMBERLAND FARMS. INC..
Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded
by George Stark:
To install an overhead canopy covering their gas service islands,
with the following stipulations: One. that the applicant meet any
and all fire suppression system requirements outlined by the Fire
Marshall at the time of applying for his building permit. and. Two.
that there be no signage attached to or part of the overhead
canopy.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
- 10 -
~
~
~'
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel
SITE PLAN NO. 29-93 TYPE: UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS. INC.
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: US ROUTE 9 & KENDRICK RD.
PROPOSAL IS TO ADD AN OVERHEAD CANOPY OVER GAS ISLANDS. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 144-1993 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - 6/7/93 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING - 6-9-93 TAX MAP NO. 69-1-17 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE
SECTION 179-23 D (1)
STEVE NOFTLE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 29-93. Cumberland Farms. Inc. Rt.
9 & Kendrick Rd.. Meeting Date: June 22, 1993 "Project
Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a canopy for
existing gas pumps. The canopy is to be 24' x 46' in size.
Pro; ect Analysis: The pro j ect 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 canopy should be compatible
with the existing structure. The applicant should provide
elevations showing what the canopy will look like. 2. The
adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and
circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement
surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; Project will not impact
vehicular traffic flow. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance
and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; This is not an
issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic
access and circulation. walkway structures. control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian
convenience; This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater
drainage facilities;, Applicant has indicated that runoff from the
canopy will be directed via interior pipes to the existing drainage
system. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal
facilities; This is not an issue. 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; This is not an issue. 8. The
adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision
of fire hydrant; Built into the canopy will be fire suppression
system. This system will be subject to review by the fire
department. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways
and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding
and/or erosion. This is not an issue. Recommendation: The
Planning Staff recommends approval of this application."
MR. BREWER-Okay. No other questions from anybody? Okay. With
that. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to speak
on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Do we have to do Short Form again?
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 29-93. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for
its adoption. seconded by George Stark:
WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an
application for: CUMBERLAND FARMS. INC.. to install an overhead
canopy over its gas islands at US Route 9 & Kendrick Road, and
- 11 -
---
-..../'
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 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel
MR. BREWER-Okay. Before we make a motion. I think we ought to get
our stipulations down.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. My guess is. unless we have any other changes.
we'd like both motions to read identical on the record when we're
done. I'll do the best I can to match what I did before.
MRS. TARANA-I have just one question. The size is 24' by 46' for
this one. right? Because I noticed Beautification had a different
size. but just to be sure we've got the right.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think they were slightly different in size.
MRS. TARANA-I mean. Beautification looking at this project has
different measurements.
MR. NOFTLE-This one is 24' by 32'.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. Are we sure we've got these straight in our
motions. then? Because my note says 24' by 46' for this one.
MR. LAPOINT-The previous one we approved was 24' by 48'?
MR. NOFTLE-Correct.
MR. LAPOINT-And this one is going to be 24' by 46'?
MR. NOFTLE-Thirty-two.
- 12 -
'-
---.-/
MR. LAPOINT-By 32'.
MRS. TARANA-Did we specifically say 48? Because our notes say 46.
MR. LAPOINT-I don't think I had that in my motion. the dimensions
of the canopy at Quaker Road. No.
MR. HARTIN-Is it 46 or 48?
MR. LAPOINT-On Quaker Road. it is 24' by 48'.
MR. MARTIN-Forty-eight? Okay.
MRS. TARANA-On Kendrick. it's 32'.
MR. BREWER-And 24' by 32' on Route 9.
MR. MARTIN-On Kendrick. yes. on Route 9.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Stipulations. Ed? The only ones that I.
MR. LAPOINT-Compliance with the Fire Marshall's requirements. and
no signage. right?
MR. BREWER-I don't know. Was that brought up about the signage on
that one?
MR. NOFTLE-Yes.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. it was.
MR. BREWER-It was. Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-93 CUMBERLAND FARMS. INC..
Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded
by Corinne Tarana:
To add an overhead canopy over the gas islands at the Route 9 and
Kendrick Road store. with the following stipulations: One. that
the applicant meet any and all requirements specified by the Fire
Marshall prior to obtaining a building permit. and. Two. that there
be no signage attached to or incorporated into the canopies.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel
SITE PLAN NO. 30-93 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A AMG INDUSTRIES OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 1/2 MILE WEST OF INTERSECTION OF DIX
AVENUE & QUAKER RD. ON DIX AVE. CONSTRUCTION OF A 66.000 SQ. FT.
OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK.
BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - 6-7-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 6-9-93
TAX MAP NO. 110-1-24.21 LOT SIZE: 9.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 D
BOB BECKER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 30-93. AMG Industries, Meeting
Date: June 22. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is
proposing to construct a 66.000 square foot manufacturing facility.
The plant is to be located in the industrial park off of Dix
Avenue. The plant will consist of three buildings; the buildings
will be 10.000, 52.000 and 4.000 square feet in size. The property
- 13 -
is zoned light industrial and is approximately 9.5 acres in size.
PROJECT ANALYSIS: 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 main structure will be a
pre-engineering steel building as will the smaller storage building
in the rear. The front building, which will contain office area
will be a steel and masonry structure. Lighting will consist of
pole lights in the front parking area. The remainder of the site
will be illuminated by wall mounted lighting located above and
adjacent to the entrances to the manufacturing building. Signage
will be subject to a separate permit; however. a freestanding sign
is tentatively proposed adjacent to the eastern entrance to the
site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access
and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement
surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; There are two drives
proposed for access to and from the site. Both access drives are
on Dix Avenue. The access drives will be 30 feet wide so that
larger tractor trailers can access the manufacturing building.
Both entrances will handle two way traffic. The drives which will
be used by delivery vehicles will be constructed to higher
standards than will the areas that will be used as parking. The
curb cuts on Dix Avenue will require County permits. The circular
flow of traffic around the site and the separate parking for
visitors in the front should provide for adequate traffic flow. 3.
The location. arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street
parking and loading; The proposal includes 122 parking spaces.
The spaces are arranged so that approximately one-quarter of them
are located in the front and the remaining are located on the side
and rear. and will be used by the employees. Four handicap spaces
will also be provided. A loading dock is located on the eastern
side of the building. It appears that several parking spaces.
including handicap. are located adj acent to the loadings areas;
this seems to be a less than desirable situation. The possibility
of relocating those spaces is preferred. 4. The adequacy and
arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway
structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and
overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate.
Visi tor parking is located in the front adj acent to the office
building. and most of the employee parking is located in the rear
with access to the large manufacturing building. Handicap
accessibility is adequate; spaces and ramps are providing access to
both the manufacturing building and the office building. 5. The
adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Rist-Frost comments
will have to be addressed prior to site plan approval. 6. The
adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The site
will be serviced by municipal sewer and water. Connection to
municipal sewer and water has yet to be finalized. 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 applicant is proposing
a mixture of plantings. Pines will be used to screen and buffer
sections of the perimeter and maples and shrubs will be planted to
enhance the interior of the site. Areas not covered by buildings
or paved will be grassed. The landscaping plan was reviewed by the
Beautification Committee. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other
emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency
access is adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures.
roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding.
flooding and/or erosion. This is not an issue. The property
slopes to the rear which is where the retention area will be
located. RECOMMENDATION: Providing connections to municipal sewer
and water are worked out and any engineering comments are
addressed. Staff can recommend approval of this application."
MR. BREWER-Okay. and. Tom. we have a few notes from you.
ENGINEER REPORT
- 14 -
--
~.
Notes from Rist-Frost. Tom Yarmowich. Town Engineer. June 19. 1993
"Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the project data and has the
following engineering comments: 1. The utilities plan is
incomplete. Electric. telephone and gas services are not shown.
The connection of water and sewer to existing utilities is not
shown. 2. It is not clear if on-site water and sewer will be
private or Town owned. If on-site water and sewer is to be Town
owned. then easements will be needed and must be shown if needed.
3. Where will the nearest fire hydrant be located? 4. Water and
sewer separation in the area between proposed MHl and MH2 should be
10 feet minimum. The water main thrust block shown near MH2
appears to bear on disturbed earth. It is not recommended that
thrust blocks bear on disturbed surfaces. 5. An erosion and
sediment control plan should be provided for all site disturbing
acti vi ties. A rip rap outlet area should be provided at the
culvert outlet. Details of sediment and erosion control features
should be provided on the drawings or specified. 6. Regarding
stormwater management: a. The soil exploration data does not seem
to preclude infiltration systems. Infiltration where feasible is
required by zoning. SWM should be reevaluated. b. How will
runoff be removed from roofs and how will it integrate with the SWM
concepts? c. The detention pond outlet control is not specified.
Provide computations to identify pond operating levels wi th respect
to outlet control function. d. More information is needed
regarding downslope areas to assess the effect of SWM basin
releases on downslope properties. 7. It is not clear how this
parcel relates to adjoining lots in the subdivision. Additional
information is requested to evaluate the compatibility of the
proposed site layout with the subdivision."
MR. YARMOWICH-And a comment that's not listed on this. and relates
to the handicapped parking issue that Scott raised. about those
spaces near the loading dock. the access aisles need to be eight
feet wide. and the applicant can address that. too.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to read these letters that we have?
MR. LAPOINT-Do you want me to jump through them?
MR. BREWER-Sure.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Let ter to Jim Martin from Mike Shaw. June 7.
1993. AMG Industries. three additional comments that seem to be in
general accordance with the engineering comments. "Additional
detail plans of the sanitary sewer connection are needed.
Projected sanitary flows are needed. It may be necessary for the
town to buy additional sewage capacity from the City of Glens
Falls. A.M.G. may be classified a Significant Industrial User.
which will require a discharge permit from the City of Glens Falls.
This permit must be obtained prior to any sanitary discharge. If
you have any questions on these comments please call me at my
office." And then another letter on 22 June 1993 from Mike Shaw to
Jim Martin. "I have just met with Mike Hutsenpiller of MRH
Engineering in reference to the sanitary sewer service for the new
A.M.G. building. The following list of items are a result of
reviewing the plans with Mr. Hutsenpiller. 1. Estimated water
usage of 2.000 G.P.D.. no additional buy-in to the City of Glens
Falls Treatment Plant is needed. 2. A.M.G. will extend the 10'
sani tary sewer main and obtain the necessary easements. 3. The
existing manhole will be core drilled and rubber booted with smooth
inverts. 4. Any new town owned manhole will have the same size
ring and cover as the manholes now in the tech park. 5. Plans
must show sanitary sewer trench detail and detail of the 10" SDR 35
sani tary main. 6. Plans do not show a connection for the
maintenance building. 7. Each building must have a backwater
valve of a tide gate backwater valve installed in a manhole. 8.
Backwater valve. main u-trap. and vent will be Schedule 40 PVC. 9.
Industrial wastewater survey must be completed. 10. Sani tary
mains will have to be air tested and t.V. inspected. Mike agreed
that he would address each one of these concerns." The County
- 15 -
-'
---/
Planning Board. "No County Impact". And we have some option to
purchase the property. which I don't think needs to be read in.
MR. MARTIN-No. That's just from the QEDC.
MR. BREWER-And does that address all those letters I gave you?
MR. LAPOINT-I've got Beautification. I'm still not done. They
gave us a preliminary approval. They had no quorum, but they're
looking for no non-conforming signs. which when they put up their
sign. they'd have to go get a separate sign permit anyway. and no
plastic or artificial shrubs or flowers.
MR. BREWER-I'm talking about the letter that Jim gave me just
before the meeting.
MR. LAPOINT-No. I don't have that one. then.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. We have one from the QEDC. Queensbury Economic
Development Corporation. to the Planning Board. regarding the AMG
Industries. "On behalf of The Queensbury Economic Development
Corporation, the entire Board of Directors would like to express
their complete and unanimous support of the A. M. G. Industries
project. Certainly. the retention and creation of Manufacturing
related jobs within the Queensbury community is consistent with the
original intentions of The Queensbury Technical Park. It is our
sincere belief that A.M.G. Industries will be an ideal addition to
our park. Dean John Beckos. Pres. Q.E.D.C."
MRS. TARANA-There's an industrial waste survey. We don't have to
read all this. do we?
MR. BREWER-No. I think we should just give that to Staff as part
of the record.
MRS. TARANA-Submit it for the record.
MR. BREWER-Or part of the file.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. just for your reference. if you need it.
MR. BREWER-So that one of those issues is done.
MRS. TARANA-We have one from Grennon Architects. "Dear Mr. Martin:
We have received the review comments of June 19. 1993 from Tom
Yarmowich of Rist Frost concerning the captioned proj ect and
respond as follows: 1. Electric, Telephone and Gas These
services will be supplied underground and will be located on the
site plan. All services will enter the northwest corner from Dix
Avenue. 2. On Site Water & Sanitary Sewer Will be private and
maintained as such." Do I have to read all of this?
MR. BREWER-Yes. Maybe we should let the applicant address the
engineering comments.
MR. MARTIN-This really is addressing Tom's letter.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. This is the applicant's engineer's letter?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MRS. TARANA-Yes. We can let that one go.
MR. BREWER-And we do have someone here for the applicant.
MR. BECKER-Yes. I'm Bob Becker.
MRS. TARANA-I had a question about this. first.
MR. BECKER-I'm Bob Becker from Grennon Architects.
With me is
- 16 -
~~~
--
Charles Barber of A.M.G Industries and Mike Hutsenpiller who is the
si te engineer for the drainage. the si te drainage. We have
addressed the seven issues as you had indicated in the letter. I
don't have a copy of the letter before me. Could I borrow yours?
As previously read. the services for the telephone. electric. and
gas will be underground. They will originate on a pole. on the
nearest pole. the nearest line on the northwest corner of the site
facing Dix Avenue. and will go underground to service the site with
all three of those utilities. That has been located on an addendum
drawing that we brought with us tonight. indicating that exactly
where the come and originate and terminate.
MR. LAPOINT-Just a suggestion. Mr. Chairman. As he goes through
these. can we have our engineer. have you had a chance to take a
look at the new drawing?
MR. YARMOWICH-There is no new drawing.
MR. LAPOINT-There is no new drawing.
MR. YARMOWICH-This is just an indication that they will be shown.
MR. LAPOINT-An indication that they will be shown.
MR. BECKER-We do have drawings with us indicating this information.
with us. There has been.
MR. LAPOINT-Well. what I was suggesting is that maybe we can go
through. I'd like him to respond in kind. as you went through.
rather than going all the way through.
MR. BECKER-There is a drawing.
MR. YARMOWICH-I don't have it.
MR. LAPOINT-Submitted to the Town today?
MR. BREWER-No. He's got it with him.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. All right. So Rist-Frost hasn't had a chance to
take a look at anything that's put in?
MR. BREWER-Well. I don't know if it would be fair to ask him to
look at it now.
MR. LAPOINT-No. That's what I, from what Mr. Becker said. I
thought maybe he had already had it.
MR. BREWER-Yes. Okay.
MR. BECKER-All right. The on-site water and sanitary is not a
drawing issue. It's just a matter of will it be pUblic or will it
be private. and everything within the meets and bounds of the site
will be private and be maintained as a private land. The nearest
fire hydrant. currently the nearest fire hydrant is approximately
250 feet southwest of the site. adjacent to the Progress Parkway.
There no doubt will be additional fire hydrants mirrored through
the site. However. there's a lot of issues that go along with that
that have to be determined by the Fire Control people and the
Building Department, as well as the Loss Control people of the
underwriters. There's a meeting scheduled for June 29th. with all
these people. with Mr. Hatin sitting in for the Fire Marshall. to
discuss the issues of hydrants. where they're located. access to
the building by the firefighting equipment. and issues of generally
a building code review. so that that will all come together at one
time as all of the fire issues. both within the building and on the
site. are evaluated.
MR. LAPOINT-Let me see if I can paraphrase you. So. in other
words. based on your occupancy of the building. you're going to
- 17 -
-<
have to have fire suppression systems, or hydrants. per New York
State Code. actually in the buildings or adjacent to them?
MR. BECKER-That's correct. Often times. the New York State Code
and the. whoever the underwriting organization is. have slight
differences. and usually a meeting like this solves those. and we
go by their recommendation. Usually the Fire Marshall and the
underwriters who insures the building will.
MR. BREWER-Don't we have some sort of standards. as far as footage
of road. for fire hydrants?
MR. YARMOWICH-It depends on the use in the area. There are some
general Town standards. and there are also individual standards of
insurers. as was pointed out. lots of circumstances. the Fire
Marshall's Office wants a chance to comment. Many times certain
fire hydrants just don't seem to be particularly useful and spacing
change as a result. It's information that they're going to work
toward agreeing to with all the agencies and this Board. I guess.
MR. BECKER-In determining fire areas of the building. whether the
building is noncombustible or another type of construction
classification. will determine the access around the building for
fire apparatus. So there's a lot of issues that must come together
as one. to determine just one thing. the fire hydrant. So that is
in the process.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. BECKER-The water and sewer separation between the two manholes
is just a note on a drawing that was omitted. It's 10 feet. It is
now noted on the drawing. and will be noted wherever it is
necessary. Erosion and Sediment Control.
MR. LAPOINT-Your thrust block. You've got that in excavated earth.
MR. BECKER-Well. we agree with that comment. We haven't addressed
it specifically. I find that we're probably going to be. with this
equipment and this line. in rock there. The soil borings show that
most of the site sits on rock. We feel that. at this point. there
would be a fair amount of rock excavation. So undisturbed soil
will be very much in evidence.
MR. LAPOINT-You'll get an appropriate thrust block in there
somehow?
MR. BECKER-That's correct. Yes. Erosion and Sediment Control. we
neglected to put that on the plan. That's more for the
construction operation phase of the drawing. We now have erosion
and sediment control specification on the drawings. as well details
and sections showing where they'll be. There's haybales. where the
natural drainage of the site occurs. at the property line. There's
also silt screening placed along the site. and they are indicated
now on the drawings with a small specification. with attachments.
to comply with the New York State Environmental requirements for
runoff.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-You're also going to have permanent stone rip rap. the
outlet and the detention area?
MR. BECKER-That's correct. We've expanded that. and we'll touch
base on that a little bit later. when we talk about the impact of
the site on the adjoining sites. but that is correct. We will have
the rip rap. Stormwater management. Item Six. Mike Hutsenpiller
probabl y can address that. if he would. We have additional
drawings. as an overview. and we've answered the specific questions
of design and sizes and provided the appropriate computations.
- 18 -
'-..-
MIKE HUTSENPILLER
MR. HUTSENPILLER-My name is Mike Hutsenpiller. My Company is MRH
Engineering. and we're doing the site engineering for A.M.G.
Industries. I'll address Rist-Frost's comments. Items 6a through
6d. 6d is more of a combined. Six A refers to the use of
infil tration systems for the site. We have discussed it as a
group. and our current feeling is. based on boring logs that we
have. and the presence of rock outcroppings. we don't feel
comfortable with any infiltration systems right now. The bedrock.
we feel. is too close to the surface. We don't think it would be
adequate for a proper infiltration system. We did talk with Dick
Morse. who originally did the transfer park. and he said that. for
the work that he did over at Rozell's place, they did not use
infil tration systems for that very reason. They went with a
detention system. and Rozell's property is. I'll show you where
it's at. This parcel right here. I believe. is Rozell's current
location. and as you can see. our property is over here. So it's
not that far removed. and again. if you look at the soil boring
logs that Dick had done.
MR. MARTIN-Mike, you might want to familiarize the Board with the
total lay of the Park there. I'm not sure that they're aware of
what lots you've purchased. or are going to purchase.
MR. BECKER-Dix Avenue. here. Progress Boulevard. here. west. and
going east towards Quaker Road on the lower right part of the
drawing. and then on the lower left is the entrance to Progress
Boulevard. The parcel that A. M. G. Industries acquired includes
this paper cul-de-sac and street. which has been precluded by the
building of the building. So the building is sitting in this area
down there.
MR. LAPOINT-So you're actually. then. in essence. assembling the
lots. rather than going with the subdivision as. correct?
MR. BECKER-That's what's happened. yes.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-This road will no longer be here. You do have a
couple of little spurs already constructed. but that's where it
ends.
MR. BECKER-I think we're getting into Item Number Seven on the
letter. too. while we have this map here. addressing the impact and
the use of the site with the adjoining properties. On the lower
right. there's two photographs that show drainage coming out of the
ground now. and it's flowing water. At this particular point. it's
on the east property line. and above it. you can see the cement
silos of the cement plant looking to the south and east. and you
see the origin of water at the bottom of the drawing. and it just
continues to go down towards Warren Street. and it's a natural
drainage through there. and the AVI property. which is to the right
and to the rear. as you can see. there's the AVI building there,
has filled in pretty much to their property line. and created a
natural swale that goes to the left. as you look at this print
here. so that everything drains from Dix Avenue and to the back and
to the left and naturally flows that way. and as we speak, it seems
to flow naturally. There's indication of year round water there.
There's cattails in the left corner. and as you look further down
towards Warren Street. you can see cattails and evidence of water
that's there pretty much all the time. On the right side of the
drawing. as we go back. the site is planned to be filled. However.
the office building in the front. and I can show this on this
drawing here. Dix Avenue is here. on the front of the drawing. The
10.000 square foot office sits facing Dix Avenue. and then the
manufacturing area is detached. it's 12 foot away. sits behind the
office. In order to take advantage of the topography of the site.
and to minimize any embankments along the property. so that we can
maintain it as a level as possible. we've lowered the manufacturing
floor elevation by three feet. This accomplishes two things. We
- 19 -
'-
-"
do take advantage of the topography. and we reduce the impact of
the height of the bUilding. in relation to the office building. So
that the large manufacturing area doesn't overpower the office
area. The maintenance building we further reduced by six feet from
the elevation of the manufacturing building. so that we don't end
up with a large group of grade lines here going to the property
line. We have no need for a retaining wall or anything like that.
So we naturally meet the property lines all around the site. and
this upper right hand corner being the most severe. but we've put
a small retaining wall here, wi thin and on the site. to further
reduce that possibility. so that we blend with the edge of the site
all the way around. So we're not creating any great change of
overall view of the site. and as the drainage goes towards the
rear. the natural drainage comes out and this way towards Warren
Street, and then AVI is over here. and they've done a fair amount
of filling in here. which doesn't indicate on our drawings that we
have of the Queensbury Economic Park. However. the total slope of
all the fill comes around naturally. and forces the water towards
that Warren Street parcel. and these photographs seem to indicate
that. and if you want to look at it closer.
MR. BREWER-Can I ask you one question? Where does your sewer line
come in on this map? A thought came to my mind. because I see that
this borders the Charlebois property. and they're on the agenda
tonight. as an applicant. and they're going to hook to the sewer,
and I just was curious as to where it went.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-The sewer line has always been on the back parcel
of this property. and it comes out here. in this direction.
MR. BREWER-Right, and the only reason I mention this is because
that cul-de-sac that you talked about. the Zaremba Group had
conversation about finishing that cul-de-sac and coming down to
there for their sewer, and if it's still coming in there. it would.
maybe the two of you together might ease the pain. I don't know.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-It could be. It could be. I don't know. but what
I wanted to further highlight is. the sewer line and the water line
are coming out the back part of the property. I've since created
an additional sketch showing the match line with the information
that was supplied over Morse Engineering drawings. showing the
existing manhole and the existing water line. The comment from
Rist-Frost regarding the runoff from the roof and how to integrate
the stormwater management concepts. again. in the revised parcel.
information. I've prepared a separate little sketch showing how I
determined which draining area from roof. pavement. grass. went
where. and they are. and have always been incorporated into the
stormwater calculations. It's just that they were never done.
MR. LAPOINT-These are essentially flat roofs?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Flat roofs. Eventually we're going to take the
drainage running from like a ridge line running parallel along the
access of the building separating. Between the two buildings. I
have always shown a natural drain. cOllecting the rain water.
sending off the drainage. from either end of the drain. into the
catch basins as shown there.
MR. LAPOINT-So all of that. you included that roof runoff with your
stormwater. your parking lot?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-As a total impermeable surface?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes. Six C, today I faxed some calculations to
Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. in regards to the information he was
requesting. as far as the operating level. and the outlook at
recharge. I don't know if he's had a little time to review it or
not. but.
- 20 -
---
--"
MR. LAPOINT-This is. I assume. some type of back flow device.
possibly. or?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Actually. what it is. and it shows again on the
revised prints. It's a orfice and a twelve inch pipe. which will
restrict the flow. based on certain elevations. giving the
predevelopment flow that was indicated from the calculations. So
that I'm not putting any more off the site after development than
before development. and Six D and Seven. I think we've already
covered with Mr. Becker's explanation of the property down the
street.
MR. LAPOINT-I'm going to jump in and ask some questions.
Essentially. you're not touching any of the contours of you're
property. Is that correct. or you're not regarding at the
property's boundaries?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-No. We are meeting those boundaries.
MR. LAPOINT-Handicap parking spots? Let me see here. You have
them near a loading zone. or something like that?
MR. BREWER-Yes. in the back side, by the loading dock. I thought
maybe we'd go right down through Staff Notes.
MR. LAPOINT-When I look at it closely. the trucks back into the
dock. and they're. they really don't have to come around the.
MR. BECKER-I think I can explain this. The philosophy of the
traffic flow on this site is. we want the truck and delivery
vehicles to use the west entrance off of Dix Avenue only. and we've
contained the turnaround. and the circulation of the truck traffic
wholly on the site. so that if a truck comes in here, goes to the
delivery door. there's adequate space between the parking for a
truck to turn around and come out the same entrance and exit. So
this'll be a truck only. This side of the site will be for smaller
vehicles. trucks. pickups or things of that nature. restricted to
trailers. and there will be the major entrance to the office area
here. Now. under the ADA. we're required to anticipate handicapped
employees in the manufacturing as well as the office. and this is
our attempt to have a handicapped access to the plant. as well as
the office. So you see we have two separate areas. We feel this
is probably the best. because it's closest to the. it attaches to
the plant. and it's closest to the vehicle entrance.
MR. LAPOINT-Maybe Staff misunderstood the drawing.
loading dock, that?
That's not a
MR. BECKER-This is a grade level entrance here. for vehicles. This
is a loading dock. This is just a covered dock. The actual dock
is on the building line itself. This is just covered. So this is
totally enclosed. So the truck would be inside here. Say. for
example. if there's a flat bed trailer. You could load it in
inclement weather. and that type of thing.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So I guess it wouldn't matter whether there was
handicap parking there. or for regular cars?
MR. BECKER-That's correct.
MR. LAPOINT-I mean. I don't know if handicap need any extra to get
around truck traffic than anybody else would have.
MR. BREWER-I guess Tom mentioned that the width of the. was it the
width of the slots. Tom?
MR. YARMOWICH-The access aisles? It needs to be eight feet.
MR. BREWER-And we can change that.
- 21 -
'"",...-'
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. You can punch those out to eight feet if they're
not that already.
MR. BECKER-That should be no problem. No.
MR. LAPOINT-I don't see any problem with them being located near
the dock. They're not going to enter through the loading dock.
right?
MR. BECKER-That's correct. There'll be an employee entrance there.
MR. LAPOINT-Right.
MR. BREWER-As long as it's sufficient size. I don't really have a
problem with it.
MR. STARK-Is that the only employee entrance to the factory?
MR. BECKER-That's the only. well. there's others. A.M.G. has many
people that work in the office as well as in the factory. They're
be back and forth. There'll be two other entrances to the plant
that would be accessible and controlled through the office. and
then there will be an employee's entrance here. then adjacent to
each overhead door. and wi thin the constraints of the uniform
building code for exiting out of the building. there'll be other
exits, but I believe this'll be a controlled entrance here. where
the handicap parking is.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there any other questions?
CHARLES BARBER
MR. BARBER-Charles Barber. from A. M. G. In your Item Two. they
mentions the entrances. I'd just like to make the Board aware that
A.M.G. has sought and received a permit from Warren County Highway
for the two entrances to the property.
MR. BREWER-They have? Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-I think I've covered everything I'm interested in.
MRS. TARANA-I just had a question. Did you notice the
Beautification Committee's note about the dumpster being screened?
That's their suggestion.
MR. BECKER-I was aware of a concern about it. but we haven't shown
a dumpster on the site.
MRS. TARANA-I couldn't find the dumpster either. So I didn't know
which one they were talking about.
MR. LAPOINT-Screen the dumpster.
MRS. TARANA-Screen the dumpster.
MR. BECKER-I think part of that issue is that in the manufacturing
industry. there's a fair amount of waste generated within the
facility. and there are two grade level entrance doors. and I think
you'll find that they'll have recyclable waste. such as machine
parts and things like that. that will be inside the building. We
believe that actual waste and the disposal of that will be very
minimal on site. and if it is. it'll be behind the site. at the
lower elevation
MR. BARBER-Currently. we have a yard dumpster for refuse.
MR. LAPOINT-I think it's a requirement anyway. Anything you have
outside has got to be screened anyway.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
I guess I would ask Tom. you're going to need
- 22 -
'~-
time to look at the revised drawing and whatnot. right?
MR. YARMOWICH-I would expect that I can look at them. sure. I
think that what we're talking about is engineering details. I'm
satisfied that there's an approach and solution to these problems.
Much of what's gOing to happen on this site is not yet revealed.
because they haven't put a shovel on the ground everywhere. with
the rock and things like that. stuff can change. I think. under
the circumstances. if they want to submit it. and let me review it.
and I can get back to Jim. and you can follow through with the
Chairman's action on the site plan at a later time. give them
conditional approval. that's fine.
MR. BREWER-Okay. and there is a public hearing. I will open the
public hearing. Is there anyone here to comment on this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay. Short Form again.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE
RESOLUTION NO. 30-93. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for
its adoption. seconded by George Stark:
MR. LAPOINT-"Could action result in any adverse effects associated
with the following: Existing air quality. surface or groundwater
quality or quantity. noise levels. existing traffic patterns. solid
waste production or disposal. potential for erosion. drainage or
flooding problems?"
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. It looks like we've got all kinds of mitigating
measures in the engineering plan for surface water runoff. I think
that the traffic pattern has been fairly well thought out. These
people are manufacturers. so their solid waste production is a part
of doing business. There's a fairly high groundwater on the site
now that actually seeps out of the site. The detention basin may
actually help that. in that you're putting some impermeable area
and directing that into a detention basin. You could actually
probably may result with even less runoff off of the property. if
that even made a difference. Air quality. they've got to go get.
if they have any stacks. they've got to get all the permits from
the State. Noise levels. what are you guys. you guys are sheet
metal workers. right? What do you do?
MR. BARBER-We. sheet metal work is fabrication pipe. and we make
certain types of equipment.
MR. LAPOINT-How many shifts?
MR. BARBER-At this point. one shift. Sometimes two shifts. For
the size of this building. it will be very will insulated. At this
point, we don't have a noise problem.
MR. BREWER-I was just going to say. I've been by A.M.G.. hundreds
of times. on Luzerne Road. and never heard a noise.
MR. LAPOINT-Essentially the same operations?
MR. BARBER-Yes. the same operations. As matter of fact. most
people don't realize we're a sheet metal manufacturer.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. I guess the answer is. no.
- 23 -
MR. BREWER-No.
WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an
application for: A.M.G. INDUSTRIES. for the construction of 66.000
sq. ft. of office and .anufacturing space. in a light industrial
park. off Dix Avenue. 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 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
AYES: Hr. LaPoint. Hr. Stark. Hrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Hr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel
MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion?
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Because there's only four of us, we obviously
have to make it unanimous. and I'm for giving a contingency
approval. based on them complying with all of the engineering
concerns. and staff comments. They have to submit a separate sign
permit. and I think we resolved the handicapped access. assuming
they can bring the spaces up to Code.
HR. BREWER-It's mostly Rist-Frost that I'm concerned with.
MR. LAPOINT-We have. the Wastewater Department mirrored Rist-
Frost's comments.
HR. BREWER-Yes.
HR. LAPOINT-There's no County impact. so there's nothing we have to
do for Warren County. We had to make sure that any outside trash.
dumpsters, were screened.
HR. BREWER-That's Code anyway. They have to do that anyway.
- 24 -
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. put it in the motion.
MR. MARTIN-It's good to put it in the motion.
MR. LAPOINT-So I guess I'd be. kind of kick this around with the
Board. willing to make a conditional approval motion. if we think
we have the four we need.
MR. BREWER-George?
MR. STARK-That's fine.
MR. BREWER-Corinne?
MRS. TARANA-I don't like conditional approvals. especially when
there are so many conditions. but let me ask Tom. how do you feel
about this? Are there any problems that we should see this again?
MR. YARMOWICH-I review it again either way. Corinne.
technical issues.
They're
MRS. TARANA-Nothing that we should be concerned with. though. once
you've reviewed it? I mean. if you saw a problem. you'd bring it
back to us anyway.
MR. YARMOWICH-For the purposes of the SEQRA. filing that motion.
everything. it's been demonstrated that they can deal with all the
issues. It means that they will have to submit another plan to be
looked at. and make sure they comply with the comments. I will do
that. when I get the material, and give feedback to the Planning
Board Chairman before he signs anything. and that's your insurance.
That's all I can give you.
MRS. TARANA-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-If you do decide to do that. I would recommend a date by
which they submit to Tom. and a date by which we would receive the
letter from Tom. and give adequate time. I'd also like to see a
letter from Mike Shaw. too.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If I gave you 60 days to revise. would that be
adequate? And I'd have you send the revisions to Staff.
MR. MARTIN-If they send them to our office. we'll make sure that
they're adequately distributed.
MR. BECKER-And actually. we'd prefer 30.
MR. LAPOINT-I'll give them 30. I'm just trying to give you as much
as we can.
MR. BECKER-I just want to reiterate that the changes that are on
the drawings that we brought with us tonight reflect the concerns
that Rist-Frost has in their letter.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So it's really not an issue.
MR. BECKER-The only thing that could be outstanding is some of Mike
Shaw's comments. and I have not seen his letter.
MR. LAPOINT-Leave with one tonight. We've all got extras. and then
Rist-Frost. seven working days. five working days?
MR. YARMOWICH-Give me seven.
MR. LAPOINT-Seven working days. after they get it to review. to
review and comment to Staff.
- 25 -
-
MR. MARTIN-I think we would need. probably. four copies would be
adequate. one for Tom. one for Mike Shaw. It's always good for us
to have a spare.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Four copies. I guess just to ease your mind.
Corinne. the reason why I like conditional approvals is that it
leaves it in the hands of the professionals. that the applicant now
has to satisfy the engineer. our engineer no matter what on
essentially issues that. as a layman board. we normally don't talk
about whether something should be Schedule 40 PVC or a backcheck
val ve. or something like that. To me. it gives us a tremendous
amount of leverage, because if they don't satisfy the engineer.
they have to come back before us as almost an appeal process.
MRS. TARANA-I agree. with this circumstance. yes. Just one thing.
if Staff would. again. check for a signature on the Hazardous
Materials Report Form. It's typed in. actually. is what they did.
when they filled out the application. and it requires a signature
as well. Just a technical thing.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Ed.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-93 AMG INDUSTRIES. Introduced
by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by George
Stark:
To construct a 66.000 square foot combination of office and
manufacturing facility in a Light Industrial Park off of Dix
Avenue, with the following stipulations: One. that the applicant,
at the time of application. meet all of Queensbury permit
requirements for signage. Two. that the applicant revise as
necessary and assure that the handicapped parking spots meet Code.
Three. that the applicant respond to the Rist-Frost letter dated 19
June 1993 to Mr. Jim Martin from Mr. Tom Yarmowich. within 30 days.
addressing all of the technical and engineering concerns to the
satisfaction of the Town's Engineer. and that they submit four
copies to Planning Staff for distribution. and that Planning Staff
will make sure that the Wastewater Department. Mr. Shaw. gets a
copy for his review and comment, with Rist-Frost and Mr. Shaw
having seven working days to review the drawing changes. review and
comment on the drawing changes back to Mr. Martin. and that the
applicant sign the Hazardous Materials report form. and. Four. that
the Executive Director of the Town collate and put all the comments
together from the Wastewater Department. the Engineering
Department. in a summary letter to the Chairman of the Planning
Board identifying whether or not all the stipulations have been
met.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. pulver. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel
SITE PLAN NO. 32-93 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA GUIDO PASSARELLI
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: RT. 9. OPPOSITE KENDRICK ROAD
PROPOSAL IS FOR A +57.575 SQ. FT. SHOPPING CENTER. BEAUTIFICATION
COMM. - 6-7-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 6-9-93 TAX MAP NO. 70-1-9
LOT SIZE: 5.3 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 D
JIM MILLER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 32-93. Guido Passarelli. Meeting
Date: June 22. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is
- 26 -
-,~. .....
proposing to construct a 57.575 square foot strip shopping center'
the project also includes 277 parking spaces. The property i~
zoned highway commercial. is 5.3 acres in size and is located on
Route 9 at the intersection with Kendrick Road. PROJECT ANALYSIS:
In accordance with Section 179-38 A.. the project is in compliance
with other requirements of this chapter. including the dimensional
regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located.
In accordance with Section 179-38 B.. the project was reviewed in
order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or
intent of this chapter. and it was found to be compatible with the
zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on
supporting public services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C..
the proposal is being reviewed by the department of transportation
regarding its impact on the highways. DOT review of the project is
required because of the access off of Route 9. which is a state
highway. In accordance with Section 179-38 D.. the project was
compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. 1.
Existing drainage and runoff patterns will be impacted by this
project. however. any impact will be mitigated by an on site
drainage system. 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; In order to ascertain the
proposed shopping center's compatibility with adjacent buildings.
an architectural elevation of the center is needed. Signs in the
shopping center should be of uniform color and design. Lighting
should be directed so that it does not impact Route 9 or the
adjacent properties. The dumpsters should be located to less
obtrusive locations. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular
traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road
widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; The main
entrance to the site will be via a 34' wide entrance opposite
Kendrick Road. This entrance will consist of two 10' wide exit
lanes and a single 12' wide entrance lane. A secondary access is
provided by a 16' wide drive at the south end of the project site.
Since this access is to be for right turn only. the curb cut should
be such so that it does not allow for left turns. Property should
be reserved on the north and south ends of the site to allow for
future internalization of commercial traffic along Route 9. A
traffic study was completed in 1990 for a previous proposal for
this site. In light of recent and proposed commercial development
on Route 9. DOT will be requesting updated information regarding
traffic counts on Route 9. DOT will be requesting updated
information regarding traffic counts on Route 9 and the project's
impact on those counts. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance
and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The parking
provided conforms to the zoning requirements. The handicap parking
provided near the proposed dumpster on the north end of the project
site seems to be out of place. They might be better suited closer
to the building. Eleven handicap spaces are required and fourteen
are proposed. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian
traffic access and circulation, walkway structures. control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian
convenience; Consideration should be given to reserve property
along Route 9 for potential future use as a sidewalk. Other
pedestrian access to the shops appears to be adequate. 5. The
adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Rist-Frost comments
have to be addressed prior to site plan approval. 6. The adequacy
of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; Rist-Frost
comments have to be addressed prior to site plan approval. 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 landscaping plan was
reviewed by the Beautification Committee and found to be
acceptable. The existing vegetation should be retained to the
maximum extent possible to provide additional screening around the
property lines. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency
zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The issues identified in
- 27 -
the letter from Brian LaFlure. Queensbury Central Fire Dept. need
to be addressed. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures,
roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding.
flooding and/ or erosion. Erosion control measures should be
identified and in place during construction. RECOMMENDATION:
Modifications to the project including relocating the dumpsters
providing rear access. realignment of some interior turning radii
and access drive as well as addressing any engineering comments is
needed prior to site plan approval. Issues raised by DOT regarding
the traffic study will also have to be addressed."
MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have comments from Tom.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Rist-Frost. Tom Yarmowich. Town Engineer. Rist-Frost
Associates has reviewed the site plan and has the following
engineering comments: 1. There is no vehicular access to the rear
and sides of the building. 2. Regarding grading: a. There are
no proposed contours between 478 and 481 at southeast corner to tie
into existing contours. b. The grading for the two parking areas
in the vicinity of catch basin C3 does not appear to direct all
flow from these proposed impervious parking areas to the SWM
system. c. The existing 476 contour at P2 must be tied into
proposed grading. d. The eXisting 482 contour along Rte 9 near P1
needs to be tied into proposed grading. e. The existing and
proposed 480 contours south of P3 need to be properly tied
together. f. The eXisting and proposed 482 contours south of the
building need to be properly tied together. g. The curb detail
indicates curb height is 6 inches. Some top of curb/bottom of curb
elevations proposed indicate a 3 inch difference. This should be
clarified. 3. Regarding stormwater management: a. SWM designs
should be based on the 50 year return interval storm. b. Previous
site plan 50-90 for smaller shopping center building had building
roof runoff distributed to several SWM areas. The current site
plan indicates all roof runoff directed to P3 and P4. Calculations
for sizing P3 and P4 based on the proposed drainage from the
building roof should be provided to verify the current design. c.
The proposed site plan utilizes catch basins for collecting parking
lot runoff. The previous site plan included parking lot drywells.
How does the proposed SWM plan account for the reduction of
infiltration capacity when catch basins are substituted for
drywells? d. The outlet pipe at structure C7 should be located at
an elevation which will store stormwater in upstream infiltration
devices before overflow into P2." And these comments result from
the original stormwater management concept calculations which were
prepared for that referenced site plan. 50-90. Basically. there's
some areas where there may need to be some adaptation of this new
site plan to that previous concept and haven't been fully
addressed. "4. Regarding sewage disposal: a. Provisions should
be made to monitor the holding tank to ensure that overflow volume
remains available. b. Perc rates should be verified at the
location of the sewage disposal area. Since December. 1990 (after
the review of site plan 50-90) soils that perc faster than 1 minute
per inch cannot be used without soil modification. This could
affect the details of the sewage disposal system construction. 5.
The previous traffic study. if used. should be adapted to reflect
traffic generation from the currently proposed size building.
Conclusions regarding intersection operation should likewise be
updated as required."
MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have a letter from Mike Shaw. Do you want
to read that in, Corinne?
MRS. TARANA-"Please refer to the following comments on the proposed
Mount Royal Shopping Center. 1. Currently the proposed shopping
center is not within the Quaker Road Sewer District. 2. It also
is not wi thin the proposed district extension for the Wal-Mart
Plaza. 3. If in the future the Mount Royal Shopping Center were
included in a sewer district. the connection would have to comply
- 28 -
,-
with Department of Wastewater's Standard Specifications.
may be a good time to design the proposed on-site sewage
system to meet our standards. This would save on the
converting on- si te to the Town's system. The engineers
shopping plaza may want to contact me to discuss this."
4. It
disposal
cost of
for the
MR. BREWER-Okay. and we've got Warren County. and that was
disapproved.
MR. LAPOINT-Disapproved due to traffic impacts. That means tonight
we need a majority plus one. right?
MR. BREWER-Yes. Also. the Town of Queensbury Beautification.
preliminary approval. and we have a letter also. do you want to
read that in. from Brian LaFlure, Chief of Queensbury Central.
MRS. TARANA-Regarding Guido Passarelli site. Old Mt. Royal
property) "At a recent workshop held with the principals of this
project. a number of concerns relative to fire protection were
discussed. At the last submittal of this plan (1991), an access
road was provided around the building. The new plan does not. and
is unacceptable due to the length of the building and its only
access to one side. It seemed to be the general consensus at the
meeting that the most efficient alternative would be the use of the
existing town (paper) road off Weeks Road. This would provide year
round access to the rear of the building. and also give a hydrant
location for our use. The second item of concern was the parking
lot curb dividers shown. The Planning Department has been provided
with the turning radius parameters for our aerial truck. and we
feel some of the dividers could be shortened. or painted to make
our access during crowded periods easier. This would also
facilitate snow removal which affects our ability to move on site.
It appears that with the cooperation of all those involved, these
areas can be dealt with to the satisfaction of all involved. If I
can be of further assistance. please feel free to call. Thank you.
Brian LaFlure"
MR. BREWER-Okay, and that. I guess I'm going to ask if we can skip
around a minute. Jim. The reason we asked Paul to come over was
about this paper road. and maybe we could address that right now.
so that we could not tie up Paul all night.
MR. MARTIN-Maybe if Jim could just give a quick summary of what you
found out today for Paul's reference. that might be helpful in his
analysis.
MR. MILLER-Okay. Jim Miller from Northfield Design. representing
the Mount Royal project. What we're talking about is a piece of
property that runs behind the Mount Royal project. past two other
properties. and out to Weeks Road. Seemingly. at one point in
time. it was determined that the street was going to go into this
area. but it was never dedicated to the Town. and also the
ownership was in question. We had a workshop meeting about two
weeks ago on this. and have been trying to research who actually
owns it. Today. actually. we found out it was Montrose Company.
and the last time taxes were paid on it was many years ago. So the
real question is. who owns the thing. What opportunity it gives us
is to come off of Weeks Road. with an access road to the back of
the property. Also. it would give us the possibility to make a
sewer connection in the future off that same easement area. As it
stands today. it seems the ownership is in question. If the Town
owns it. perhaps arrangements could be made to gain access off of
that road. If it's another ownership. we have to pursue that to
see what the opportunities might be to bring an access in that way.
The real question is, how long does it take a piece of property to
revert back to Town ownership if taxes haven't been paid on it. and
who owns it. and we can formulate a course of action.
MR. BREWER-I guess that was our question. or mY question anyway.
Paul. I guess the taxes haven't been paid on it in some 40 or 50
- 29 -
--"
years.
PAUL DUSEK
MR. DUSEK-Well. the first question I have. is there a tax map
number assigned to that parcel. do you know?
MR. MILLER-There's a number. but there's no association with
ownership with the tax map number. Our surveyor did an actual
abstract on the property. He went back to 1929 to find ownership.
MR. DUSEK-Is that road part of a subdivision?
MR. MILLER-It doesn't seem to be.
entity.
It seems to be a separate
MR. DUSEK-And when you say it's a paper street. what leads you to
believe it's a paper street? Usually if there's a subdivision map
then that would cause you to believe that it's a paper street. as
shown on the map.
MR. MILLER-I believe Van Dusen and Steves did the surveying on it.
and I think in their research that came up as that being a paper
street.
MR. DUSEK-You don't know how they came to that conclusion. though?
MR. MILLER-No. I don't.
MR. DUSEK-The concern I have here is that I'm wondering why it is
they came that it was a street. If their conclusion is simply
based on the fact. by the way. Paul Dusek. for the record. I guess
I should say that. If their conclusion is based on the fact of the
dimension that it looks like a street. that's one thing. If their
conclusions are based upon some record. official record. of some
kind. then that may indicate what the Town's interest is. Just on
the bear premise that they are assuming that it's either a street.
or. when I hear the name. paper street. that tells me then that
they are making some assumption just based upon what it looks like
to be a street. and if that's the case, as a general proposition.
the Town would not have any interest in that street. Unless a town
is deeded a street. either actual deed. and not only deeded. but
accepts that deed through its dedication. or unless the town
acquires the property through condemnation. or another possibility
is you acquire a street by use. Now I'm presuming that nobody's
using that as a street, right?
MR. MILLER-Yes. No one's using it as a street. and also no one's
paying taxes on it.
MR. DUSEK-So then nobody's maintaining it as a street.
MR. MILLER-That's the other question. is, does it revert back to
Town ownership?
MR. DUSEK-Well. what happens is this. that if nobody pays the taxes
on the property. in Warren County. at least in recent times. and
I'd have to go back. perhaps. and check what they used to do, but
I'm assuming they did the same thing years ago. Right now. a
property goes up for a tax sale for a series of years. and at the
end of that. I think it's a three or four year time period. the
County would then sell the property at a tax sale. Now. it could
be that nobody was ever interested in the property. So therefore
the sale was never had. and maybe the County is still vested with
ti tIe to the property. and if that's the case. a search of the
County records may reveal that. and if that's true. it would seem
that anybody who's interested may pursue acquisition of the
property from the County. and it looks like your client would
probably be the most interested. I don't know that the Town has
any interest in a road there. unless the Board feels differently.
- 30 -
-
--
MR. BREWER-I have no idea.
MR. DUSEK-So I think what I would recommend is that the County be
contacted at the Treasurer's Office. or Real Property Tax Office.
one or the other would have some information on this, and see if
they've ever conducted a tax sale. see if anybody ever acquired any
interest in it. and find out what their feeling is on the status of
the title. whether they claim ownership at this point. The other
alternative would be to see if you could somehow. if you were able
to trace this back to last known heirs whether or not you could get
them to sign off on Quick Claim Deeds and try to acquire ownership
that way of the property. so you can get clean title, but as far as
the Town is concerned. like I say. if it's a paper street. if it's
commonly what's called these paper streets. we don't have any
ownership rights in them. So we couldn't take control over it. We
certainly couldn't tell somebody to go do something on somebody
else's property. We just don't have any authority. and the only
catch in all of what I'm saying is. though. I'm making a certain
very big assumption. and that is that it's a paper street. and I'd
like to talk to Leon Steves to find out why it is he feels it is a
street at all. because that may be something that changes what I'm
telling you. after I talk to him. So I guess the conclusion is.
One. talk to the County, One. talk with Leon Steves. and if the
Town has no interest. then I think it's up to the applicant to
pursue the County and the previous owners. to try to clear. up
title.
MR. MILLER-The other issue that comes up. there's a lot of talk
about internalizing traffic between Wal-Mart and up through that
strip. This would be a very good start for that. because that gets
behind the first few properties into commercial property. and lead
into other commercial properties from the Ames parking lot
directly. It just presents a very nice avenue to do that. The
information we're giving you is current. as of about three o'clock
this afternoon.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So I guess that's. you have your recommendation
from our attorney. that you have to pursue it. I guess.
MR. YARMOWICH-May I ask a question. Jim? If that's your intent. to
get access to the back of the building there, to meet the concerns
of the Fire Department, predominantly, would you rearrange site
grading and the other details of engineering so that they could get
back in there. landscape and that sort of thing?
MR. MILLER-Yes. if we had to go that route. As you know. in
reviewing the plans. we have a couple of retaining ponds back in
this area that we'd have to rework. The other opportunity that
presents itself is we were developing an on-site septic system. If
we have access through here. it provides a clear avenue to bring in
a municipal sewer. and that would free up this area for retainage.
So it's kind of all tied together. in that regard. The other
issue. however, is. as you all know. our first application that was
approved had a rear road. In going over that. in our initial
meetings, it was found that there's a problem in running that road
through what's a buffer area. So we took the option of not putting
in the road because the buffer was there. The building itself is
a noncombustible construction. The previous application had a full
basement under the whole building. The new application will not
have a basement. So. in essence. we're cutting the square footage
of possible volatile area in have, and it will be totally
sprinklered. It's 65 feet deep which I don't think presents a big
problem. If we can make this work. I think the developer's willing
to go that route. and it seems to solve a lot of problems. If we
have a problem in securing this or making that work. I'm kind of
back to the other argument. that I wonder if it's really needed.
the access road. anyway. In terms of fire protection. I'm not sure
that it's really that much of a requirement. I mean. there's
buildings that are accessible from one side. but those are two ways
we'd be looking at the project. Now. if we can do this. we'd be
- 31 -
.~~
'Y'~
happy to do it.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you very much. Do you want to go down
through the Staff Notes. and then we'll go down through Tom's
notes?
MR. DUSEK-I will say this. If the applicant wants to have Mr.
Steves give me a call. I'll be happy to talk to him about it
tomorrow and see what the basis for his was. and if they need any
help at the County, just give me a call.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Paul.
MR. MILLER-In terms of the comments. I think the engineering
comments are just something we'll address. and sit down with Tom
and just work it out. I don't think they're insurrmountable.
MR. MARTIN-It may be premature to get into some of the changes
that may be made in the access road.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. MILLER-Yes, and that's primarily why we didn't address them
since our meeting two weeks ago. The whole status of that back
access was up in the air. I really don't have any problems. per
set with the comments. The traffic study. it seems there's really
two factions that are reviewing it at this point. if I'm not
mistaken. one's DOT office. the other's the Regional Office.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's really interrelated. Joanna Brunso. who's
the local representative. her primary concern, from DOT's
standpoint, was now the impact of Wal-Mart on the situation, that
she wants to make sure that they do their calculations off of the
projected traffic with Wal-Mart, and see if there is any effect on
the Level of Service with the intersection and the entrance to this
plaza.
MR. BREWER-So I guess what they're asking him is to update the
traffic study with their numbers?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. BREWER-Not to go out and do another traffic study.
MR. MARTIN-Right. just updating the numbers. and as soon as that
can be sent on to her. she'll review that. and they'll have a
letter to send up.
MR. BREWER-And that can be done in a matter of?
MR. MILLER-Yes. I've already contacted the previous
engineer. and asked him to give us a proposal to do that.
specifically. I think they're concerned about the traffic
9 and not the traffic generated from our project.
traffic
and more
on Route
MR. MARTIN-Right. They have no problems with their traffic
generation numbers. or trip generation numbers. It's just really
the traffic on Route 9. With the influence of Wal-Mart now. what
will the added traffic do to that level of service at the
intersection of Route 9 and this entrance.
MRS. TARANA-And Kendrick Road.
MR. MARTIN-And Kendrick Road. yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Refresh my memory.
light out here?
MR. MARTIN-No. It wasn't called for before. and she doesn't think
it'll be warranted now. especially given the fact that there is one
Are we going to have a traffic
- 32 -
"V'_ ~
'-'
called for with the Wal-Hart project just a quarter mile to the
south. As a matter of fact. you may see benefits. given the
presence of the light at the Wal-Hart entrance. if this project
were to go through.
HR. LAPOINT-Right. We approved the previous plan without a stop
light then?
MR. MARTIN-That's right.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MR. HARTIN-That was one of the key issues, and it was finally
determined by DOT it would not be required.
MR. YARMOWICH-I don't know what the resolution is. from what Jim is
saying about what DOT said. When I looked at the traffic study.
the generation rates were based on the original sized building. I
think that the Board should figure out if they want that addressed
at this time. or they want to go with what. if Jim is understanding
DOT correctly. they're not concerned with generation rates at this
site. but they're concerned about what's going on at Route 9. I'm
wondering if they're the same thing or different.
HR. HARTIN-Yes. That has been addressed as well. All this traffic
jargon. The ITE Trip Generation numbers for this type of plaza
have been updated. and the updated numbers are lower than what they
used to be when this was previously looked at. So therefore that
has compensated. in DOT's mind. for the added square footage in
this shopping center. Although you have more. you have more of
what is creating less.
HR. LAPOINT-Lets have the applicant's traffic engineer. if he
retains one. put that in a letter. because I understand exactly
what you said, but the key is to these things is your trip
generation. and if it's compensated for. that'll head off a huge
amount of problems with the applicant further down the road.
MR. HARTIN-That's why they weren't so concerned with the generation
from this plaza. even though it's a new application. with a
building of a larger size. They're primarily concerned with how
it's going to impact the traffic that's already on Route 9,
considering Wal-Hart being there.
MR. HILLER-If I could make a couple of comments. I don't know how
many members were on the Board two years ago. versus now. so maybe
I'll just quickly try to bring you up to speed. One of the main
issues at that time was the site distance from the entrance going
north. There's a slight rise there. and also the distance from the
main entrance to the secondary access to the south. which is one
way out. At that time. we worked with DOT and established where
they would like those entrances. In the present scheme. that's
exactly the way it was previous. The entrance is. to the foot. in
exactly the same spot. The exit is in exactly the same spot. The
project. in general. has the same permeability on the site basis.
However. the building has gotten bigger and the parking has gotten
smaller. because you changed your Ordinance in the size of the
parking space requirements. So we're able to juggle things and
come up with the same permeability on site basis. Landscaping
schemes are basically the same. It's very heavily landscaped. The
scheme that we're proposing is quite a bit beyond what might be
required. The architecture will be very much the same as it was
the first time around. The real differences are the rear access
road. and I think a question was. the size of the building actually
got bigger. and then what the changes in the traffic volumes out on
Route 9 have been from the last two years.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions?
MR. LAPOINT-I mean. we ought to be able to move fairly quickly
- 33 -
..........
here. because there's really nothing we can do. and he's got a ton
of stuff to.
MR. MARTIN-I would recommend you open the public hearing.
MR. BREWER-Was the. you're going to look at all the notes and then
go through them and get back? Okay. I'll open the public hearing
on this project. Is there anybody here to speak on it?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BOB HARRIS & JOAN HARRIS
MR. HARRIS-Bob Harris and Joan Harris from the Sunset Motel. My
son Dan actually owns it, but he's out of town right now. Our
biggest concern is the possible opening up of that property with a
so called paper road. When my son purchased the property. my two
sons originally. we looked at this sort of thing. and it looked
like a hopeless cause. and it does form a very natural buffer
between the rear of our Motel property and the Robert Gardens. So
we're very anxious that it not be opened up as a road. I guess
that Dan has decided that if any legal action is necessary on his
part to maintain that status. he will take it. If it is in
question. and there's any legal benefits to us. we'll be pursuing
it. We would not like to get it developed. because it would have
a very. very negative impact on his property.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. HARRIS-The right-of-way that exists right now is only 40 foot.
and you require 50. So there's another complication on the
roadway. also.
MR. LAPOINT-On this map. you're identified as?
MR. HARRIS-That's incorrectly identified as Thomas and Daniel.
It's really Daniel and Joan.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Right. So that provides a buffer between you
and Robert Gardens. in other words?
MR. HARRIS-Yes. and then if you put a roadway back there. what
happens to our setbacks and stuff? We now have a 20 foot setback
at the end of the property. Does that become 75 because it's
frontage?
MR. HARLICKER-It doesn't necessarily. at least from listening to
the discussion. it doesn't necessarily have to be a town road. It
can just provide access to the site off of Weeks Road. So it
doesn't necessarily have to meet Town standards.
MR. HARRIS-Yes. but as you can see, this eventually becomes a
traffic corridor out of there. I mean. there's all kinds of things
that are very detrimental to our particular business. We try to be
good neighbors to the Gardens behind us. and cutting out four feet
of trees is certainly not going to be very beneficial to anybody.
So as much as we can. we'd oppose that. A couple of secondary
comments. Right now our guests have a lot of trouble getting out
onto Route 9. There are many. I don't know what your numbers on
traffic show, but it's very. very hard to get out. and we're going
to have all these other cars coming out here. How are our guests
ever going to be able to get out onto Route 9?
MR. LAPOINT-Like 600 vehicles per hour. right. was like peak.
MR. HARRIS-Well. I don't also see how this traffic light. which is
down the road that way. is going to stop cars coming this way.
MR. BREWER-It'll give you breaks in traffic.
- 34 -
MR. HARRIS-It won't give us breaks. it's all pretty marginal right
now. and then we'd have a couple of other minor things. You
addressed one of the dumpsters. I'm not sure which of the ones you
find objectionable. but the one next to the fence there is somewhat
objectionable. and then we had a problem with the pedestrian
traffic cutting through the lot. We've already been over that way.
because we've started to gravel a pathway near the road now. So
the people will tend to use this gravel pathway. and we would like
to have some kind of a barriers there so people are kind of forced
out toward the roadway.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Again. for the applicant's benefit. now that I
take a look at it. the dumpster right on Route 9 is almost a
principal feature. I've got some problem with that being right on
a neighbor's property. as well as being out. and if I recall back.
I think the big problem with this property is trying to get it all
the way to build out. I mean. I remember how difficult this was
when you had a smaller building. and the idea that you're going to
go out. I don't know how many percent more is tough.
MR. HARRIS-And another concern I had was that the area toward the
lower left corner here has a tendency to be kind of wet. So before
you do the stormwater runoff. I would hope that there's some sort
of retaining barrier there. so it doesn't run next door.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. They have to make sure that there's no post
development runoff onto your property.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to
comment? Okay. I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I
guess we can entertain a motion to table, at the applicant's
request.
MRS. TARANA-Could I just ask a question? I want to ask a question
of the applicant. Have you given any consideration to putting the
building closer to Route 9. with parking. more towards the back?
Because as I remember. perhaps this wasn't the same architectural
plan. but didn't this come to Warren County. a couple of years ago?
MR. MILLER-Yes. It came to this Board.
MRS. TARANA-And I remember it was a nice looking facade to the.
MR. BREWER-It's right there.
MRS. TARANA-There it is. I didn't see it down there. I'm
beginning to think. as I drive around the Town. that if we move
some of these nicer looking buildings toward the front and had
parking in the back. it would really improve the aesthetics of the
Town. and I don't know if that's a possibility. but I've given that
a lot of thought as I drive around lately. and it's like we have
all the ugly parking in the front. and all the nice looking
buildings are in the back. and we make them put landscaping and
everything around them. and for what reason? You can't see
anything except blacktop. when there's no cars there. and when the
cars are there, are you see are cars.
MR. MILLER-Yes. If there were on a lot that faced two streets.
then it would be easier to justify that. With a linear building.
you have to get around the back of the building to get to the
parking. The other part is kind of a marketing thing. If someone
comes by and they see the whole lot as full. and they don't
necessarily know that there's an open lot out back. O'Toole's is
very much like that. Across the front it looks full. but there's
a whole lot out behind it that's usually open. So maybe that
doesn't play into the Ordinance that much. but it plays into how
you market the facility. People just won't stop if they see that
the place is full up. Whereas. if they see there's open spaces.
- 35 -
-'
and they can get in and out quickly. more people will stop. We
took the other route, more or less. in the sense that we were
trying to set the bUilding back from the street to give more relief
from the street. and then to heavily landscape it. We have quite
a buffer across the front there. It averages about 65 to 70 feet
wide, and it's heavily landscaped.
MR. LAPOINT-It just saves him from finishing two sides of the
building. It's about a third more. right?
MR. MILLER-The economics of building this
really an enclosure with a pretty face on it.
of building a mall.
sort of thing. it's
That's the economics
MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else?
MR. STARK-Jimmy. what's a T.C. Plant. on the landscaping plan? I
see it here. I can't even pronounce it.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. STARK-On the landscaping plan. between you and the Sunset
Motel.
MR. MILLER-An arborvitae is an evergreen.
MR. STARK-It's an evergreen?
MR. MILLER-What we're trying to do along the side to the Motel and
along the side to the Tire Outlet and part of the Drive-In theater
is to start a very thick hedge. and there's two parts to that.
There's the hedge itself. and then along this side. there's
specimen trees planted in here.
MR. STARK-One other thing. the dumpster in the front. that's a bad
location. I think you would agree to, don't you? I mean. I
realize you've got to be able to back in to pick it up and all
this. I don't know where else you could put it. I mean. you have
one over here. and one here. but. gee. having a dumpster right out
front. I look at the dumpster in front of The Market Grille.
That's all you see when you see the place.
MR. MILLER-Yes. I can't argue with you. George. Wi th this
location. we were trying to. I looked at it and I said. this guy's
got a long way to go down here. So that was the location that
allowed us to pull it in. I can't argue with you there. We could
probably find a better spot for it. Now. we're screening the heck
out of it and putting plantings. but that doesn't take care of some
of the other factors.
MR. STARK-I agree with you. I don't think you need any road back
there. or any access. The building's only 65 foot wide, and it's
concrete block. It's all sprinklered. I mean. I don't think the
Fire Department has to get to the back of it. I agree with that.
but just the dumpster.
MR. MILLER-Get rid of the dumpster.
MR. STARK-Everything else is fine.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else. anything else? We would
entertain a motion to table. if we have your blessing.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 32-93 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced
by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by George
Stark:
At the owner's request. The proposal is for a 57.000 square foot
- 36 -
-.....,.",
----
~'"",
'-
shopping center. until the applicant wants to reapply.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
MRS. TARANA-The Warren County is going to re-review it. right?
Because they disapproved it without prejudice. meaning they wanted
to get more information or something.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
myself.
I'm a little bit unclear on how that all works
MRS. TARANA-I think you can go back and get another vote taken. is
what that means.
MR. BREWER-With the information that they requested.
MRS. TARANA-Yes.
MR. MILLER-Which allows us not to have you folks have a majority
plus one.
MRS. TARANA-That's right.
MR. BREWER-If you so desire to do that. If not. then you can come
back here and.
MRS. TARANA-If you choose to. that's your choice.
MR. MILLER-I think a lot of the issues are revolving around what
DOT is going to say.
MR. BREWER-Okay. and do you have any idea when you might get back
with them?
MR. MILLER-I would hope. the Regional group has the plans. and
they're reviewing them. I would hope by the end of next week we
should have that.
MR. BREWER-So then we can put you right back on our agenda next
month then.
MRS. TARANA-Well. he may go to the County. Why don't we leave it
at his discretion. as you suggested.
MR. MARTIN-My conversations with DOT. it wasn't going to be a long
review on their part. once they have the numbers. because they
have. if they're accepting of the trip generation and all that.
it's not going to be a big deal to review that on their part.
MR. BREWER-Yes. but he's got to have everything done by next
Wednesday to meet the deadline.
MRS. TARANA-Yes. That's not much time.
MR. MARTIN-Well. if you submit to us like an updated or revised
application. we'll resubmit it to the County. and I'm sure they
would. they've already indicated they'd look at it again.
MR. BREWER-So how does the time table work for next month. Jim?
MR. MARTIN-Well. we have a week from the day that we receive it to
get it to the County. So I think it's July 7th. this month. is the
Wednesday. July 7th. It has to be to the County by 5 o'clock that
day. So if you can get us revised information, we'll certainly
forward that on. I imagine they. I can't speak for them, but I
think they'd entertain it again.
MR. MILLER-Yes. There's really two issues. One's the access road
and the other's the traffic. The traffic I think is going to fall
into place. As far as the issue of that rear road. honestly. you
- 37 -
---
, --
know. that's really right in the air right now.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Well. you can get back to us with what you've
got. when you've got it.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel
SITE PLAN NO. 31-93 NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. TYPE I
OWNER: GROSSMAN. BAKER & RUBIN ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE
OF RT. 9 OPPOSITE MONTRAY ROAD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A 121.226 SQ. FT.
COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER - WAL-MART. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 111-
1993 SUBDIV. 13-1993 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - 6-7-93 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING - 6-9-93 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-3.5 LOT SIZE: 11.14
ACRES SECTION: 179-23 D(3)(a)[l][a][d]
MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 31-93, National Realty &
Development Corp.. Meeting Date: June 22. 1993 "PROJECT ANALYSIS:
In accordance with Section 179-38 A.. the project is in compliance
with other requirements of this chapter. including the dimensional
regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located.
In accordance with Section 179-38 B., the project was reviewed in
order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or
intent of this chapter. and it was found to be compatible with the
zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on
supporting public services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C.,
in order to assess the impact of project generated traffic impact.
the applicant submitted a traffic study. The study's
recommendations include a stop light at the north access on Route
9 and the construction of turn lanes. The potential impact of
truck traffic does not appear to be considered in the study. The
Board may request additional information regarding truck traffic
and deliveries. In order to reduce the number of curb cuts and in
the interest of internalizing commercial access along Route 9. the
Board may request that the proposed access to the diner from Route
9 be eliminated and access be provided via the signalized drive.
In accordance with Section 179-38 D.. the project was compared to
the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. 1. To ensure
that no pollutants associated with the parking area gets into the
groundwater. drainage filtration methods should be outlined as well
as the maintenance of the filtration system. 2. The project is
adjacent to residential zones. In order to mitigate the impact on
the residential properties a 50' buffer with a stockade fence and
screening was provided along the properties to the south. A 25'
buffer is proposed for the apartments to the west. This buffer
includes and existing fence and screening; no additional screening
is proposed for this area. 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
compatibili ty of buildings. lighting and signs; The applicant
should supply architectural elevations of the buildings so that
compatibili ty can be assessed. Signage appears to be adequate.
The Board might suggest relocating the AMES sign to Ames property.
It is currently proposed to be located on the Wal-Mart lot.
Lighting should be directed in such a way that it does not shine
onto adjacent properties. There does not appear to be any building
mounted lights or lighting provided on the north, south or west
sides of the buildings. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of
vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections.
road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls;
Vehicular access appears to be adequate. As a means to discourage
- 38 -
-/
cut through traffic from Weeks Road. the Board might consider
eliminating the eastern access from the Ames lot on to Weeks Road.
Landscaping islands in the interior of the parking lot would also
serve to slow traffic and discourage people from cutting across the
parking lot. Numerous cross easements will be required to allow
for vehicular access across the site. These will have to be worked
out to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. 3. The location.
arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and
loading; The applicant is required to have 5 spaces per 1.000
square feet of gross leasable floor area. The actual square feet
used in determining the parking requirement for this project has to
be clarified in order to ascertain the number of spaces required.
There does not appear to be any parking spaces allocated for the
T.B.O area. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic
access and circulation. walkway structures. control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian
convenience; An additional crosswalk area should be located in
front of Ames. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities;
Rist-Frost comments have to be addressed. 6. The adequacy of
water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The project requires
the extension of the existing sewer district on Route 9. Sewer
service has to be worked out to the satisfaction of the Sewer
Department and Town Board; water service has to be worked out to
the satisfaction of the Water Department. 7. The adequacy, type
and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other sui table 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; Perimeter landscaping is for the most
part adequate. Additional evergreen screening should be provided
to supplement the existing deciduous vegetation along the rear
property line. A split rail fence should be considered along Weeks
Road. Landscaped interior islands should be provided. This would
improve the appearance of this expansive parking lot as well as
deter cut across traffic. thus improving both pedestrian and
vehicle safety. Interior landscaping on the island should include
trees to provide shade and, improve the visual impact of the parking
lot. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and
the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency accessibility appears to
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 any problems
associated with the above. RECOMMENDATION: The items raised in
the above notes should be addressed to the Board's satisfaction
prior to approval of this application."
MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have notes from Rist-Frost.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer. June 22. 1993
"Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the project and has the
following engineering comments: 1. The setback along Weeks Road
frontage should be shown as 50 feet (per Town Code 179-30.1). 2.
Handicapped parking spaces and access aisles shall each have a
minimum width of 8 feet and two handicapped parking spaces may
share an access aisle per 9 NYCRR 1102.4 (b) . The handicapped
parking layout plan and detail must be revised to comply. 3.
Regarding drainage and SWM: a. STMH 4 should be located in the
proposed grading flow line. b. The storm sewer manhole detail
should indicate catch basin sumps and traps in accordance with the
criteria given in the storm drainage report for structures CB-1.
CB-3. CB-23. CB-29. and CB-30. 4. The proposed public sewer
extension should be planned and constructed with adequate depths to
serve properties east of Route 9 and to continue to the north.
Laterals to the east should be constructed at this stage."
MR. BREWER-Lets read the Beautification's letter. then we can read
that other letter.
- 39 -
---
'---
MRS. TARANA-Beautification of May 24. 1993. regarding the Wal-Mart
Store at Route 9. "On February 8. 1993. two representatives for
Wal-Mart appeared before our committee. At that time, we expressed
concern for Pedestrian safety with 971 parking spaces and the lack
of traffic islands. We understand Wal-Mart will be appearing
before your committee and the Queensbury Committee for Community
Beautification would like to make one more attempt at having
dividers placed in the parking lot. Several months ago. a Wal-Mart
representative appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals for four
variances - 0' sideyard setback between the proposed Wal-Mart Store
and the Ames Store; Variance to permit less than 30% permeable area
(our committee informed 15% is proposed) due to pre-existing
conditions; 50' rear setback to adjacent multi-family residential
zone to the west; variance to reduce the required planted divider
strips within the parking area due to pre-existing conditions; a
hardship would be created by strict adherence to the zoning
regulations. This will be one of the largest parking lots in the
area and for the safety of the customer. we believe that the zoning
regulation for a divider strip every 100 (or 150) cars should be
enforced. Approval was given for the other three variances. so
feel parking islands shouldn't be too much to ask. especially when
it could help prevent costly accidents. Also. Northway Plaza and
other parking areas have traffic islands; Aviation Mall. too. We
hope that the Queensbury Planning Board will share our concern for
the shoppers from Queensbury and our visiting friends and
neighbors. Sincerely. Mrs. Seney. Secretary"
MR. BREWER-Okay. and this other letter. though. is to Mr. O'Connor.
though. It's not really for us. but we could read it in.
MRS. TARANA-And this is from Robert Gardens Apartments. "Dear Mr.
O'Connor: As resident manager of Robert Gardens North I listen and
respond to the concerns of the 200 families residing in our
complex. The proposed Wal-Mart store has definitely caused a stir
among the long term as well as new residents. The concerns vary.
but the single most important one is the traffic issue.
specifically the positioning of a traffic light on Rt. 9. Due to
the advanced age of the majority of our residents. they have some
difficulty exiting and entering Weeks Rd. in their cars. The high
speed and congestion of the traffic passing by on Rt. 9 only
exacerbates the problem. With the knowledge of Wal-Mart coming in.
we felt as though it would be vital to have a traffic light placed
at the entrance of Weeks Rd. After viewing the site plan with you
at the Planning Board meeting I am satisfied with the proposed
Ponderosa location. The Weeks Rd. light would be counter-
productive, only bringing in more traffic at our entrance. Let us
hope that this light will enable a left turn onto Rt. 9 without
fear of death or in the very least. a shook up little old lady! In
my monthly newsletter. I will explain the proposed signal and
hopefully alleviate some fears. The only other concerns involve
the expanded parking area and the pedestrian walkway to Greenway
North. We would like to be assured access to the walkway if
possible. The planting of trees and shrubs as well as placement of
a fence similar in size and composition to the rear perimeter fence
is requested. This will reduce the debris blowing into our complex
as well as act as a privacy buffer. When you receive the letter
from DOT denying the traffic signal at Weeks Rd. could you please
forward a copy to me? Thank you for being receptive to our
concerns. Sincerely. Kelly Dempsey Strange"
MR. BREWER-Okay. How do we want to do this? Do we want to outline
our concerns to them? Let them come back to us. and we can set up
another meeting with them?
MR. LAPOINT-I think, in a nutshell. yes.
MR. BREWER-Pretty much. Do you want to go through and address the
Staff Comments. Mr. 0' Connor. and then we'll open the public
hearing.
- 40 -
-.-
-- ,
r-'
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We'd like to. we understand. at this point.
you're not going to make a resolution with regard to the actual
project. and we understand that we are going to resubmit the submit
the application. or submit the application as it is finally
formalized at the County Planning Board. July 14th. We would like
to be able to finalize your comments and our response to your
comments before then. so that the County Planning Board is actually
looking at what comes to this Board at its July meeting. So we
don't have a question of saying one thing to one Board and another
thing to the other Board. I just say that up front so. I'll give
you our comments as to Staff's comments. If you have a response
that differs from what we think our response is. we would
appreciate hearing from you.
MR. BREWER-Okay. and I will add to that. that there's only four of
us here. If the other three have comments. we have no control over
what they are. So we are not. by any means. bound to what is just
said here tonight from us four.
MR. O'CONNOR-It probably serves no purpose. but I know that they
all were aware that this was scheduled. and I don't know if they've
submitted anything in writing. I would hope that they don't come
up with something brand new. when we meet again. to get us into a
delay function.
MR. BREWER-Well. I don't think that would be the purpose of
anybody's comments but I know Craig had an accident. and Carol was
sick. and I don't know what happened to Roger.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It's just we're partially in a problem because
of some delay that wasn't our fault. necessarily. with the County.
and I'd like to avoid that if we can.
MR. BREWER-I understand that.
MR. 0' CONNOR-As I look at the comments from Staff. I think the
first two paragraphs really don't require response. The third
paragraph indicates that the Board may request additional
information regarding truck traffic and deliveries. and with us are
two people. the person who's responsible. Shelly Johnston. for the
Traffic Study that we've had. and Dennis O'Malley. from the same
firm. Transportation Concepts. They tell me that. wi thin the
traffic study. the actual counts that are generated for this type
use included counts that would be attributable to truck traffic
that is going to go on site and off site. or be generated from the
site. In the stables that are used to generate trip traffic for a
particular use. there isn't a distinction between automobile and
truck. If that was the comment. that would be my response. If
you're talking about how truck traffic is going to be handled on
the site. Bill could probably comment on that.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I was referring to both. really.
MR. O'CONNOR-Truck traffic on site. Bill. maybe you want to
demonstrate.
BILL WHITE
MR. WHITE-For the record. my name is Bill White. and I'm with the
firm Flint. Allen. White. and Radley out of Rochester. The truck
traffic entering the site. as we've explained before. is for the
proposed Wal-Mart Store. Trucks would enter on a southern most
entrance drive. come around the perimeter of the general parking
area. to the west. north. back into their truck dock area. and exit
out the north end of the site. and down Weeks Road. The truck
traffic for Ames. and I mentioned. too. are reconfiguring the Ames
loading dock. Right now. trucks park in this manner. perpendicular
to the Ames building. We're going to reconfigure this dock. so
that the dock is situated to face the south. Trucks entering for
the Ames would come up through Weeks Road. as the presently do.
- 41 -
down the short drive here. and back in this direction. facing the
Wal-Mart property. They would exit exactly the opposite direction
in which a Wal-Mart truck would come in. They would then continue
on this way here. Our intent was to not make a large area of
asphalt pavement back in here where we could have truck
turnarounds. We wanted to. because of the buffer restrictions we
have in the back. we tried to create these one way traffic patterns
for each individual store.
MR. HARLICKER-Could you give us some idea as far as numbers.
maximum numbers maybe. like during the summer. when you're stocking
up for the Christmas time sales or whatever?
MR. WHITE-An average would be about five trucks per day. I would
say that could be a little bit heavier during the Christmas season.
and during other times.
MR. MARTIN-Is there any scheduled time of deliver?
try and make an effort to get there in the middle of
early in the morning. or late afternoon, or do they
time?
Like. do they
the night. or
just come any
MR. WHITE-The general hours of delivery are consistent with the
general store hours. which are approximately nine in the morning
until nine at night. and each store manager has the ability. then.
to adjust those hours to the market. They may find up here that
there's more people awake at 10 o'clock at night. and they'd like
to keep the store open until 10 o'clock at night. Certainly. we're
not going to have trucks here at two. three. four o'clock in the
morning. They come from a distribution center. and it takes a
while for them to get to the site. So. generally nine to nine
thirty.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. WHITE-Does the five trucks a day answer the volume question?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's as to the Wal-Mart use of the site. and the
Ames use of the site would probably be whatever exists there now.
There's no proposed change as to their footprint. except the
loading dock. The second comment in that same paragraph was that
in order to reduce the number of curb cuts. the Board may request
that the proposed access to the diner from Route 9 be eliminated.
and access be provided through a signalized drive. Typically where
we see that request. I think what you want to do is provide a
scenario where people aren't coming into a property and using the
property. and then coming back out onto Route 9 and going back into
the adjoining property. That is not what we necessarily have here.
We are proposing to have an internal means for people that are in
this site. that will enable them to go into the shopping site. as
opposed to coming back out onto Route 9. a little bit different
than up further on Route 9 where you have the Million Mile. where
all the property lines seem to come right out to the edge of the
road. and everybody who goes from site to site has to go back out
onto Route 9. Also. if you will look at the letter of March 26
from DOT, what is proposed here is not a full entrance and exit for
the diner. It is a right turn only in and a right turn only out.
and that is a requirement. or will be a requirement of their
approval. Thirdly. I'd point out the fact that if you did
eliminate this entrance and exit to the diner. you might, in fact.
create more problems along Route 9. The idea of this signal here
is to keep the traffic moving as much as possible along Route 9.
If you've got people from the diner coming out to this signal only.
which is in operation during periods that maybe the mall isn't in
operation. they're going to be triggering this light device. and
causing it to turn red. stopping the other traffic in order to get
on. You're going to not maximize the use of the green time that is
on this light. The people can come out of here with a right hand
- 42 -
--
turn. without much delay. They can go through the light when it's
green. If they were the same people exiting. but required to come
out through here. they've got to trigger this device. turn it red.
delay the traffic from north and south before they can get out.
So. it would probably be counter productive. in this particular
instance. to eliminate what is simply a right turn in and right
turn out. I don't know if that answers your comments. Scott. or
not.
MR. HARLICKER-To a degree. What about when the cars start stacking
up at that light? How are people going to get out from. you know.
the right turn out from that parking lot? Will that be impacted by
the stacking at the red light?
MR. O'CONNOR-If that's a problem. or if that's something that's
occurring at a peak hour. they themselves may come in through the
internal driveway and come out through the traffic light. It's
something that will function on a demand basis. I don't think it
will create any problems.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. STARK-Have you talked to the owners of the restaurant?
MR. O'CONNOR-The owners of the restaurant is the same as the Ames
operation.
MR. WHITE-He's a tenant of National Realty's as well. and has been
working with us in developing a plan.
MR. STARK-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-If you're looking for feedback from us. I buy your
explanation. as long as that's exclusive right hand turns. I think
that addresses that. as far as I'm concerned.
MR. O'CONNOR-I appreciate your comment. because that's what we're
really looking for. I would like to come back with as much as
possible. with a completed set of drawings that will answer your
comments. to the degree that we can. so we come to some finality.
Okay. Comment Number Two. the last sentence. Comment Number Two.
says. this buffer includes an eXisting fence and screening; no
additional screening is proposed for this area. This is along the
westerly fence. or westerly boundary line. The fencing that is
proposed is different than what is there. What is there is a six
foot high fence. and we agreed. with the ZBA. to do an eight foot
fence for the full westerly boundary. to the northerly end of the
Ames existing building.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you are requiring some screening or some additional
planting in there. we're amenable to it.
MR. HARLICKER-I mean. it just seems like there's a lot of screening
there now. but it's mostly deciduous. and come fall and winter. all
those leaves are going to be gone.
MR. BREWER-Mike. did you do One. or did you go right to Two?
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm sorry. Yes. I went right to Two. Let me finish
Two. We are amenable. if you'll quantify what you're speaking of.
MR. HARLICKER-Numbers and types of trees. is that what you're
looking for?
MR. MARTIN-I would like to see something of a Scotch Pine variety.
something that would be needles the year round. and quick growing.
and maybe reach a height that would screen the building from the
apartments. in a sufficient number to do so. I don't what that
- 43 -
'-'
would be. You would probably have a better idea than I would.
MR. HARLICKER-How is the height of this bUilding. compared to
what's there? Is it going to be higher. shorter?
MR. WHITE-About five to six feet higher than the Ames.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think it's a total height of 28. 29 feet. or
something like that?
MR. WHITE-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm sorry I skipped by One. because I looked upon that
as being engineering. As I understand it. when we get to the
engineering comments. we're willing to satisfy all comments that
are made by Rist-Frost.
MR. LAPOINT-That's good.
MR. O'CONNOR-With one reservation. and we'll get to that when we
get to the engineering comments.
MR. WHITE-My understanding. though. is that if we can address the
Town Engineer's comments on drainage. then Comment Number One.
essentially. is all set.
MR. BREWER-Is satisfied.
MR. MARTIN-Well. while we're on the buffer areas. I talked to Bill
about this today. and it wasn't in Scott's notes. He writes his
own. and in terms of the access to what is a public right-of-way
over in the Greenway North neighborhood. remember. Bill. I
mentioned this today. I'd like to see on the plan, an actual
location of the sidewalk. to extend from the existing parking lot
to the Greenway North. with that public right-of-way, and I'd like
to see that lighted. maybe some plantings along each side of it.
and make it. in line with the thinking that we're trying to come
here with this Route 9/254 study of encouraging pedestrian
transportation. I'd like to see that actively encouraged. or
aggressively encouraged.
MR. WHITE-Okay. We're agreeable to providing a pedestrian link.
We want to make it as easy as possible to get shoppers to the
store. obviously.
MR. MARTIN-And I want it lighted. so they feel safe and secure. and
a pleasant walk for them.
MR. WHITE-I do have a little bit of a concern with the lighting.
and it's a liability issue for the owner. and also the type of
materials that we provide in for the sidewalk. This being a fairly
heavily wooded area. a couple of concerns. One. I think it would
be good to try to maintain a natural wooded character in this area.
and to not go in and try to put some type of manmade material, like
conc~ete or asphalt in there. Over time. those materials can tend
to break up. and then you have people tripping over them.
MR. BREWER-And you have maintenance problems.
MR. WHITE-Right. bikes through there, and maintenance problems.
We'd like to do something nice. and have a nice heavy duty walking
path. Perhaps. place a gravel or a crushed stone. in a six foot
wide. or whatever the normal width you might have for a sidewalk.
and also my second concern would be. to actually go in and
construct something like that. to get the asphalt in there. or the
concrete in there. you're more liable to disturb some of the
existing vegetation in that area.
MR. BREWER-How about if it were timbers with crushed stone in it?
That's pretty simple.
- 44 -
'----
MR. O'CONNOR-The intention of the neighbors was. though. that it
would be a passive type accessway. and I have a problem with
liability. Are you then saying we have to maintain it year round.
and in the winter? I don't think they have any maintenance of it
now. They have no passageway there. except that they. by nature.
over a number of years have developed. and all they asked us to do
is not to fence it off. and I really have some serious problems
with getting in there and maintaining. that's some distance from
that boundary line down to where we are going to have some
development.
MR. BREWER-Wouldn't it be kind of like path that goes from. is it
Horicon over to Crandall Park?
MR. O'CONNOR-That's City maintained. as a sidewalk.
MR. BREWER-It is?
MR. STARK-Not in the winter. They don't plow that or anything over
there.
MR. BREWER-That type of a thing is what I'm speaking of.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think they do plow it in the winter. but if we're
inviting people to come to our site to shop, then we're responsible
for all sidewalks.
MR. STARK-Jim. you didn't mean for them to put a macadam walkway or
something. and then plow it in the winter, or?
MR. MARTIN-Well. I just look around at other communi ties where
these types of things are going. like I looked down in Wilton. and
they're putting in roads down there to accommodate this. and I
don't think this is asking a whole lot. either from a maintenance
standpoint. or cost of installation. I'm just asking for an
aggressive. proactive relationship with the neighboring community.
and something that will promote alternate means of transportation.
so these people don't have to get in their car in December. because
that's not shoveled. and drive around in through our over traveled
intersection to the south. and come to this store. What happens if
their sidewalk cracks in front of their store and somebody trips on
that? They're going to have a liability problem there. too. I
just don't think it's that much to ask.
MR. STARK-Would you point out where the dirt path is now?
MR. WHITE-Yes. It comes right. it's pretty easy to define. because
to extend Greenway Avenue. this comes to a dead end. You just
continue on Greenway Avenue. In fact. you can see. if you look
real closely here. where the tree line is. it's actually shown on
the plan. right through this area.
MRS. TARANA-Well. who's property is that. I mean. the end of
Greenway? Who owns that property?
MR. BREWER-Do they cut through somebody's yard? Do the neighbors
cut through somebody's yard right now to get to that?
MR. MARTIN-No. It's a public right-of-way.
against their property.
It goes right up
MR. O'CONNOR-The pavement of the Town doesn't go all the way to
the.
MR. MARTIN-No. I didn't say that.
does. The pavement does not.
I said public right-of-way
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know if we show the pavement?
MR. WHITE-We do show pavement. It ends right in this area.
- 45 -
--
-
MR. 0' CONNOR-There's pavement in here. and you've got a strip
between here and where the boundary line would begin. and you've
got what is just a natural path that they've used over the years.
When we talked to the neighbors. particularly Danny Olson who lives
right next to there. he. on behalf of the other neighbors. just
said. don't block us off. We said we will leave that open.
MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm getting at is. where Greenway Drive
ends. who owns the property between there and where your property
is?
MR. O'CONNOR-Probably the Town of Queensbury.
MR. WHITE-The Town of Queensbury owns the right-of-way.
MR. MARTIN-It's a publicly owned right-of-way. The pavement does
not go all the way to the end of the property.
MR. O'CONNOR-I truthfully don't know
subdivision were dedicated. whether
prescription. or by deeds.
how those roads in
they were there
the
by
MR. STARK-Do you have any lights planned down that. right now? I
know where you've got the lights and the poles and the thing. That
one there. that's the closest one?
MR. WHITE-This one. and there's also a light here.
MR. BREWER-I think it's something that could be looked at. in my
opinion. I agree with Jim.
MRS. TARANA-I agree with Jim as well. I think it's a good idea.
and it fits right in with the traffic things we've been talking
about.
MR. STARK-Who. in December. when it's snowing out. I'm not going to
walk. if I lived on Greenway North. over to here.
MR. BREWER-You wouldn't walk 50 feet? You'd get in your car and
drive a mile?
MR. STARK-I'm going to be shopping. then I've got to buy stuff and
then walk back?
MR. O'CONNOR-Fifty feet is the first house. then you get further
back into the subdivision. you're talking.
MR. STARK-You're talking three. four hundred feet.
entrance to the store?
Where's the
MR. WHITE-Here. I was actually out there a couple of times this
past winter. looking at the condition of those fences. and even
during the heaviest snows. there was a worn path there. There are
people that use path.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So that answers your question. George. Who uses
the path over at Crandall Park?
MR. MARTIN-The other thing I would point out is the distance from
the front of the parking lot to the front of the store is some
several hundred feet. and I mean. just in the parking lot. If you
run that radius out into the neighborhood.
MR. BREWER-Okay. We can have that looked at?
MR. WHITE-Yes. I'm not sure that we can come to a resolution on
the type of materials.
MR. BREWER-I wouldn't say a concrete or asphalt.
- 46 -
-
MR. MARTIN-No.
MR. BREWER-Crushed stone or whatever.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd be amenable to that.
should be encouraged.
I just thought that
MR. LAPOINT-Lets ask the neighbors one more time. because. again.
if they want a foot path. that's the way it should be.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-I mean. they may say. no. a sidewalk's too much. I
don't know. Lets ask the neighbors on it. and see what they want.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll agree with that.
MR. O'CONNOR-You asked for architectural elevations of the
buildings. and we have those with us this evening.
MR. WHITE-Yes. I could present those to you if you like. Could we
go back to that one topic. though. because I wasn't sure. Jim. when
I talked to you. There's also a path in this direction. that comes
from the apartment residence. in this area.
MR. MARTIN-I'd like to encourage it among all neighbors. If it's
the tenants of the apartments. if that can be accomplished. that's
fine also.
MR. WHITE-Possible provide a link?
MR. MARTIN-Exactly.
MR. WHITE-Okay. We'll work on that. as well. I have some
different elevations. I'll share them. and you can pass these
along. This one happens to be a SuperCenter in Arkansas. but it's
the same exact building materials and building types.
MR. MARTIN-We also have. we can make copies in our office. We have
elevations on the building permit application. There's elevations
off of that.
MR. STARK-You're going to have the same outside?
MR. WHITE-It looks exactly the same.
MR. STARK-That's the color you plan, light blue?
MR. WHITE-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay. We can move on.
MR. 0' CONNOR-The next comment was that Staff suggested that we
relocate the Ames sign on the Ames property. and that we can do.
We'll probably locate it to the north side of the entranceway on
the Ames parcel.
MR. BREWER-Whereabouts are you? I'm lost.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is on Page Two of comments. Paragraph Number One.
the middle of that paragraph. Okay. The next comment is a general
thing. We have no problem with it. All lighting on the exterior
will be indirect lighting. There is lighting. security lighting.
on the southwest side of the building. but it will be indirect.
which is typically approved by the Board. Point Two was ~ehicle
access appears to be adequate. and we get back to the discussions
that we've had from Day One. as to means to discourage cut through
traffic from Weeks Road. The Board might consider eliminating the
eastern access from the Ames lot onto Weeks Road. We have
reservation with eliminating those access from Weeks Road. We
- 47 -
'''"",,--
presently have an access here and here. Right now. if you go to
the site. this whole entire area is open. What we propose to do is
do landscaping between the two entrances. and have actual curb cuts
which we think will help mitigate any tendency to cut through
there. In fact. we talked about having this landscaping bermed to
a height of three to four feet. which would answer the letter from
Robert Gardens North as to. perhaps. fencing along this boundary to
keep any debris on site. on site. We do not believe that when the
traffic light is put on here. that the people who are coming out of
Weeks Road will find it as hard to get onto Route 9 as they
presently do. and it wouldn't make a lot of sense for these people
to shoot through the parking lot. with the problems of going
through a parking lot. a~ opposed to coming down to Weeks Road and
coming out with the signal. The signal will not be at that
intersection. but because the signal presence here is going to
cause some interruption of traffic. pontooning of traffic I think
Shelly referred to it the last time we were here. which will allow
people to have better access out there. So we propose. as our
mitigation. that we will berm this area between the entrances. and
landscaping.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. WHITE-If I could just add one thing to that. and I know you
want to move along here. but the reason we did originally design
this with two access points is so that we don't concentrate our
vehicle traffic with our pedestrian traffic. With the entrance to
the Ames Store right here. if this entrance were to be eliminated.
it would tend to force the traffic coming in from Weeks Road. right
across the front of the store where we have the heaviest pedestrian
movement. and we want try to avoid those type of conflicts.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the rest of the paragraph follows. in general.
the same discussion. If you will recall. and I think even the
Beautification Committee, may not have seen this plan. with this
island here. that comes down through the entire site.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think they did.
MR. HARLICKER-They've seen the most recent plans.
MR. MARTIN-When your associate was up. Bill. that's the night they
saw it.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-This was put in for the purpose of having some general
break up of the entire site. which went along with the variance we
obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals saying that we did not
need to segment each 150 stalls, and that's the reason we sought
and obtained that variance.
MR. BREWER-You got a variance so that you don't have to put the
dividers in?
MR. O'CONNOR-The dividers in.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. That was one of the variances they got. That was
the plan approved by the Zoning Board. that plan there.
MR. BREWER-The ZBA approved this plan right here?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Yes. This is from the Beautification Committee.
MR. MARTIN-I think you have the Beautification letter. predates
their actual meeting. which the meeting notes are there from. I
- 48 -
-
think. June 7th. is the night. where they have their typical forum.
MR. BREWER-This is May 24th. this letter.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. and then the date of the Committee Minutes is June
7th. and that's the night that somebody was there from Bill's
office.
MR. BREWER-So the Beautification Committee is happy with this?
MR. 0' CONNOR-We have a letter with a preliminary approval. Is
that?
MR. WHITE-Well. the meeting with the Beautification Committee.
unfortunately only two members were present. and! don't think that
we were able to get a lot of good input from the Beautification
Committee at their meeting.
MR. MARTIN-That was true for everything that came before them that
night. They were all just preliminary approvals because they
didn't have a quorum.
MR. BREWER-How does everybody else feel about it?
MR. LAPOINT-No problem.
MRS. TARANA-About what?
MR. BREWER-About not putting any dividers in?
MRS. TARANA-!'m not real crazy about that. No.
MR. BREWER-How many parking spaces without dividers are there?
MR. O'CONNOR-On the Ames side. we end up with 370.
MR. WHITE-Three hundred seventy on the Ames side.
MR. O'CONNOR-And 600 on the Wal-Mart side.
MR. WHITE-That's total for the entire parcel. The Wal-Mart side.
that includes all this and these spaces down here. ! believe
there's about 100 of them down here. and maybe 450 or so in this
area. and 50. actually. on this side. they're technically Wal-Mart
spaces within the property.
MR. BREWER-So what about one more row of dividers?
MR. WHITE-We physically couldn't fit another row of dividers on the
site. We have this as tight as we can to this buffer here. We
have our stalls spaced 60 feet on center. all the way across. and
we're as tight as we can be at this property line here. with the
one divider strip.
MR. O'CONNOR-We had four feet to spare when we initially laid it
out. and that's how we created that island down through there.
MR. HARLICKER-But you guys have got in excess of 168 spaces. Why
can't you eliminate some of those excess spaces? According to your
calculations. you only need 802. and you're proposing 970.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's meeting the standards. or the minimum standards
of the Ordinance. We would like to exceed the minimum standards of
the Ordinance. because of what we think will be our actual need on
site. We don't want to create a traffic problem.
MR. BREWER-So what you're saying is if you put another four foot
strip in there. you think you're going to lose business because you
don't have that many more parking spaces?
- 49 -
'---"
MR. WHITE-It's not that we're going to lose business. it's that
people are going to be parking along Route 9. parking on Weeks
Road. parking on any area they can find. It could happen.
MR. BREWER-How many spaces would it eat up. if you put another?
MR. WHITE-We'd essentially lose a whole.
MR. BREWER-How many spaces?
MR. WHITE-Thirty. forty.
MR. BREWER-So 30 or 40 from almost 1.000 is going to make that big
of a difference?
MR. WHITE-It will in this case. because your normal parking
requirements are six and a half per thousand.
MR. BREWER-If you're exceeded by one hundred and some odd spots.
MR. MARTIN-Maybe there's a compromise ground. here. Remember. I
don't know if Scott got into his comments specifically about. do
you see on your plan there. where you have these cart storage areas
out in the middle of the lot?
MR. WHITE-Cart trailers?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. The parking space that directly opposes that.
could that be a planted island that opposes that. that would break
it uP. going north and south?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You could put a whole row across it and only
lose maybe 14 spaces.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think part of the problem there would be maintenance
during the winter. and the snowplowing.
MR. MARTIN-I know these things are always problems.
dispute that.
I don't
MR. O'CONNOR-Another thing you've got to go back to. and you've got
to remember that when we asked for the variance for the lack of
dividers. if you will. from the ZBA, and we agreed. at that time.
to do extra planting. and to actual berm what was down here. so
that we would have some site break ups. We agreed to put this in
to get the site break up from over on Weeks Road. from what is even
there today. Right now if you went up there. you're going to see
more parking visible from Weeks Road. and particularly after we
berm this here. I think part of what you're talking about is
aesthetics. and what you can see. We have pretty well, by
perimeter plantings and berming. blocked the visibility off site.
MR. BREWER-Is there. where you just came down on Weeks Road. where
the line juts in. and then back down again. what's to the right of
that?
MR. O'CONNOR-This is the Chinese Restaurant here.
MR. BREWER-That's all parking there?
HR. O'CONNOR-No. That's not our property.
MR. BREWER-There's not going to be plantings there. then. right. if
that's green?
MR. O'CONNOR-That's not our property.
MR. BREWER-No. on the edge of your line.
MR. O'CONNOR-On the edge of the line.
- 50 -
,,/
---
...../
MR. WHITE-There's a small amount of green space here. There's
probably about a five to six foot strip between the edge of the
curb. and our property line. We could probably get some plants.
There's enough area in here to add some additional plantings. if
that would be the intent of this Planning Board.
MR. BREWER-Yes. I can't recall exactly what it looks like.
MR. LAPOINT-Put them in. I mean. there's a split rail fence there
now, isn't there, where the Chinese Restaurant is?
MR. WHITE-Guard rails.
MR. LAPOINT-Guard rails. Okay.
MR. BREWER-It just would seem that breaking up the parking lot
somewhat would be more desirable.
MRS. TARANA-I would think so. too. Aren't your parking spaces also
nine and a half feet. and aren't they only required to be nine
feet?
MR. WHITE-Nine and a half feet on the Wal-Mart portion. here. nine
on the Ames.
MR. BREWER-So you could pick up your spaces if you put the
plantings in here.
MRS. TARANA-If you made your parking spaces the required size.
MR. WHITE-Yes. but we can't accept a nine foot stall.
build a parking lot with nine foot stalls.
We won't
MR. O'CONNOR-They don't think it works.
MR. WHITE-They know it doesn't work. because your customers come in
and complain to them about their door dings. trying to put shopping
carts.
MR. BREWER-Can you. when you come back. see what you maybe can do
with some plantings down in the bottom. where Jim suggested?
MR. WHITE-In this area here?
MR. BREWER-No.
MRS. TARANA-In the middle of the parking lot.
MR. WHITE-In this area here?
MRS. TARANA-Somewhere it's got to be broken up.
MR. WHITE-We do have. in this area here. some striped islands.
MRS. TARANA-Yes. but we're talking about up in the middle of that
parking lot. right in the center of that.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. you could put landscaped islands all the way
across there. north to south. and only lose 14 spaces. out of 970.
MR. BREWER-I don't think it's going to make that big a difference.
MR. HARLICKER-I mean. the other retail projects in town are able to
do it.
MR. WHITE-We're short on parking. I'm telling you.
can say.
That's all I
MR. BREWER-I know, but there has to be.
- 51 -
~.--.- .
/'
'-..
MR. O'CONNOR-That's why we went and got a variance. This argument
was not brought up when we got the variance.
MR. HARLICKER-You've got this massive parking lot. and you can't
provide landscaped islands and lose 14 parking spaces. It's just.
it kind of boggles my mind.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's why we applied for the variance.
MR. HARLICKER-I'm not talking about a planted divider. I'm talking
about landscaped islands.
MR. BREWER-We're not saying for every 150 or 200. Mr. O'Connor.
We're saying some. for 600 parking spaces. is to lose 14 space too
much?
MR. WHITE-It is when you need about 800 spaces. and we only have
600.
MR. BREWER-Then maybe that's not the perfect location for it.
MR. WHITE-Maybe not.
MRS. TARANA-Maybe the building's too big.
MR. BREWER-That's our comments anyway. You can take it any way you
want.
MR. STARK-Excuse me. Mike. I don't think it's the whole Board's
comments.
MR. BREWER-No. our comments.
MR. STARK-No. That's not mY comment.
MR. BREWER-No.
MRS. TARANA-No. individual's comments.
MR. BREWER-We don't know about the other three.
MR. WHITE-I will go back. and I will talk to Wal-Mart and see if
there's something we can work out there.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. WHITE-Because I do see your concerns. and Scott too. It would
be nice to have some green space in here. but.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I mean. provide shade.
MR. MARTIN-I was down to the Wilton Mall this weekend. and it's a
wasteland. I mean. the plantings are so insufficient. that when
the cars do pull against the island. you look over the horizon. and
you can't even see the plantings. because they don't even come
above the cars. It's horrible.
MR. HARLICKER-I mean. the plantings that are proposed on the
islands that are there. for the most part. are just bushes. They
aren't trees. They're Junipers. which are fairly low bushes.
MR. WHITE-Which are these?
MR. HARLICKER-On the landscaped islands. at the very south there.
all along in there. Those are Junipers. and the landscaping up in
the corner. the southeast corner. right up in front of the store
there. in the parking lot. right in front of. right in there.
Those are all Junipers. So what's there is low growth shrubs to
begin with. It's nice you've got a big parking lot. Provide a
little shade.
- 52 -
-
MR. O'CONNOR-Are you satisfied?
MR. LAPOINT-No. You're not gOing to get. you've heard us. We want
plantings. or some of us want plantings in the middle of the
parking lot. I mean. we've just got to stop discussing it and move
on.
MR. O'CONNOR-The next comment is. numerous cross easements will be
required to allow vehicle access across the site. We acknowledge
that. It will have to be worked out to the satisfaction of the
Town Attorney. I'm lost by that. I think in your approval. you
can indicate that each separate lot will have a right of access
across the other property. for the purpose of ingress and egress.
MR. HARLICKER-I mean. who's going to. I don't know. who's going to
determine if they're sufficient. or is that just something that's
going to be worked out between the two property owners?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. 0' CONNOR-And there's a lot of working out. it's going to
require a lot of back and forth. and if we changed it 15 times. as
sharing of maintenance and things like that. I don't want to come
back to the Town Attorney each time.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-We'll just assure you that we will have mutual
easements, ingress and egress across each site. Comment Three was
simply because on an earlier plan we had shown 608 as the required
number of parking spots. Basically. we weren't trying to look at
the Ordinance. I guess. when we said that. If you look at the
Ordinance. and you look at the definition of Gross Leasable Space.
we have a handout to give you tonight. and we will include it in
the future filings. of the actual requirement. by the Ordinance.
On the Wal-Mart site it's 522 parking spaces. and we are providing
600. and on the Ames. it's 280. and we are providing 370.
MR. MARTIN-I'd make sure you get that in your next submission. so
the County has the benefit of that as well. given that was one of
their concerns.
MR. O'CONNOR-Everybody seemed to raise a concern. We showed no
discount for storage or service areas. which is part of the
definition of Gross Leasable Space. define five space per 1.000.
If you take out the storage area of the just the Wal-Mart building.
you end up with the figures that we've got. So we can satisfy that
comment. Is that satisfactory?
MR. YARMOWICH-That's fine.
MR. HARLICKER-What about. there doesn't appear to be any spaces
allocated for the Tire. Brake. and Oil area over there. How is
that going to work out?
MR. O'CONNOR-Even given that 5170 square feet. that gets us to the
5.2.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay. but what I'm concerned about is there's no,
where. somebody's going to come back later and pick up their car.
That sort of stuff.
MR. MARTIN-Is it along the Garden Center parking?
MR. WHITE-We originally had some spaces back in there.
MR. MARTIN-And you had to eliminate it because of the neighbors.
- 53 -
-
----
MR. WHITE-The neighbors requested it. that we remove them. So we
moved them. So what would happen is the vehicles that use the TBO
area will utilize that perpendicular parking near the Garden
Center. It's the closest parking.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Will that be signed as such. or. no reason to?
MR. WHITE-No. but when there is parking near the TBO area. that's
not signed either.
MR. HARTIN-Okay. All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Comment Four. you asked for the additional crosswalk
area to be located in front of Ames.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I mean. you provide it in front of Wal-Hart.
That's all.
MR. O'CONNOR-Comment Five we've addressed. We will comply with the
drainage comments of Rist-Frost. Comment Six. we understand. and
we are working on getting together an existing sewer district
expansion. and we understand that this is subject to that taking
place.
MR. HARTIN-Yes.
together?
What's the status on that?
Is that coming
MR. O'CONNOR-We have been talking to the intermediate owners. if
you will. as to easements. and we are progressing. I think. very
favorably. We did supply to the Town Surveyor, and I'm not sure if
he's working as the Town Engineer or not. but to Leon Steves and
Mr. Nace. and exact set of our construction plans. because
apparently they are talking about having the sewer district extend
beyond our property line to the north. to include other properties.
and we've cooperated with them. We've given them our information
to date. I don't know where they stand with that. As I understand
it. there may be one extension to include our property and
properties to the north. or maybe relate to our district extension
and then a second one. We do have a comment on Rist-Frost' s
comments with regard to the sewer. and that was the question as to
whether or not our sewer would be at a depth that would allow
laterals to be installed to the properties to the east of Route 9.
Bill wanted to comment on that.
MR. WHITE-Yes. In general. with the Rist-Frost comments. we're
okay with them. I think they're pretty minor. One thing I need to
work out with Rist-Frost is that it's his suggestion that we bring
the laterals across New York State 9. when we're constructing a
sewer on our side of the road. and. obviously. we can't open cut
Route 9 because it's in fairly good condition. and it's very
unlikely the State DOT will allow us to open cut in that area.
Have you been through this before?
MR. HARTIN-No. but what you're saying makes a lot of sense.
MR. O'CONNOR-Was that his intention?
just heard those comments tonight.
tonight.
I didn't think that was. We
or 1. heard those comments
MR. WHITE-That's the way I viewed that last comment. is that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I thought he was talking about just making it deep
enough. so that people could hook in.
MR. WHITE-I think his comments said to extend the laterals.
HR. BREWER-Laterals to the east should be constructed at this
stage.
- 54 -
MR. WHITE-What we'd like to do is provide the wide connection in
here.
MR. MARTIN-No. I think what he's saying is that they have to be
at a proper depth. If people from the east want to connect
through. then they'd be responsible for making the crossover Route
9.
MR. WHITE-I just. I don't think it should be our responsibility to
construct the laterals across Route 9.
MR. BREWER-I agree with you. I agree with you 100 percent.
MR. MARTIN-No. no. no. He's just saying that. at an adequate depth
for future laterals to be served.
MR. O'CONNOR-I've got a whole book on what the Sewer Department has
required. and we are going to comply with that. As I understand
it. even the properties on the west side that we go by are not
necessarily going to be included in the sewer district extension
because they don't want to have to pay taxes. They have present
working septic systems.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-We will put like a four foot stub to most of those
properties. and then in the future. if they want to petition to
join. they can join. because what we're doing is going to be
approved by the Sewer Department. and I don't want to overtake
their jurisdiction. Number Seven. the comment that we haven't
addressed in Number Seven. they're talking about a split rail fence
should be considered along Weeks Road. We actually are talking
about berming that landscaping to three or four feet. which I think
would be better than a split rail fence.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. HARLICKER-Will we get a revised landscaping plan that shows the
berm. new landscaping. and stuff like that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Again. you're back to the issue of the interior
landscaping on the islands.
MR. BREWER-We already did that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Eight. I don't think. requires comment. Nine does not
appear to require comment. There's a letter from the neighbor to
the north. Robert Gardens Apartments. I think we've addressed. by
agreeing to do the berming. and agreeing to do the open pathway to
Robert Gardens South. Rist-Frost. basically. I think we've
answered. We will comply with all of their suggestions except for
construction of laterals to the east.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have any comments. before I
open the public hearing?
MR. MARTIN-I just want to go on the record. too. as saying. in
terms of this County business. there was a mistake with our office
wi th how the material was handled. It was not the fault of the
applicant. It was not the fault of the County office. They've
submi tted their site plans. at the time of their Preliminary
subdivision approval. as one packet. We didn't rip them apart. We
were supposed to take the site plan out and save it for future use.
We sent them all off. We didn't have any copies left. The site
plan. three page application. just came in. and that's all that
went to the County. and it was an oversight on our part.
MR. WHITE-The comment I wanted to make is. during our subdivision
approval last week. it seemed that a couple of Board members had
some concerns on traffic. So. we've gotten Shelly to come here
- 55 -
tonight and to talk about any traffic issues you may have as a
concern. unless. I want to try and put this whole traffic thing to
rest. because it seemed to me there were still some concerns.
MR. MARTIN-And we also have an internal memorandum from DOT. too,
that was given to the Board tonight.
MR. BREWER-Do we have that. Jim? Is it in here?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'll just highlight. I would encourage you.
certainly. to read the whole thing. but the third paragraph down on
Page Two. the last sentence. "Therefore. the Department's decision
will not be reconsidered." And he's referencing possible shift of
the light to Weeks Road. This is from Mark Kennedy. and he's just
saying. it's a done deal.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
hearing.
All right.
I guess we'll open the public
MR. O'CONNOR-Does the Board have any comment on the traffic?
MR. BREWER-! don't. personally.
MRS. TARANA-I'm not going to say I don't. right now. I've spent a
lot of time reading this traffic thing. and. are we having a
Workshop Session on this?
MR. BREWER-I would like to. yes.
MRS. TARANA-Is that what happens after this?
MR. MARTIN-Well. yes. That's up to the Board. in terms of how you
handle it from this point on. but in terms of traffic. we've got a
traffic study. It's been finalized by the applicant. and we have
DOT's signing off on the traffic light at the northern entrance in
front of the Diner.
MR. BREWER-I guess what I'd like to do is maybe arrange to get the
rest of the Board here. and have some kind of a special meeting.
get their concerns out for you before you go to the County. You
can give them to the County and then come back to us. and you have
all of our concerns.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think. with our timetable. to be honest with you.
Mr. Brewer. we'd rather go forward with your comments tonight,
amend our plans. and try and argue our way through. if somebody's
got something new that hasn't been brought to our attention
tonight. We would very much like to be well on the way. in the
very near future.
MR. BREWER-But there's no guarantee that there's not going to be
comments forthcoming. I'm just trying to help you.
MR. 0' CONNOR-Okay. I understand that. but I think we'd rather
proceed as we would in a good. orderly. business manner. We do
have both people here tonight. We have Shelly Johnston. who did
the actual traffic study for this site. and we have Dennis O'Malley
who was involved in the corridor study more so than Shelly was. in
terms of the roles that they played. and I asked them both to be
here tonight Corinne. because you indicated that there may be. in
your mind, some conflict in our presentation. and I'd like to
address that. if nothing else. as far as traffic goes.
MRS. TARANA-I don't know if I. did I say conflicts? I have
questions about the traffic study. I don't know if we want to go
through all that. to tell you the truth.
MR. MARTIN-Now's the time.
MR. O'CONNOR-Now's the time. I think.
- 56 -
-
MRS. TARANA-Okay. I don't have any solutions to these problems.
I guess that's the first thing I want to say. but I just am
concerned about what I see happening there. Do you remember last
time I said that coming out of Country Club Road was a problem
because of the traffic light? In the beginning it was okay? I
keep looking at it trying to figure out what's happening there.
One thing that's happening there is the lights aren't coordinated.
okay. so that you can't get out of Country Club Road sometimes.
The other thing is. there's a. going toward Hudson Falls. there's
a white line where people are supposed to stop if they're going to
turn left onto Country Club Road. They don't do it. They jam up
that whole intersection of Country Club Road. I'm just pointing
that out because I don't want to see that kind of thing happening
up there. That's the trouble with Country Club Road.
DENNIS O'MALLEY
MR. O'MALLEY-Maybe I could say something to that. Just for the
record. my name is Dennis O'Malley. I'm with Transportation
Concepts. and while I have not been in detailed involvement with
this particular project and site. I did get involved. and I have
been a Project Manager for the corridor studies. and as an adjunct
to that. we're currently involved with the Town in looking at more
specifically the Route 9 and 254 area. if you will. with respect
to. specifically. the intersection of Aviation Road and Quaker Road
and Route 9. but the purpose of that study is to look at mechanisms
that give alternatives to people within the transportation system.
within that particular project area. Some of those ideas are
voiced tonight. we've heard. giving availability to pedestrians to
migrate from residential areas to retail areas and so forth. and
that study is pretty well just beginning. Corinne brings up some
very good points. Those points were identified as part of the
Corridor Studies. I think one of the things we've found. not
surprisingly. in regard to the people who use Aviation Road and
Quaker Road. that the traffic signals need to be coordinated very
badly. You can travel from. all the way to the Northway down past
Ridge. and find that you can stop at the majority of the traffic
signals. In fact. it's down to pretty close to five minutes out of
every ten spent on Quaker Road is spent waiting at a traffic
signal. and part of what we're doing with the Quaker Road and Route
9 study that includes this particular project is to look at
alternatives that hopefully improve that kind of flow. She brings
up some valid points. I think that's the product of what we're
trying to do with the 9 and 254 studies. to look at those things in
more detail. and make some long term. comprehensive recommendations
with respect to traffic and transportation. Unfortunately. at this
particular point in time. this site is a stand alone site. It's
being offered as a stand alone site. You have to look at it on its
own merits. wi thin the system of Route 9 and so forth. It was
reviewed by DOT within that purview. and at this point. since
recommendations are not forthcoming for the 9 and 254 study for
another couple of months probably. this site has to move forward.
We obviously are going to be looking at trying to do the things
like Jim has mentioned before making the connections and so forth.
and making this as compatible as we possibly can. but we think that
study. the 9 and 254 Study. would go a long ways towards looking in
a broader perspective at the impacts of sites such as this. and
incorporating into them more comprehensive plans to give people
alternatives. rather than having to get in an automobile and travel
through key intersections. that at this point in time. they have
more traffic than they necessarily have to.
MRS. TARANA-I reiterated some of this stuff the last time. I guess
I find it hard to believe that traffic is going to equally impact
Wal-Marts from the north and south. I just find that hard to
believe.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think what you have before you is the results of
actual counts.
- 57 -
--
MRS. TARANA-I know. I know.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think there was 55. 45, and one week day study. and
then there was 50 50 on a Saturday and Sunday.
MR. MARTIN-What time of the year were the counts taken. Shelly?
SHELLY JOHNSTON
MS. JOHNSTON-The counts were taken. exactly. at the 9 and 254
intersection. they were taken in August and in October. and at the
intersection ad j acent to the site. they were taken in November.
That table that's on Page 9. that shows the distribution of
traffic. what it's showing you is approximately 35 percent of the
traffic we estimate is going to come from the north. It's not 50.
50. but the existing traffic volumes on Route 9. that are at that
intersection. near Sweet Road. are roughly 50 percent. northbound.
and 50 percent southbound now. So our distribution is based on
both eXisting traffic patterns in the area. and where we think
traffic is gOing to come from to get to the site.
MRS. TARANA-Well. I guess what I can't figure out is how that much
traffic would be coming from the north. when 254 is your main
arterial from Hudson Falls. and those towns that way. and Aviation
Road brings in your traffic from the Northway. that's going to go
to Wal-Mart. That's all coming from the south up.
MS. JOHNSTON-So 65 percent we're saying. Sixty-five percent of the
traffic going to Wal-Mart is going to come from the south.
MRS. TARANA-That's not what we heard last time. am I right?
MR. MARTIN-Well. no. the counts say. 50. 50. but she's saying in
her calculations. you use 65 per~ent. is going to come from the
south.
MRS. TARANA-It makes a little bit more sense to me. from what I've
heard before.
MR. MARTIN-But what I think what's skewing the numbers a little
bit. Corinne. is the fact that the counts were taken in August.
during a prime tourist season. and a lot of people might be coming
down from the north. in an inordinantly large number. That's the
only explanation I can offer.
MS. JOHNSTON-The count. though. that was done immediately adjacent
to the site. at Weeks and Montray.
MR. MARTIN-Were done in November?
MS. JOHNSTON-Were done in November.
MR. MARTIN-And it still showed a 50. 50 split?
MS. JOHNSTON-That's correct.
MR. LAPOINT-That's because people who go up come back.
it's just that simple.
I me an .
MRS. TARANA-Yes. and they're also not going to Wal-Mart yet.
MR. LAPOINT-I mean. the purpose of the traffic study is to
eliminate this confusion. and when you don't believe the numbers.
you're throwing everything right out.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. I guess this is what I read. after the
conversation we had last time. The traffic volumes counted at the
two existing driveways and Route 9 for the Ames Plaza indicate that
a majority of the peak hour site traffic approaches from the south
and turns left into the site. Now that's not what we were told the
- 58 -
.......
last time. Am I write?
MR. MARTIN-Well. I just read the count numbers off the chart there.
MRS. TARANA-Well. I just read what it says here. and it's
contradictory from what we were told.
MR. O'CONNOR-Corinne. can you identify where you are on the report?
MRS. TARANA-I'm looking at Page 9, the same page she's on. and it
says. and the reason I raised that question originally was because
of the intersection of Route 9 and 254 being such a poor
intersection. Level of Service D. E. one or the other.
MR. MARTIN-D. in three of the four cases.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. and the Town is looking at the impact on that
intersection. and you've got to assume that Wal-Mart is going to
impact that to a great extent because of all the traffic coming
from the south through that intersection to get to Wal-Mart. That
was the point I was raising. and I was told that the traffic is 50.
50 from the north and the south. but even your report doesn't say
that. unless I'm reading it wrong. on Page 9.
MR. BREWER-She's saying the projected numbers are going to be 65.
35.
MR. MARTIN-I think there's one flaw in that. and you can. or
there's one correction to that. is you're assuming. then. that all
traffic coming into Wal-Mart is new. and it's not. They're taking
some of the pass-by that's already there.
MR. BREWER-The majority of the traffic going into the Plaza is
probably turning left. but not all the traffic turns into the
Plaza.
MRS. TARANA-No. I'm not even trying to second guess that kind of
thing. I'm just trying to say that I asked some questions. and I
just felt like the information was not consistent. Now. when I
read this. this makes sense to me. that the majority of the traffic
is coming from the south. and that's what you determined.
MS. JOHNSTON-Right. The majority of the traffic now is turning
into the eXisting Plaza. what's coming from the south. Therefore.
we estimate at 65 percent. a majority would come from the south and
turn left into the site. Thirty-five percent would come from the
north. However. I think maybe your confusion is stemming from the
point that right now the volumes on Route 9 are pretty much 50. 50.
The peak hour traffic volumes are fairly even split on Route 9.
However. the traffic is not going to mirror that that comes to the
site. and that's what I tried to convey in the traffic study.
MRS. TARANA-I hate to take up this time. because some of them have
already been answered. Some of this stuff. I'm just not going to
bother. I think it's technical stuff. Like I was. I had a
question about the reserve capacity. It's supposed to be that the
greater the reserve capacity. the intersections will work better.
right and left. and then when I look at Page 13. and where the
traffic light is going to go in. those reserve capacities go down
with the retail store. and I wondered why they wouldn't go up. if
the traffic light is justified there.
MS. JOHNSTON-Now. Page 13. What exact area are you talking about?
MRS. TARANA-The Route 9 Ames Plaza and Ponderosa intersection.
That's where the light will be.
MS. JOHNSTON-Right. Right at the top of the page, at Table A.
those are unsignalized analogies. which basically is showing you
how that driveway would operate if there were no signal there.
- 59 -
-
What I was trying to demonstrate is that signaling
that intersection would be benefitted by a signal.
a description of the operation with a signal.
signal.
required there.
So this is not
It's without a
MRS. TARANA-Which is what greater reserve capacity means. right.
without a signal?
MS. JOHNSTON-What you're doing now is comparing the criteria for
unsignalized with signalized intersections. which are different.
Reserve capacity. right there. in that table. for Table A. on Page
13. describes an unsignalized intersection operation. but
signalized intersections are described by delay. seconds of delay.
So what you're dOing now is really comparing apples and oranges.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. So. if I look at Page 5. on Page 5 it says.
intersection will operate better with greater reserve capacity.
This is talking about unsignalized intersections. right?
MS. JOHNSTON-That's correct.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. So. if I look at Page 13. without the retail
store. the reserve capacity is greater than with it at that
intersection?
MS. JOHNSTON-That's correct.
MRS. TARANA-So. is that telling me that with that traffic light
there. the reserve capacity is going down?
MS. JOHNSTON-No. That's not what that's telling you. What that's
telling you is. given the existing control out there right now. the
stop signs right now. and if you put the store there without those
lights. the reserve capacity would go down. There would be
internal delay.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. which it does in almost every other case. as
well. right. at those intersections.
MS. JOHNSTON-Those intersections. that's correct.
MRS. TARANA-Every one of them does. so that's obviously not just
the only criteria for putting in the signalized light?
MS. JOHNSTON-That's correct.
MRS. TARANA-When you look at a traffic study. you went to 1993. It
says. I'm on Page 17. it is anticipated that these intersections
(talking about 9 and 254 and 9 and the Northway Plaza) may continue
to operate at existing Levels of Service for the 1993 design year
without any improvements. Do you look beyond '93? That doesn't
get in this report. right?
MS. JOHNSTON-Not in this report. We followed the typical DOT
Standards for a traffic impact study. which essentially. you
analyze the existing conditions and analyze the conditions when you
anticipate the store will be open. We started traffic impact
studies back in November. and at that time. we thought. within a
year. this store will be open. So you analyzed pre and post
conditions. So. it's comprehensive studies like the 9 and 254
study that get into the future.
MRS. TARANA-That will look at the future of?
MS. JOHNSTON-That's correct.
MRS. TARANA-Ten year span. twenty year span?
MS. JOHNSTON-I don't know what the span is.
- 60 -
~
MR. MARTIN-Our. the study is going to look at a three to five year
span. and then the local MPO. the Glens Falls Transportation
Council. is charged with putting together a 20 year plan. that's
supposed to be done by this fall. They're going to do their best
to get a draft document done. and hopefully have that finalized
over the winter. So the MPO is looking at the 20 year for the
entire Metropolitan Region. here. which encompasses the Glens Falls
Transportation Council area. which is essentially the three county
area of Northern Saratoga. Washington. and Warren County. Southern
Washington and Warren County. They're charged with a 20 year plan.
Ours has got a time frame of a shorter nature. three to five years,
and any improvements or projected growth rates and that time frame.
MRS. TARANA-So the study that they do just goes through the year
1993.
MR. MARTIN-She's right. Those are the DOT Standards for a traffic
study. pre and post development.
MRS. TARANA-Then on Page 19. I had a question about the. one of the
recommendations. it says it is recommended that the new pavement
strips allow for both left turns into the site driveway and into
Montray Road. I'm wonderinÇJ if that's going to create the same
kind of a situation as we have at Aviation Mall. where people are
coming from the north. turning right. and trying to take a left.
Do you know how those little lefts go off to get into Aviation
Mall. and the traffic backs up. It just gets stuck there. and I'm
wondering if this is going to create the same type of situation?
MS. JOHNSTON-I didn't follow you. I can't make the analogy with
the Aviation Mall because I'm not familiar with the operation.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. Well. when you go into Aviation Mall. coming
north. taking a right. they have these little left turn lanes which
you're proposing. am I right? At Montray Road. you're proposing a
left turn lane into the Wal-Mart Store.
MS. JOHNSTON-Right here.
MRS. TARANA-Right.
MS. JOHNSTON-Right.
MRS. TARANA-I'm just wondering if there's something. we can make
sure that other man. Dennis. if we can just be sure that that kind
of a left hand turn lane doesn't create the same kind of problem
that we have at Aviation Mall with the left turn. Do you know what
I mean?
MR. O'MALLEY-Are you talking about where the cars coming up back up
against one another?
MRS. TARANA-Where they all back up and they're into the
intersection and everything else. At Montray. that's going to be
a left hand turning lane.
MR. O'MALLEY-There are two left turns lanes. I guess. proposed with
each of these entrances. one for the first entrance. which is in
the south. and one in conjunction with the traffic study.
MRS. TARANA-Right.
MR. O'MALLEY-And you would see some people that might want to turn
left into Montray cominÇJ down and trying to get into the lane at
this end. and the cue of cars was bui lding back up here. and
somebody wanting to get in. then they back up against one another.
and kind of. neither one of them serving the other as well as
they'd like to. I think part of it is. in this case. fortunately.
we'd have two entrances for one site. and during certain times of
the day. you can have a balancing. if you will. between the two
- 61 -
'--'
locations. the people traveling north. along 9. choosing one or the
other. This one will have a better opportunity to turn in where
they might not now. because the traffic signal. especially when
it's serving the site itself. would stop the traffic traveling
south on 9 and give them the opportunity to go into the site. and
hopefully diminish some of this. If that's done correctly. and we
have enough distance in between here. and I think this is 50 scale.
So you're looking at. approximately. 300 feet. my estimates are
about right. from here back down to Montray Road. and I suspect
there probably aren't a lot of cars that go onto Montray Road at
one time. So. again. a couple of cars are going to need about 50
feet of that to serve Montray Road. and the other 250's available
for the left. I suspect. at that distance. and it should be long
enough. those people should be able to operate pretty well. and you
wouldn't see that condition.
MS. JOHNSTON-The biggest difference from what you're describing at
the Aviation Mall is that right now there are fewer than two or
three cars turning left.
MRS. TARANA-Very few. right.
MR. MARTIN-Wasn't that part of the reason. Shelly. why the light
had to be. you originally proposed it down at the southern
entrance?
MS. JOHNSTON-That's exactly right.
MR. MARTIN-And they moved it to the north.
MRS. TARANA-Yes. I just want to be sure we're not creating the
same kind of a monster we have at the intersection.
MS. JOHNSTON-Right now. there's just not enough cars to turn left
at that.
MRS. TARANA-That's all the questions I have. for now.
MR. O'CONNOR-Any other questions that we haven't touched upon?
MR. BREWER-I have none.
MR. LAPOINT-None.
MRS. TARANA-I think there are liable to be more questions. and I
want to have that opportunity to ask them.
MR. BREWER-You're going to have that.
MR. O'CONNOR-The one question I have is. the motivation of the
Board. you're talking about more green islands. Is the idea to
break up the traffic flow? You're not satisfied with the
limitations on the curb cuts and the berming. or is the idea?
MR. HARLICKER-Internally. Mike.
MR. BREWER-Internally. in the parking lot.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You get people going back and forth. if you
don't have any means there to keep them from doing there.
MR. MARTIN-It happens there now.
MR. HARLICKER-I know. I do it. I'm guilty of it.
MR. MARTIN-People come in the southerly entrance and they just
shoot across. if they're going to go to Ames. They go right in
front of.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well. they aren't. because you're going to have this
- 62 -
-
solid line here.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Well. lets just say they want to go up to the
northeast corner there. from the south. They can just cut across
diagonally. If they put a row of islands midway between their
landscaped islands. they won't be able to do that. It'll force
them to follow the designated aisles. as opposed to cutting across.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is why we came up with this. and we create the
four feet to do that. What I was thinking is whether or not. as an
alternative. we would talk about shifting this to another area on
the site. with the same purpose.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. When the parking lot is full of cars. there's
going to be no one cutting across. and when the parking lot is
empty. what difference does it make?
MR. WHITE-What's the crime in cutting across a parking lot?
MR. LAPOINT-An empty parking lot. Again. you don't want to.
MR. MARTIN-I don't think it's a crime. I'm just think it creates
dangerous travel. and the other thing is. we're designing a parking
lot that is essentially going to meet a demand that's present a
fraction of the year. I mean. this is being designed. you're
talking about people potentially parking out on Route 9. and Weeks
Road. that's Christmas time. and that's it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Then you're not talking about anybody cutting across
it. are you?
MR. MARTIN-No. but my main concern is not so much
cutting across. as the aesthetic value of breaking up
lot. and I know that's a very sUbjective point. but.
the traffic
that parking
the variance
we wouldn't
MR. O'CONNOR-But that was the whole purpose of getting
from the permeability. If we had more green space.
utilize it.
MR. BREWER-But you have the area to be able to do it. is what we're
saying.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's why we obtained a permeability variance that
would allow us to have 85.
MR. MARTIN-At that time. we weren't really getting down and dirty
into the parking numbers. and getting a firm calculation.
MR. 0' CONNOR-We have the green space calculations.
percent on this. on this site we have 91.5.
We have 85
MR. MARTIN-We've firmed up the calculations on the parking. now.
and we show some. nearly 170 spaces over.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't want to belabor the point. My question was
whether or not we could get some type of authority. and we have
resistance to moving this. where the property line is located. but
if we could get some authority to move this line.
MR. LAPOINT-No. I like that one there.
MR. MARTIN-I think it's fine where it is. in my opinion.
MR. O'CONNOR-To take out some of the other green areas. make them
thinner and spread them?
MR. BREWER-Not.
- 63 -
--
MR. O'CONNOR-We gave here. and now you want us to give again.
MR. MARTIN-Bill. is 14 spaces really going to be that important to
Wal-Mart?
MR. WHITE-I'll tell you. honestly. it's not the cost at all.
MR. MARTIN-I know it's not the cost.
MR. BREWER-If the people want to be at Wal-Mart. and there's not a
space in that parking lot. they'll go to Wal-Mart two hours later.
bottom line.
MR. WHITE-I've gone to a lot of stores where I've been frustrated.
where I don't have a place to park. and say. I don't shop there
anymore. and that's what's going to happen.
MR. BREWER-I don't think you're going to have that happen seven
days a week there. I hope you do. for business sake. but I don't
think so.
MR. O'CONNOR-With due respect. you and I aren't going to tell Wal-
Mart how to operate.
MR. BREWER-I'm not going to.
MR. O'CONNOR-They have success based upon how they are operating.
and.
MR. BREWER-I've never seen a store with any parking lot full seven
days a week.
MR. LAPOINT-But don't let them back you down. either. because
they're a big company. and if they want the store. they'll give up
the 14 spaces.
MR. BREWER-I'm not backing down. That's right. that's the bottom
line.
MR. HARTIN-Well. that's why I think if the Town
line. the variance would have been denied.
hardball. but we're just asking for a compromise
14 spaces.
was taking a hard
and that's real
situation here of
MR. O'CONNOR-Who set the 14. why not seven?
MR. BREWER-You said you would lose 14 spaces.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's an arbitrary number.
MR. BREWER-No. it's not an arbitrary number. It's 14.
MR. HARLICKER-If you count across.
MR. O'CONNOR-We've heard your comments. We have a little problem
there. We don't necessarily have the authority to indicate to you
that we're going to do something different.
MR. MARTIN-I mean, if you want, I'll call them.
MR. 0' CONNOR-Can we talk about a meeting? We need to have a
meeting time so that we can redo whatever we do on paper.
MR. BREWER-You just told me you didn't want a meeting.
MR. O'CONNOR-No. no. We said we wanted it. I didn't say I didn't
want one. I said I wanted to walk into that meeting and show you
that we've accomplished a satisfaction to your comments tonight.
MR. BREWER-I said. a half an hour ago. I would like to set up
- 64 -
--
--
another meeting. and you said no.
We can do it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can we take your comments tonight?
MR. BREWER-I can't guarantee there won't be more comments. That's
why I suggested the meeting. I can't speak for three other people.
MRS. TARANA-That's why we thought a Workshop is good. because you
can get them all out.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well. we wanted to walk out of here with your
comments tonight.
MR. BREWER-And we said at the last meeting they won't be 100
percent.
MR. MARTIN-I think in fairness. you have the comments of the four
members present. and they certainly can't speak for the three that
aren't.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. It's your decision.
MR. BREWER-If you want a meeting. we'll set up a meeting.
MR. WHITE-Give us a chance to address your comments. then meet with
the full Board at a Workshop meeting. Hopefully. everything will
be resolved at that point. So the next time we come back.
MR. BREWER-How can it be resolved if you don't have the other three
members?
MR. WHITE-No, after the Workshop meeting with the three other
members. so that when the next regularly scheduled Board meeting
comes up. we're in a position where we're not even talking about
any issues at all. and it becomes a formality at that point.
MR. LAPOINT-We'll do the best we can. Yes. The answer from all
four of us. and I'll answer it. We'll all attend. the four of us.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-And we'll do the best we can to get our colleagues to
attend.
MR. BREWER-I'm on vacation next week. but I'll come up.
MR. MARTIN-The deadline's not until a week from tomorrow anyhow.
the submission deadline.
MR. 0' CONNOR-I would ask. up front. for an extension of the
submission deadline. We seem to be pretty much in agreement as to
what we are going to be submitting. but I think we're going to have
to ask this Board's leniency. if you will.
MR. MARTIN-I will say. as Staff. we can accommodate a change in the
deadline. for this as well as several other projects we have.
MR. BREWER-What day next week for you?
MR. O'CONNOR-The first day you have available.
MR. LAPOINT-The 29th.
MR. BREWER-I can't the 29th.
MR. LAPOINT-The 28th. Monday.
MR. BREWER-What time?
I've got to be in Albany.
- 65 -
--
--
MR. MARTIN-We could go down in the Conference Room downstairs.
MR. MARTIN-Maria can't make it.
MR. BREWER-Tuesday? How about Tuesday the 29th?
MR. MARTIN-Tuesday. the 29th?
MR. BREWER-I'm going to be out of town Tuesday. but you don't need
me.
MR. MARTIN-We've got your comments.
that's up to you.
It is a Workshop.
I mean.
MR. BREWER-Lets do it the 29th.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. BREWER-You don't really need me.
but if I'm not. I won't.
If I'm back. I'll come up.
MRS. TARANA-Seven?
MR. BREWER-Seven o'clock. the 29th.
MR. O'CONNOR-In polling the other three Board members to see if
they're available. can you ask if they have any comments that they
think they need to bring forth, other than what we've already heard
from them?
MR. MARTIN-We'll have to act quickly.
advertise this meeting.
I know we'll have to
MR. BREWER-I'm going to leave the public hearing open.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. but I mean. just advertise the meeting of the
Board. as a mechanical exercise.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. open law stuff.
MR. BREWER-You know. I thought last week when we discussed this. we
weren't going to come out of this meeting with any final decisions.
and that's what we're being forced into. and I don't like that. I
thought we were going to come in here and discuss it. then go back
and have a workshop and get all the comments together for
everybody. and I don't think that's fair. I understand there was
a mistake made by our Office. but we're being pushed in to making
a decision. and the other three members aren't here. and I don't
think that's right. I'm not going to call in members. or ask in
members to submit comments in writing. That's not fair.
MR. O'CONNOR-We anticipated that they'd all be here tonight.
Again. not necessarily something we created.
MR. BREWER-I understand that. Mr. O'Connor. but things happen. and
somebody had an accident. somebody's sick. I can't control that.
but this is too big of a project just to come in here and say.
okay. these are our comments. you do them. and then that'll be the
end of it. because that's wrong. That's what he said. when we have
the workshop. you want to come back and have this as a formality.
and it's going to be approved or denied. and I don't.
MR. O'CONNOR-After your workshop.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we're talking about we want to get to a workshop
so that we can get the full input of the Board members. or try to
get the full input of the Board members.
- 66 -
'-
MR. BREWER-But I don't want to just go set deadlines and then say
that. you guys submit the comments in writing and that's going to
be it. I don't want to say that we can't come back here and have
more concerns.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well. some place along the line I think you have to
take the position that you're either for or against the project.
MR. BREWER-But what I'm saying is if Carol comes up and says
something that may trigger something I say. I'm not going to be
saying to you that I can say something.
MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that. With the breadth of the comments
that we've had tonight. I don't know what new ground we're going to
plow. So maybe we're talking about something academic.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can we agree upon a Workshop meeting tonight?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-I thought we had.
MR. BREWER-The 29th. seven o'clock.
MR. O'CONNOR-The 29th at seven p.m.
MR. BREWER-I'll open the public hearing. Is there any comments?
PUBLIC HBARING OPENED
FRED GILCHRIST
MR. GILCHRIST-Fred Gilchrist. Robert Gardens North. and I have a
few more comments on traffic. I'm concerned about it. coming out
of Weeks Road. I haven't heard anything tonight that has impressed
me one bit.' At the moment. there's about 400 families in Robert
Gardens. We have 35. approximately. more in Kingswood. Everybody
in there has to use Weeks Road to go out and come back. There's no
other way of getting in or out. except in and out of Weeks Road.
If the people in there are like me. they go in and out three or
four times a day. You have to to get what you want. go shopping.
to visit. all of these things. We also have a gas studio at the
end of Weeks Road. That generates traffic. We have a carwash out
on the end of Weeks Road, which is always busy. and we also have
many. many consumers coming from the north. They come down and
they turn into Weeks Road and go into Ames. They're all coming
from Vermont. coming from up north. They take off at the upper
exit and come down. and come in that way. It's easier for them.
They don't have to go through the traffic light down at the foot of
that hill. Note also that on occasion the carwash backs up. It
blocks Weeks Road. a full line of traffic. and I have even observed
it out onto Route 9. There's no way of controlling that.
Presently. Weeks Road is 30 foot wide. paved. and that narrows down
to 25 feet at the intersection of Route 9. and you have curbings on
both sides. at the intersection. Also. Route 9. at that particular
point. is a transition section. It goes from four lanes. or two
lanes going north. to one lane. It goes from one lane going south
to two lanes. So you've got traffic going back and forth. That
brings us another problem. Unless you're going in and out of
there. you don't realize what the problem is. but if there's a car
coming south. he puts on a traffic signal. if he's turning right
onto Weeks Road. you start out. somebody else passes you because he
notices the two lane road ahead of him. You've got a problem.
Lets go further. We all are aware of the existing motels. the
restaurants. and the stores that generate traffic out there. and we
also know that there was prior approval to those 16 or 17 stores in
Mt. Royal. that came up earlier tonight. Apparently. there's been
some change. I wasn't aware of. and also that would bring in that
- 67 -
-
'-
paper road. coming in off of Weeks Road. That would give us
another problem there, if they were going to use that. There is
also a rumor that there's a possibility of a hardware store going
in. just north of the Ponderosa. a large hardware store. This is
only a rumor to me. and the other people can talk about it. or tell
me more about it. The Route 9 and 254 study that we've heard
states that Route 9 has 22.700 vehicles per day going in and out.
of course that's subject to seasonal variations. That's a lot of
automobiles. Now. if we count out only our 435 residents in there,
and if they go in and out four times a day. that's over 3.000
crossings we've got to make at that Weeks Road and Route 9. I
looked over the Site Plan. SP-1 for Wal-Mart. and we go to the
proposed traffic signal there. but no details were given as to how
it will function. whether they're gOing to have left turn lights,
right turn lights. or just what. but in scaling the distance from
the assumed stop light. from that light to Weeks Road. scaled on
their drawing. it's 350 feet. That would take in just about 16
cars. in either lane. and you've got a road block there at Weeks
Road. and there's a left turn. if they're coming north. and you
make a left turn there. it's going to be even worse. Now. they
brought up the delivery trucks going in and out of Weeks Road.
We've got 18 wheelers trying to get into a 25 foot entrance. 25
foot wide. We have other 18 wheelers coming out. back of the Ames
and back of Wal-Mart coming out of Weeks Road. They've got to make
their turns left or right. They do come in now. but most of them
come in to Ames parking lot. park there during the night. and then
go in earlier in the morning. The only solution. I can't give a
solution. I thought that perhaps. depending on the knowledge
that's available. that they could put a light at Weeks Road.
parallel with the new light they propose. so that they could
operate simultaneously. I don't know whether this is feasible or
not. but if they did operate simultaneously. it would allow us to
get in'and get out of our homes. We need something that's going to
improve the traffic flow for the residents. not for Wal-Mart. for
the residents. We don't want to create another mixed up. such as
we have up further north at 149. I would hope that we can come up
with some type of a solution. that I hope that. these results here.
these figures are as accurate as I could estimate. If there's any
questions. I'd be happy to answer them.
MR. BREWER-Thank you very much.
MR. GILCHRIST-Thank you.
DAVE KAPUL
MR. KAPUL-My name is Dave Kapul. and own Ponderosa. We welcome
Wal-Mart very much. I have one question. if it's not too much to
ask. The sewer line coming where and ending where? How far is it
going to be. the sewer line. and what's the size of the sewer line?
I heard also Mr. Brewer saying that there was a resolution that
laterals could be drawn across. What is the status on that.
please? I just want to know.
MR. BREWER-No. There was an engineer comment that laterals should
be installed across Route 9. and said that I didn't think that was
fair for Wal-Mart to put laterals across Route 9 when they're not
going to be using them on the other side of the street. Bill said
that they would put some sort of an accommodation for laterals to
go across the street. but they wouldn't put the laterals across.
MR. KAPUL-The size of the pipe. but this will be a publ~c property.
then. after you finish it?
MR. WHITE-It will be in the Town of Queensbury ownership.
MR. MARTIN-It will be a pUblic sewer. eight inch line.
MR. KAPUL-Accessible to anybody who wants it?
- 68 -
---
--
-",,'
MR. MARTIN-Right. providing you pay your own installation.
MR. KAPUL-Yes. but this will go how far?
MR. MARTIN-It's going to go to the northern driveway of Wal-Mart.
right by the Queen Diner. right. Bill?
MR. WHITE-Just past the Queen Diner. right our north property line.
MR. KAPUL-So it will be accessible to the property up to that?
MR. WHITE-Yes. It would be accessible to the Ponderosa.
MR. KAPUL-And there is no change in the road ridge of the road. by
DOT?
MR. WHITE-Right. We're just taking that median that's in there now
and restriping it.
MR. KAPUL-And I assume the traffic light. as of now. is across the
Ponderosa and the Diner?
MR. WHITE-The Ponderosa. yes.
MR. KAPUL-Thank you.
MR. WHITE-And it can't change. because that's what DOT has said.
MR. KAPUL-Thank you very much.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment?
Okay. I'm going to leave the public hearing open. and we need a
motion to table.
If-ºTION__'fO 'fABLE SI'fE_JL:k~ILJ'_º-!_,,~l_=-~~. HA'fIONAL REAL'fY & DEVELOPMENT
CORP.. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption.
seconded by Corinne Taranal
The proposal is for a 121.000 square foot Wal-Mart store. at the
applicant's request. We will have a Workshop Session at 7 o'clock
Tuesday. the 29th.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer
NOES: HONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel
SEQRA REVIEW - ZAREMBA GROUP. INC. - RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD
AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF.
MR. LAPOINT-Scott. I just have to read the resolution?
MR. BREWER-Are we going to do the SEQRA tonight or not?
MR. LAPOINT-Well. lets take the lead agent role.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You can do the lead agency.
MR. LAPOINT-We can do that. because we might be losing focus
because it's so late. Jim. all I'm to do with the Zaremba thing is
to read the SEQRA Resolution making us lead agent?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. prepared resolution.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-I'm sorry. You've already requested lead agency. This
- 69 -
---
is to do the SEQRA. and I don't think you're in a position to do
that. I'm sorry. This is to do the negative declaration.
MR. LAPOINT-No. We have to take Lead Agency status. correct?
MR. HARTIN-No. You've already done that.
HR. BREWER-We've done that.
HR. LAPOINT-We did that last time?
HR. HARTIN-Yes. That's already been done.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. and we can't do the SEQRA tonight.
MR. BREWER-So we're just going to go through Scott's notes.
HR. LAPOINT-So right now we're up to the site plan. correct?
MR. BREWER-No. We didn't do the SEQRA yet.
HRS. TARANA-We didn't do the SEQRA.
MR. BREWER-We did not do the SEQRA. and I guess maybe you could
summarize what we're going to do? We're just going to open it uP.
and.
SITE PLAN NO. 33-93 TYPE I PC-1A ZAREMBA GROUP. INC. OWNER.
CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS WALTER & JUNE MITCHELL LOCATION. SOUTHWESTERLY
CORNER OF DIX AVEHUE AND QUAKER ROAD. CONSTRUCTION OF A 167.318
SQ. FT. RETAIL STORE. CROSS REFERENCE. P4-93 BEAUTIFICATION
COMMITTEE - 6-7-93 WARREN COUNTY PLAHNING 6-9-93 TAX MAP NO. 110-
1-2.1. 22 LO~ SIZE. +28.2 ACRES SECTION 179-22 D
TIM HORGAN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT; JIH CONNORS. PRESENT
HR. HARLICKER-Yes. We can go through here and they can address the
items as best they can now. but they're.
HR. MORGAN-Mr. Chairman. what I'm handing out to you and members of
the Board is a prepared response to Scott's and Staff's comments.
as prepared in the memo. note to file dated June 21st. 1993. to
expedite the review process.
HR. BREWER-I guess. lets. can we clarify something. Jim. We're not
going to take any action?
HR. HARTIN-Right. We're certainly. the traffic study. as yet. is
undone. just this one element.
HR. HARLICKER-Drainage utilities hasn't really been worked out yet.
HR. HARTIN-And. again. I think the applicant was more or less
looking at this as a Workshop. again. to get input from the Board
and come back for next time.
MRS. TARANA-And what's happened with the re-zoning question?
MR. HARTIN-The Town's position is that we have a valid action by
the Town Board to re-zone the property. We are expecting that the
County Planning Board take action on this application from the
standpoint of re-zoning. at their July 14th meeting. As to what
that action will be. I can't say. but they are going to take
action.
MRS. TARANA-They're taking action after the Town Board has re-
zoned?
MR. HARTIN-That's right. because we maintain. the Town's position
is that the 30 day time frame has expired.
- 70 -
--
..-"
MRS. TARANA-And where does that leave us?
MR. MARTIN-We have a site plan application before us.
MR. MORGAN-And not only that. Jim. with the four one vote on the
re-zoning. the County acting as an advisory body only. should they
decide not to act. or maybe to act in the negative. it's null and
void. that the Town had to approve it with the majority plus one.
MR. MARTIN-Well. even before that. our position is that they did
not act within 30 days. It's really not a meaningful decision at
this point.
MR. BREWER-So actually tonight what we're going to do is pretty
much what we just did?
MR. MORGAN-Well. what we tried to do. Mr. Chairman. is. as you had
said. Scott prepared some comments. and in order to expedite that.
I know the Board has had a long evening. we tried to prepare a
response that spoke to those issues and did so briefly. We realize
that the actual lengthy review situation will occur in the month of
July. and we intend to have detailed documents before you to
conduct that review.
MR. BREWER-You will be on our agenda in JUly. for a detailed
review.
MR. MORGAN-We will meet your target submittal deadline. and
something that Jim and I have had a chance to speak to and was. in
a roundabout way. discussed with the Wal-Mart situation. was
possibly implementing some flexible gUidelines to allow the special
meetings and the workshops to occur maybe more quickly than they
might actually under the gUidelines currently set up.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I just said the Board likes to deal with these
things on a Workshop individual basis.
MR. BREWER-Could we entertain a meeting?
MR. MORGAN-That's our suggestion or our request to the Board.
Could we set up a special meeting/workshop where we could sit down.
maybe at a different time in the evening. and not be rushed and
actually have you review engineering and site. so that we could
come back at the next meeting and hopefully have addressed all
those. which I believe is July 20th.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's our next regular meeting.
MR. MORGAN-We'd like to do it before that.
MR. BREWER-That's fine with me.
MR. LAPOINT-July 13th.
MR. HORGAN-We'd like to do it even before July 13th.
MR. LAPOINT-July 6th.
MR. BREWER-July 6th. Tuesday night.
HR. MORGAN-Jim. that would give them. then if we could submit the
documents before the 30th. Would that work out okay with the
Board?
MR. HARTIN-Yes. The 30th is the deadline.
MR. BREWER-If we had the information a few days ahead of time.
before we had our meeting. that would be best.
MR. LAPOINT-I don't want to bog things down. but I can't imagine
- 71 -
Wal-Mart going more than 45 minutes or an hour on the 29th.
MRS. TARANA-Not two workshops on one night.
MR. LAPOINT-All right. I just can't imagine what we'd talk about
for an hour.
MR. BREWER-I can't. either.
MRS. TARANA-We've said that before.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll rule it out.
MR. BREWER-That would be fine with me.
MR. LAPOINT-Combine? Again. maybe Corinne or.
MRS. TARANA-And limit them? Are you going to say. limit them to an
hour.
MR. BREWER-You can't really limit them.
MR. LAPOINT-No. I can't imagine. I mean. you've aired what you
want to talk about. and again. you can keep going. I can't imagine
Carol having too much and.
MR. MORGAN-And we can get documents in quickly to Jim. to Scott.
MR. MARTIN-My main concern here. too. is we hit the County. though.
deadline also.
MR. BREWER-What's the County deadline?
MR. MARTIN-The seventh.
MR. BREWER-So lets try to do it the 29th.
MR. MORGAN-I will be back at the time the Board suggests.
MR. MARTIN-Again. we'll have a small room. and we'll just have Wal-
Mart in at once.
MR. BREWER-I think it worked well when we did the other
application.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think you could even say to them. come at eight.
and we'll be there at seven.
MR. STARK-The other one's coming at seven. if you got here at
eight.
MRS. TARANA-I like the workshops. I think they're very.
MR. BREWER-Can we do that?
MR. MORGAN-If that's okay with the Board. we'd love to accommodate
that. Jim. we'll try and have the plans in to you tomorrow.
MR. BREWER-All right. and we can get copies?
MR. MARTIN-I just want to formally update the Board. too. as to
what's happening with the traffic. because I think there's a
principal concern here. We have had a formal meeting with DOT in
my office. I invited Tim. He couldn't make it. Between C.T.
Male. ourselves. and DOT. We thoroughly discussed the traffic
situation, even with the contingency of the American Equities site
being developed simultaneously with maybe an alternate development
of some site. and what would be necessary to accommodate each site
individually or together at the same time. The big news that came
out of there. I think. is that Roger Gebo from the County said that
- 12 -
~
the remaining widening of Quaker Road from Ridge Road onto Warren
Street is going to occur in the next three years. So then the
general approach is. anything they suggest. in the way of actual
physical improvements in front of their site should be in
compliance with his design for that widening. at this time. So I
think. therefore. a review and sign-off by Roger Gebo is important
in this. especially important in this process. Quaker Road is a
County road.
MR. BREWER-So. right now we can pretty much put this to bed and
reschedule it for the 29th at 8:00. 8:30. whatever happens that
night. That's agreeable with all?
MR. LAPOINT-I think so.
MR. MORGAN-We should be here at eight o'clock?
MR. BREWER-Well. we're going to have our workshop start at seven.
So if you got there at eight.
MR. MARTIN-So. Tim. just so I can get an idea of what's coming.
what's coming tomorrow. then. that we wouldn't already have?
MR. MORGAN-We will submit to you a site plan. utility plan. grading
plan. drainage plan. erosion control. site lighting. pavement
markings sewer system. and we'll have. by the end of the week we'll
have the stormwater calculations to you. with our understanding
being that Rist-Frost has to clearly review those documents and
give its comments.
MR. HARLICKER-What sort of time frame are we looking at for the
traffic study?
MR. MORGAN-The middle of July. the end of July. depending upon
American Equities property. because I know they want us to consider
their traffic and trip generation. That could delay us.
JIM CONNORS
MR. CONNORS-The problem is. that Jim's talked about. Scott. is we
have submitted to DOT generation based on our timing. DOT in that
meeting sat down and would like us to consider a development
occurring on the Earl Town property of some magnitude. The problem
is. the developer of that property has not submitted any trip
generation to DOT to be reviewed. So we are stuck waiting for them
to submit to DOT. which. to be honest with you. is asinine. but
that's the way it's set up.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So wait a minute now. If you don't have your
information before the end of July. how can you be on our July
agenda? You can't.
MR. MORGAN-For a preliminary review. subject to traffic studies.
That'll be. we're looking. probably. for August approval. We're
not expecting July.
MR. MARTIN-I think what they want is to speak to the Board about as
many issues as they can in between now and the time the traffic
study comes out. and then deal with that when it comes out.
MR. MORGAN-That's the only issue we have.
MR. STARK-Jim. if Mr. Morgan submits all this stuff from C.T. Male
to you tomorrow. and you get it to Tom Yarmowich. will we have his
comments back by next Tuesday?
MR. MARTIN-I doubt it. in all honesty.
MR. MORGAN-As long as we get
incorporated into the plans.
a copy. we'll have
So that you will.
his comments
at the July
- 73 -
-
meeting. have a response to them.
MR. MARTIN-We can certainly hit the July meeting.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Jim. the other option to you. too. is if you can submit
me nine copies tomorrow and send one on directly to Tom. I have no
problem with that.
MR. MORGAN-And maybe we could ask him to just to do a cursory
review of some of the. for the Board.
MR. CONNORS-If we can get Tom's response at the same time we get.
instead of you reading Tom's response at our meeting. it would be
beneficial to have that ahead of time. so that we can formulate our
responses and incorporate those into.
MR. MARTIN-Well. I've been encouraging the applicants. as much as
you can correspond with Tom. prior to the night of the Board
meeting. all I ask is that we be kept abreast and have copies of
the Correspondence. so that we can supply the Board.
MR. CONNORS-Is Tom authorized to release that?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CONNORS-Because I've had difficulties with that in the past.
He would not submit a copy of a letter.
MR. MARTIN-Well. if you run into that problem. give me a call.
MRS. TARANA-Before our July meeting. could we have something in
writing from our Town Attorney in response to Sterling Goodspeed's
letter. because this is the only thing that we have in writing. at
this point. which is saying that the Town Board action was null.
was a nullity. So I'd like to have something by July. from our
Town Attorney. either in response to this or whatever.
MR. MARTIN-Well. I'm hoping that. with the County Planning Board on
July 14th. this will be resolved. What the Town asked for. we had
a meeting Friday with the County Attorney. Paul was there. The
Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors. Pat Tatich. myself.
Mike Brandt. and what we asked from them was a letter from the
Board saying. coming to a decision on this project. and saying that
they acknowledge the 30 days has expired.
MRS. TARANA-I think we should have something in writing.
MR. MARTIN-All right.
MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion?
MR. MORGAN-Do you think we could have Paul do that by Tuesday?
MR. MARTIN-I doubt it. Well. maybe. because he's going on vacation
this week. and he'll be gone for two weeks.
MRS. TARANA-Whenever. but certainly by July. by the July meeting is
fine. This won't hold up the workshop. but I think at some point
we should have that.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAB NO. 33-1993 ZAREMBA GROUP. INC..
Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded
by George Stark:
For the construction of a 167.000 square foot retail store. at the
owner's request. until a Workshop Session. scheduled for eight
o'clock. Tuesday the 29th of June.
- 74 -
-
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan
MR. MORGAN-Jim. does that mean we do not review our responses to
you Staff Comments this evening?
MR. MARTIN-No.
into the 29th.
if he wants.
I think we can take them into consideration going
You're welcome to try and. it's up to the Chairman
MR. BREWER-Do you guys want to?
MR. LAPOINT-Real quick. Depth to water table. no. we don't want to
talk about that. Sewer district. no. we don't want to talk about
that. Trip generations. we'll do some work on that. Material
removed from site. technicality. increase in traffic. you'll deal
with. Blasting you'll deal with. Stormwater runoff you've got to
deal with. Wetlands you've got to deal with. Erosion you've got
to deal with. You've acknowledged all the rest. Right?
MR. MORGAN-Pretty close.
MR. LAPOINT-Great. I don't mean to. if anybody wants to talk about
them. I don't care.
MR. MORGAN-Could we have a second response to our responses?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I'll go through and I'll have something by the
meeting. the end of the week.
MR. BREWER-You'll get our responses the 29th.
MR. MORGAN-Thank you.
MR. LAPOINT-Thank you.
FRESHWATER WETLAHDS PERMIT - FWl-93 GARTH ALLEN OWNER: SAME AS
ABOVE PROPERTY INVOLVED: BAY MEADOWS GOLF CLUB. INC.. CRONIN
ROAD ZOBE: SR-1A AREA OF PROPERTY: 27.2 ACRES
MARK SCHACHNER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT;
MR. HARLICKER-In the past. it's been my understanding that the
Board has deferred to DEC as far as Wetland Permits. and they just
kind of go along with whatever conditions DEC sets. So. Staff
didn't really prepare anything.
MR. MARTIN-Do you have anything from Mark yet. or Mark from the DEC
on that. or?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. It's not even certain that we need a DEC Permit.
So you might want to not defer. I guess from our position. we would
hope that the panel would give its opinion on that. obviously. it
would be subject to any conditions anyway that DEC would impose. if
there is a DEC Permit.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
effect?
Does somebody want to make a motion to that
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So what we want to do is approve the Freshwater
Wetlands Permit contingent on any and all requirements imposed by
DEC at a later date?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. and I would also say. as a suggestion. anything
that might be incorporated as a result of your site plan review.
- 75 -
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT rWl-93 GARTH ALLEN.
Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded
by George Stark:
For the property involved: Bay Meadows Golf Club. Inc.. Cronin
Road. with the following stipulations: One. that the applicant
comply with any and all stipulations placed on them by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation. if the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation deems a Freshwater
Wetlands Permit is even necessary. and. Two. the Wetlands Permit
also comply with any conditions of approval granted for subdivision
and/or site plan.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
AYES, Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel
MR. MARTIN-I would Just also recommend that you have a public
hearing on that. too.
MR. BREWER-On the wetlands?
MR. MARTIN-On the Wetlands Permit.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing and I'll close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HBARING OPBNED
NO COMMEHT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-How come there doesn't say there has to be a public
hearing on here?
MR. MARTIN-I'm just going through the Regulations now. It says a
Notice of Hearing.
MR. BREWER-Was everybody notified?
neighbors have to be notified?
Does that mean that the
MR. SCHACHNER-I can offer a suggestion as a time saver. if you
want. If they can't find it. real quick like. we could just take
the position that. if it's not necessary. we've done our business.
We're done. and if it is necessary. there has been. since we have
to be on next month's agenda anyway. for our site plan. I mean. I
don't want to say, lets do that. if we don't need to. but.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Okay. If the Executive Director determines that
we need to notify the public. we'll do so and redo this whole
exercise. If not. we're done.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd like to have some time to research this. We
haven't done one of these in two or three years, in all honesty.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean. I'll check also. but I'm comfortable with
what Mr. LaPoint has said.
MR. MARTIN-If not. we'll revisit this matter in a proper manner at
your July meeting.
MR. BREWER-Fine.
- 76 -
--
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I GARTH ALLEN
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZORE: SR-1A LOCATIOR I RORTHSIDE 01' CRONIN
RD.. APPROXIMATELY 1200' EAST 01' THE BAY RD./CRONIN RD.
INTERSECTIOR. TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. CONSTRUCTION 01' 22 I'OURPLEXES
AND ORE DUPLEX IN A CLUSTER SCHEME WITH 28' WIDE ROADWAY. SANITARY
SEWERS. WATER LINES. AND CLOSED SEWERS. CROSS REI'ERENCE: P6-91
TAX HAP NO. 60-2-5. 10 LOT SIZE: 27.2 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISIOR REGULATIONS
MARK SCHACHNER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAI'F IRPUT
Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 12-1993. Garth Allen
Preliminary Stage. Meeting Date: June 22. 1993 "proiect
Description: The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision. It
consists of taking a 97.2 acre lot and subdividing it into a 27.2
acre parcel and a 70.0 acre parcel. The 27.2 acre lot will be
developed as a clustered housing project of 90 townhouses. The
remaining 70 acre lot will continue to be used as a golf course.
Access to both lots will be from Cronin Road. Future development
of the larger parcel is not possible because the development rights
will have been clustered on the 27.2 acre lot. Proie.,Ç.t_Analvsis:_
The actual subdivision is a fairly straightforward matter. It is
a simple two lot subdivision. Both parcels are serviced by
municipal sewer and water. Future development of the golf course
will be limited to accessory uses associated with the golf course
and the townhouse development on the 27.2 acre parcel will be
subject to site plan review. The proposal does not involve the
construction of any new streets or utilities. Reco~m~J\º-ª..tj._Qn-=_
There does not appear to be any significant problems associated
with this subdivision and Staff can recommend preliminary approval
of this application."
MR. MARTIN-We have notes from Rist-Frost. and I also have. Tom had
to leave. He said he wasn't feeling well. So he left me a
handwri tten note. "To the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Members Present. Regarding Garth Allen Bay Meadows Townhouses.
Subdivision No. 12-1993. the Engineering Comments dated June 19th
contain certain topics of a nature which we visited in length at
last month's review of site plan for the proposed Townhouse
development. Other June 19th. 1993 Engineering Comments are
technical details which are more appropriately dealt with during
the site plan review. It is understood that site plan review will
reconvene upon completion of the subdivision process. I feel.
therefore. that the June 19th. 1993 Engineering Comments for the
project should be advisory to the client at this time. and not a
part of the Board's review of the proposed subdivision. There are
no engineering concerns. at this point. that suggest that the Board
cannot proceed with processing this subdivision. Tom Yarmowich"
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? I
have only one question. or comment. Scott. future development of
the golf course. is that going to be in the deeds?
MRS. TARANA-I think it was in the Town Board resolution.
MR. BREWER-But I just want to cover ourselves. The future
development of the golf course is going to be in the deed.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well. that part is not being deeded. That part is
already under the current ownership. My understanding is that. the
way that's being taken care of. well. really two ways at least.
that I can think of. first. and most obviously. the Town Board
resolution. We've got a re-zoning from the Town Board to allow the
cluster development. and the Town Board resolution allowing the
cluster development expressly includes the specific condition and
restriction that there won't be any development or further
development on the golf course. other than that related to the golf
course activities. as described in Scott's notes. I think Scott's
- 77 -
--
--
notes are accurate in that respect.
MR. BREWER-I'm just wondering if we should put that in our motion
to reflect that. so that it's down through there. So that if in 10
years.
MR. SCHACHNER-It you want. It's already in the re-zoning. but if
you want to put it in the motion. we don't have any problem with
that.
MR. BREWER-Okay. That's all I've got.
MRS. TARANA-I made myself a note here. Mark.
it means. Permit for development and flood
Two is not complete. whatever Number Two is.
it's got to have a date or something. maybe.
doesn't have to be complete. I don't know.
signed something that's blank.
I have no idea what
hazard areas. Number
Here it is. I think
in it. Unless that
It looks like he
DICK MORSE
MR. MORSE-Looking at it right now. I don't know.
MR. MARTIN-The only thing I can think of is this is where your
Freshwater Wetlands Permit may come into play. That's the only
thing I can think of.
MR. MORSE-Well. then we would insert that number of that resolution
tonight in this.
MRS. TARANA-Whatever. just as long as the application is complete.
MR. SCHACHNER-FWl-93.
MR. BREWER-We've got to do a SEQRA.
MRS. TARANA-It's a Type I.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. well. they didn't submit an EAF form. right?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well. that's one of the comments that Tom Yarmowich
mentioned in his letter. but there's already been a full EAF and
SEQRA on it. resulting in a negative declaration by the Town Board.
HR. MARTIN-That's right. at the time of the re-zoning.
HR. BREWER-So we don't have to even do a SEQRA?
HR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
HR. LAPOINT-Okay. So we don't have to do that.
MR. BREWER-We don't have to do anything for the site plan?
MR. MARTIN-That's right. It's just like when you've done the SEQRA
for like the variances on Wal-Mart when you did it. and on American
Equity. it was all inclusive for variances. subdivision and site
plan. same thing. They did a SEQRA. rather than segmenting the
process. they did it all inclusive.
MR. SCHACHNER-SEQRA Review is supposed to be for the entire
project.
MR. MARTIN-When the end use is known. SEQRA is not supposed to be
segmented.
MR. SCHACHNER-The Town Board reviewed this at great length. with a
Full. Long Form EAF that included everything.
MR. MARTIN-Have you received minutes of those meetings from the
- 78 -
--
Town?
MR. BREWER-I don't recall. I remember asking for them. but I don't
recall ever seeing them.
MRS. TARANA-Yes. I've got them right here.
MR. BREWER-Okay. but we can make a motion. I don't know if I've
got them or not. Jim. could you make a note to give me another
copy of those? I don't have them.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. The other thing I just heard. the applicant has
not submitted their 500 feet notices. the green cards. He says he
has them in his file at the office.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
submitted.
We can incorporate that. that they have to be
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to?
HOTIO'-10 APPROVE PRELIHIHARY S~A~E SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1993 G~RTH
ALLEN. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption.
seconded by Corinne Tarana:
To subdivide a 97.2 acre lot into a 27.2 acre lot. and a 70 acre
parcel. with the following conditions: One. that the applicant
provide proof of his mailings to the Staff by tomorrow noon.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote:
MR. LAPOINT-And I think I'll save that restriction clause for the
Final. Tim.
MR. BREWER-That's fine.
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel
MR. MARTIN-I talked to the Town Board last night about the Traffic
Study for Bay Meadows. or Meadowbrook Road. and Cronin and Bay. and
their suggestion was they'd like us to go and look through the
Hiland Park information. because Hiland apparently said any
resulting infrastructure improvements. or something like that.
they'd participate in a study of possible funding of. Bay Road's
a County road. It's really a County issue.
MR. BREWER-So. in other words, they said no.
MR. MARTIN-I'm going to stay after it. and see if I can find some
way to. because I like the idea that the Board's looking at this
thing pro-actively. looking at it before it happens. The other
thing was. they said there's been complaints about Board members.
I don't know if there's been complaints. but they said that they'd
heard that there's been Board members missing site visits. not
attending site visits. or not actually seeing the site. and they
want that type of thing to stop.
MR. BREWER-Who said that?
MR. MARTIN-I think Nick raised it. and then the Board in general
had a concern about that. that is happening. because we're doing a
disservice to the applicants if we're not going there to see the
site. and I agree. Having been a member of the Board. that's the
most important piece of information you can have. They didn't name
names or anything.
- 79 -
MR. STARK-I go to every site visit there is. I wouldn't vote on a
thing unless I went to it.
MRS. TARANA-Did that come up at the Town Board meeting last night?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MRS. TARANA-We know people haven't been on site visits.
MR. RUEL-Well. Roger asked me about it last week.
MR. MARTIN-I'm going to raise the same issue with the Zoning Board
tomorrow night.
MR. BREWER-Well. raise it the 29th. if we can get everybody there.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Timothy Brewer. Chairman
- 80 -