Loading...
1993-10-28 -- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28TH. 1993 INDEX Site Plan No. 11-93 Richard Eggleston/Thomas Stimpson Formula One Auto Body 1. SEQRA Review Thomas Kubricky 12. Site Plan No. 10-93 The Great Escape 13. Subdivision No. 19-1993 FINAL STAGE Hal Raven 14. Subdivision No. 23-1993 Donald Kruger 15. SEQRA Review: Randy Rivette/Mike Rivette 25. Site Plan No. 48-93 Randy Rivette/Mike Rivette 28. 29. SEQRA Review: Zaremba Group. Inc. Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 2-93 Zaremba Group. Inc. 50. 51. Site Plan No. 33-93 Zaremba Group. Inc. Site Plan No. 51-93 Astro Valcourt Inc. 52. Site Plan No. 52-93 H. Robert Tyrer 55. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '...-/ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28TH. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TAR ANA , SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL CAROL PULVER MEMBERS ABSENT EDWARD LAPOINT CRAIG MACEWAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JIM MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER TOWN ENGINEER-TOM YARMOWICH, RIST-FROST STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 17. 1993: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 17. 1993, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-We read the Petrosky's letter last week, didn't we? From Jim Lapann, tabling the, I'm sure we did. MR. MARTIN-What's the date on the letter? MRS. TARANA-The seventh, October 7th. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. we read it. MRS. TARANA-We don't have to read it again. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. BREWER-I guess we can go right to the first item. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-93 RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON FORMULA 1 AUTO BODY MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PARKING. MICHAEL MULLER MR. MULLER-My name is Michael Muller. I represent the corporation Formula 1 Auto Body. The owners are Mr. Eggleston and Mr. Stimpson. To my left is Mr. Eggleston. - 1 - '- ---",' MR. BREWER-Okay. We had some conversation about the odors caused from the Body Shop from the Harts, and we wanted to see if we could possibly resolve that. maybe some time you could talk to them and possibly schedule the painting so it doesn't effect their business during dinner hours, lunch hours. I don't know if that would, that is the answer. but Mrs. Hart is here. and I'm sure she wants to speak. RICHARD EGGLESTON MR. EGGLESTON-We've already done that. MR. BREWER-You have? Okay. Is there anybody on the Board that has any questions about the modification? MRS. PULVER-I'd like to know what it is? MR. MULLER-What we've done about it? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. EGGLESTON-Mainly. we're not painting in the evenings anymore, when the Harts are dOing their primary business. We're trying to get most of our painting either earlier in the morning or mid day, at the latest. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay, and as I remember. there was also some problem about the easement, it wasn't open. Has that problem been resolved? MR. MULLER-I'm not sure it's going to be resolved to Mrs. Hart's satisfaction. There's an easement on the, we'll call it the south side of the property. that would run from Bay to the back of the lot. I happen to be the attorney for the first purchaser when that easement was created. Mr. Pasco. who was the owner of Adirondack Power Products. created that. so that he could have access to a portion of the back of the lot to be retained. through a garden. He parked on it. There's a telephone pole on it. and indeed it's covered with parking, as it always has been. It was created as a paper right-of-way to get to the back. It's there of record. and I think at one time. early on. when this issue first came up, I recall writing a letter to Linda Hart. but Linda would know better than I if I did. I had the intention to do this. which is that we do not intend to block the access. That is that if you wanted to drive through. you can. and have access to the back of the property. I think that's important, and the other thing is that it's not the exclusive access to the back of that property. That is that that small portion of parcel of land reserved by Mr. Pasco. intended to be purchased by Mr. Vito and not purchased by Eggleston and Stimpson. but purchased Hart. It was contiguous to other lands of Hart. I don't know if it's solvable, but it's certainly not a solvable public problem. It's a private right. If the Harts wish to enforce it, and we all squared off in a court of law arguing about who has the rights to easements. what does it actually constitute. that day would actually come. We hope not. We'd like to cooperate. but we are going to have to continue to park on that, as Mr. Pasco had. as Mr. Vito had. and it is there. We admit it. MR. BREWER-I thought that when we were first here, there was a conversation as to the easement went across your parking. but you didn't object to them driving between the parking and the building. that area would be left open? MR. MULLER-That's still true. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess I'm going to have to wait and ask the Harts if that's so, if they have a problem with that, and I think that was the answer to the problem that night. as a I remember it. - 2 - ---" That area is not being blocked at all? MR. MULLER-No. There are indeed cars there, and that is that if for some reason that I can't really imagine right now. other than they just insist to have that deeded right-of-way access back there. that car could be moved. I mean, it would be on four wheels. It's not a lump of something that's being worked on outside and can't be moved. If they had to have it, which I certainly agree with them, they'd insist on it. that's how we bought the property. They would have access. There's no intent to block them and there's no permanent obstruction in that right-of- way, other than the telephone pole. and there's a fence there. too. There's a little rail fence. which was part of the Beautification. Quite frankly. if anybody here's strenuously opposed to having that rail fence there. I suppose that's not a critical thing. It just makes it look nice. MRS. PULVER-Yes. and I apologize. because I didn't know until we got here that you were going to be on the agenda tonight. So I didn't bring my notes. but somewhere in the minutes you had agreed to no more than 12 cars. or there was a number. I'm not going to say it was 12. MR. MULLER-I agree with you. It was 12. MRS. PULVER-Okay. It was 12, would be more than sufficient parking. Now, it appears that you may have outgrown the site. or you need more parking than 12 cars. because there certainly is more vehicles out there than 12 at one time. and I think that's what originally brought it to our attention. MR. MULLER-That's right. That's why we're here. MRS. PULVER-Right. What is your plan? MR. MULLER-Well. if you're looking at the same drawing that Scott has just showed me, 15 on the south side. and there's an area that is enclosed with a chain link fence, and that has additional parking written in it. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That is on a plan somewhere that we have? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That was submitted as part of the application for the modification. MR. MULLER-Now the chain link fence area is an area that we (lost word) and it was, when Mr. Pasco operated the site and Mr. Vito operated the site. an area where they put motorcycles and snowmobiles. It's just a secure area. you can drive things into and lock them up. MRS. PULVER-All right. and what's the staff's comment on the 15 parking spaces. Is that adequate for? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know if it's adequate for what their needs are. MR. BREWER-Fifteen. and how many over here, on the north side? MR. EGGLESTON-I had it written down. MR. STARK-Fifteen on the south side. twenty on the north side. MR. HARLICKER-You have ten vehicles in the fenced in area. MR. MARTIN-Do you have any room inside. Rich, where you can, in the evenings. put cars. too? MR. EGGLESTON-It's filled. - 3 - MR. MARTIN-It's filled. MR. BREWER-You've got. your capacity is what inside. how many? MR. MULLER-Well. we had represented. at the time we made the initial application, twenty. MR. EGGLESTON-I'd say between ten and twenty inside. MR. BREWER-Okay. So. lets say 15 for. MR. MULLER-The variable is that, every once in a while there's a vehicle that's larger than a car. They were working on a tractor trailer. MR. BREWER-So. if we say 15. and you've got another 15 is 30, and 10 is 40. Is 40 spaces enough? MRS. PULVER-Now, don't commit yourselves. commitment. We're looking for a MR. EGGLESTON-This is a fairly new venture to us. For me to say. we're going to do X amount of business. MR. BREWER-No. I understand that. but you can control your business. I mean. you can't. if you've got seven men working there. they can't all work on three cars at once. MR. EGGLESTON-But the problem is that. say. Mr. Brewer. you had a new Accura that your wife got in an accident. and it was disabled. The problem we have is that you don't want that vehicle stored on your property. So you come to me to give you an estimate on a wreck. Obviously, they have to tow it to my location. thereby we do the estimate on it. We submit it to the insurance company. and then there's a time period when the vehicle has to be left there. It's obviously disabled. That's something that I don't have control over. MR. BREWER-I understand that exactly, but how many of them do you think you can have there? I mean. what I see is I don't want to say. okay, if you need 50, lets do 50 now. Lets not do 50 ten at a time. Lets do it all at once. That's!!!y position. I'm not saying that's. MR. MULLER-Well. maybe I have to ask the planners here. but we are proposing to mark 15 spaces. We are proposing to put additional cars in the chain link area, not marking them. They're kind of in there. Are. we have. I think. abided by the representation that we weren't putting ugly wrecks out where you could see them, because I drive by it every day. and I kind of look for that. because I made the promise, and I wanted to make sure. The ghastly looking stuff is off in the back. so you couldn't see it. and that's what we intend to do. We weren't proposing. unless somebody's now going to impose a requirement on us, to mark what's on the north side. We just want to park in there. This really isn't customer parking, and it's not long term storage. I mean, they're really moving them in and out fast. MR. EGGLESTON-The object of this whole thing. for us to be profitable, is that we can turn these vehicles over. We're not a storage facility. We're not a junk yard. I mean. it's money for us. The quicker we can get it out. for the less amount of labor and time, the better the business. MR. MULLER-So you want us to commit to a number tonight? MR. BREWER-Well, I would just say that if we say ten more on the north side. and three more, or how many on the south side, and then two weeks you're going to have ten more than that. it's not fair to you to make you keep coming back. and it's not fair to us to. - 4 - ----" MR. HARLICKER-Well, how about this, Tim. How about if they provide, if they screen the area to the north side of the building to the north side of the building. so it's not visible. what difference does it make how many cars they can put in there? MR. BREWER-It doesn't make any difference to me. get an idea what. I just want to MR. HARLICKER-I mean, I think what's concerned here is the visible number of cars that are parked along the south side of the parking lot there. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. HARLICKER-What they put back in their enclosed area. MR. BREWER-Doesn't make any difference. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. What difference does it make? MRS. PULVER-Well. I disagree. I think the whole thing does make a difference. I wouldn't let Shop N' Save just have a parking lot and say. I want them in and out as fast as they can. So they can just park anywhere they want. This is a site plan review. I don't really care how many parked cars. how many cars he has there, but I'd like to see a plan. Even if they're wrecked, they can only fit so many there. MR. MARTIN-The usual reason why you have a plan for parking is so you can accommodate vehicular flow and things like that. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Absolutely. You've still got to get them and get them in the garage and get them back and line them up and stack them and put the parts on. MR. MARTIN-But if you have a section of the lot that's for storage. the traffic pattern for a storage lot is not that critical. I don't think. MR. HARLICKER-No. They can back one out. They can piggyback them. They can do all kinds of things to tighten them in there. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, Scott and Jim both, you don't want them to have a wreck in there and say, well. I'll buy that because the insurance company totalled it. and some day I'll fix it. and then end up with 15 junk cars in there either. MR. MULLER-And you already set a requirement on us that we were not going to do that. and we represented that. and I don't think we have done that. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying you're qoinq to do that. but I'm just saying it could happen. MR. MULLER-I think what you need to know. then, it sounds like we would like to be flexible in terms of how many cars we can store on the north side. and nobody wants to see that. So. we will screen it. and it's going to be screened the same color as the building, gray. If somebody has a problem with gray, they should speak up right away. and we'll change the color. but you will not be able to see how many cars are in there. MR. MARTIN-What's it going to be screened with? MR. EGGLESTON-We've already contracted a person to do the. the wire mesh fence is already there. We're going to run another length of that to the property line. and then we've got the insert plastic. MR. MARTIN-Okay. - 5 - ¿ '"" ~ MRS. PULVER-Originally. when this came before us for site plan review. it was. we had a public hearing on it. on 12 cars. Now we're talking forty plus cars. Maybe this should go through the site plan review process. because it's tripling the parking. and the business. obviously, has changed from. I mean. certainly for your benefit. but the business has changed considerably from what it was presented to the public at the public hearing. The neighbors should be notified. I mean. I don't have to drive by there every day. I'm not running a restaurant in the back yard. I can sit here and look at this drawing and say, yes. I guess we can fit forty cars there. It seems possible. but I think maybe we need the public to come back and have their input on forty cars versus twelve cars. MR. MARTIN-I don't think that's an unreasonable position. MRS. TARANA-Isn't that required according to the new law? MR. MARTIN-That's for subdivision. not site plan. MRS. TARANA-He said site plan and subdivision the other night. MR. MARTIN-I didn't hear him say that. MRS. TARANA-When you have a modification. MR. MULLER-We're real interested in complying with the new law. whatever it is. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else on the Board want to say anything before I let the Harts speak, if they care to speak? MRS. HART MRS. HART-Am I correct. there was only supposed to be twelve cars in there? They've never had twelve cars in there. When we first came to you. you assured there would only be twelve parking spots. and there would be nothing on the side of the building that faces the Harvest. Am I wrong in assuming that? You said in the screened in area there would be no cars. MRS. TARANA-No. that's right. MR. MULLER-She's not wrong. That's what we represented. PHILIP HART MR. HART-This was a conditional thing they gave. on those conditions. right? MR. BREWER-I will read the motion. MR. HART-You gave them conditional. under these conditions. MRS. PULVER-Well. it was discussed. I had my minutes all outlined. but I don't have them. but it was discussed in the minutes. the twelve parking cars. MR. HART-Is this a commercial area. or a light industrial area? MR. MARTIN-It's commercial. MR. HART-Now what is defined as commercial? commercial? Is that defined as MR. MARTIN-Auto repair's a permitted use in commercial. MRS. PULVER-It's an allowable use. MR. BREWER-We're going to let Corinne read the motion. It starts - 6 - .-/' right down here. MRS. TARANA-This was introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. and seconded by Carol Pulver: For the operation of an auto collision repair shop on the east side of Bay Road, with the following conditions: One, that the applicant provide an enlarged drawing showing the size and location of the 12 parking spaces. the size and location of the easement to the landlocked Hart property. to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff that the Hart's access will not be infringed upon by this site plan. and direct the Town Planning Staff to send the applicant back to site plan review if the applicant cannot meet those requirements, and that parking and storage of the cars be limited to the 12 designated marked painted on the pavement parking spots. and that the applicant approximately mark the south entrance as the entrance and the north part of the curb as the exit to Bay Road. creating a one way traffic flow around the curve. that the applicant include the recommendations by the Beautification Committee as part of this final approval." MRS. PULVER-Okay, Corinne, would you just look. it says, will go back to site plan review if they. if the applicant cannot comply with these conditions. right? MRS. TARANA-Right. Direct the Town Planning Staff to send the applicant back to site plan review if the applicant cannot meet those requirements. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-Here they are. MR. BREWER-They are back for a modification. MR. HARLICKER-Modification. MR. HART-Could you read that commercial zoning. compared to the other? MR. MARTIN-The Highway Commercial zoning for this site? MR. HART-Is that what it's zoned? MR. MARTIN-Yes. and auto repair and body shop is a listed use. MR. HART-See. I'm more concerned about the paint smell than I am about those cars, and on the other hand. we just got rid of Vito, and he had a junk yard. and it wasn't beautified by any means. and we have a lot of money invested there. MRS. HART-I want to go to Florida some day and play golf. I want to be able to sell it for what it's worth. not next to a junk yard. and it looks like a junk yard. I have pictures. They average 22 to 29 cars a day. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would you feel uncomfortable if they wanted to put 15 parking spaces on the south side. and store cars in there, if it was screened? MR. HART-Well. they're talking about blinding. with that fence. That fence is four foot high. MRS. HART-But if you give these people 15. they put 30. If you give them 12. they put 27. What difference does it make? MRS. PULVER-Right now they're talking a minimum of 40. MR. BREWER-I think the 40 number was included with the numbers inside. Remember I said 15 inside, 30. So. you've got is, and I said 15 inside. which is 30. and then 10 on this side is 40. - 7 - MR. RUEL-What's the height of the fence? MR. HART-Four foot, five foot tops. You can easily see everything in there. MR. RUEL-Four foot is not going to help. MR. STARK-So you need a six foot fence. on a side yard, a six foot fence is allowed. MRS. PULVER-Well. my feeling is. I would like to see it go through the site plan process. and have another public hearing on it, and have all the neighbors notified. I think this is a significant change. and it's a significant change in business. and I'm not against business. MR. HART-Are they modifying this under hardship? MR. BREWER-No, they're not modifying it under hardship. MR. HART-I'm just curious, because they created their own hardship. MR. MARTIN-Hardship's not a consideration in a site plan review. MR. BREWER-Okay. How do you feel. Roger? MR. RUEL-I agree with Carol. MR. BREWER-Okay. George? MR. STARK-I agree with Carol. MR. BREWER-Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I agree with her. MR. BREWER-Okay. review. It looks like we're coming back to site plan MR. HART-Now, what are you going to be reviewing? MR. BREWER-It's going to be a whole new application. MRS. HART-So. in the meantime, they can park 25 cars there? MRS. PULVER-Twelve cars. MRS. HART-What happens if there's more? MRS. TARANA-It's an enforcement. MRS. PULVER-Call them every day. MR. BREWER-Well. I don't feel real strong about the enforcement. making them, I mean, if you're going to create a hardship on them because they're doing business in the Town of Queensbury. I would say that we can put some kind of condition that they clean it up somewhat. I mean. you don't want to put the guy out of business. MRS. TARANA-These people don't want to go out of business. either. MR. HART-The Town of Queensbury. many times, has told me that I created my own hardship. by not opening up the land, and that's how I kept buying, lot after lot after lot. Now I've got plenty of land, but it only goes to certain people. right? MR. BREWER-Well. it's my own personal opinion. I don't want to put a guy out of business because he's growing. MR. HART-I don't want to put him out of business. but he shouldn't - 8 - --- have been there to begin with. MRS. PULVER-The process, and it's true, we don't want to put the man out of business. but the process is, if we're here as a Planning Board, and the decision was made. the applicant made the decision. it's in the minutes. He decided how many cars he needed and so forth. If he can't comply with it, then he essentially has broken the conditions on which he was given this approval. It does become an enforcement issue. Can we get it enforced. probably not. I question sometimes why we have a Planning Board. Why do we go through this? MR. BREWER-Well. I can tell you right now that I. there was an application in for modification and well. as a matter of fact, it was this one. and they werè in for modification, and we asked Dave Hatin to enforce it. and he said. I can't when they have an application. MR. MULLER-The reason we're here, I think. is because Dave Hatin said you need more parking space. You're not in conformance. So immediately we made the application. MR. HART-Immediately you went into the process of doing what you wanted to do with it. before the actual approval. MR. MULLER-Mr. Hatin's right. that is that if he says. you've got to put an application in for modification. which we did. Tonight. apparently. it's not going to be resolved. I just need to have some instruction. which is that. do you wish for me to amend. in other words. give you more information, on this very site plan application number. more information, that I heard you wanted tonight. or do you want me to start brand new. with a brand new piece of paper and a brand new application. MR. BREWER-What I'm hearing from the ,Board is we want a new application, and a new public hearing. MR. MULLER-We have no problem with the new public hearing. The new information. you want me to start allover? Is that what you want? MR. BREWER-Just with the changes. I mean, I would like to see a map with all the changes on it, and you know that we're going to ask you to increase the size of the fence. You know that right up front, so you can put that on there. So we don't have to go back through that. MR. MULLER-We'll bring you a piece of plastic that shows you what. MR. BREWER-Well. we don't need to see that. MR. MULLER-All right. We won't do that. MR. BREWER-Height on the plan. MR. HART-Isn't it spelled out. like Shop N' Save. now they say they're going to do so much business. don't you have to have so many parking places? MRS. PULVER-For that type of business, yes. MR. HART-I mean. when I had the restaurant, they said. okay. you have so many feet, you've got to have this many. MRS. PULVER-Right. I don't think. MR. HART-They have so many, they do business in. they should have so many parking spaces. MRS. PULVER-No. I don't think our Zoning Ordinance covers that. though, for this particular business. - 9 - ~- MR. RUEL-It doesn't work that way. not for a garage. MR. BREWER-I mean. they have no control. MRS. PULVER-Well. it's what Jim said. The cars are not moving in and out of there. traffic isn't moving in and out. so therefore they don't need parking. MR. BREWER-It's a different type of business. They've got to have the car in there for a period of time to work on it. and if they're waiting for parts. MR. HART-I'm just saying. you don't have to have 60 of them in there. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. there, but I think we can hopefully. satisfy everybody. 100 cars there either. You don't have to have 60 of them come up with a number that will, I don't want to go by there and see MR. MARTIN-I think the ultimate solution is in proper screening of the lot. If you have the lot blocked off. and I'm not. in an aesthetically pleasing manner. It's not going to make a difference if you have one car back there or fifty, because nobody's going to be able to see whether one car's back there or fifty, and I'm talking about proper height fence, and an aesthetically pleasing manner. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. MR. STARK-Yes. but you can't screen the south side. talking about screening the north side. You're only MR. MARTIN-Well. yes. you can limit the parking there. where it can't be screened, and in the area where it can be, it should be. MR. MULLER-We will give you a plan based on what I'm hearing. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Good. MR. MARTIN-And. Mike, I'll work with you on a submission. because I think expediency here is important. So the submission deadline was yesterday. If you can get me something early next week. we'll make sure it's on for the November meetings. MR. BREWER-You don't have a right to do that. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I do. You can turn me down. MR. BREWER-We'll do it. I mean. I don't have a problem with it. MR. MARTIN-Because you've usually deferred to Staff. historically. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I'd like to know how the odor problem is going to be addressed, because when it was presented to us, originally. and that was my main concern. more than the cars. we were told there was going to be a State of the Art, whatever. MRS. PULVER-Paint booths. MR. MULLER-And it's true. It is State of the Art. and I'll tell you about it. We installed the equipment and it's the best that can be bought. and the Environmental Conservation Department issues a permit. That permit is all but in our hands, that is that we were told today. I wanted to tell you today that we have it. but we don't. We were told by DEC that it's issued, and we'll have it, - 10 - and I'm going to go a little bit out on a limb on this one. I think we're the only shop in Town that has one. Nobody else has been asked to get one. That's what we were told by DEC. MR. MARTIN-That may be true, because it's a relatively new regulation. and they've been slow in getting it implemented. MR. MULLER-And Mrs. Tarana, more specifically. the thing that boggles the mind is that once you have the permit, there are no standards issued yet, that is that it's hard to be in violation of standards that have yet to be created. So what we tried to do was buy the best piece of equipment, and apparently it's not satisfactory to the Harts. So the next best thing that we can do is have the painting schedule with hours that are not conflicting with their peak hours. and that's being done. Thomas Stimpson said to me. we're painting in these early a.m. hours. we're doing some in the morning. a little bit in the afternoon. but the impact of these odors. and you realize that there is a lot between this place and the Harts. The ideal situation is not to do it at the dinner hour, and when the warm weather was upon us. and the Harts had their door open at the kitchen area. not to do it then. That was a problem, and we have attempted to do everything to solve it. Now. we can't get the wind to blow the other way every night. That helps it. Yes, admittedly, there's an odor coming out. It's the odor of fresh paint. MR. BREWER-Okay. So what do we do about the enforcement. Jim. about the amount of cars now? MR. MARTIN-They'll have to keep them down to 12. MR. MULLER-Well. it shouldn't boggle anybody's mind. that is that if the Town Attorney says to you that once they have an application pending. enforcement is staid. and here's the section of Town Law that says so, then everybody would be happy would be happy with that. We'll try our very best to not stack cars out there, but we'll put them in the parking spaces. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MULLER-Okay. and I'll be back the next meeting. that. We'll do MR. MARTIN-When can you get an application in? MR. MULLER-It will be after 8: 30 tomorrow morning. tomorrow. Some time MR. MARTIN-Some time tomorrow. That would be great. MR. BREWER-Do we need to make a motion to deny the modification? MR. MARTIN-I would. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. MULLER-Couldn't you just table the thing? MR. BREWER-No. because it's going to be a whole new site plan. MR. MARTIN-I would put that in the context of your motion, that you're requiring for a new application. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO DENY MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 11-93 RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Because the applicant was unable to meet the conditions of the - 11 - 4¡ ,'.I -- original approval. So a new application will be submitted. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint RESOLUTIONS: SEQRA REVIEW - THOMAS KUBRICKY - RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF VARIANCE NO. 86- 1993. MR. BREWER-This is just a motion to be lead agent, correct? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE SEQRA REVIEW OF Area Variance No. 86-1993. and Site Plan for Thomas Kubrickv RESOLUTION NO.: 26 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS. Thomas Kubrickv has submitted an application for a variance and site plan in connection with a project known as or described as construction of a house on a preexistinq. nonconforminq lot, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Thomas Kubrickv for a variance and site plan: 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired: 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days: and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review: and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies. the Executive Director shall also mail a copy of explanation, together with the copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: - 12 - '-- -.../ AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint MRS. TARANA-Could I just ask why ~ are going to be the lead agent, rather than the ZBA? MR. MARTIN-Because it's going to be an application that's ultimately up for site plan review also. MRS. TARANA-So when we do the SEQRA. we're going to do the site plan as well as the variance? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. TARANA-Shouldn't that be part of our motion, then, as lead agent? MR. HARLICKER-It's part of the. it's for Area Variance 86-1993. and Site Plan. MR. MARTIN-It was in the title of the resolution. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Okay. I didn't see it on there. SITE PLAN NO'. 10-93 THE GREAT ESCAPE MODIFICATION TO THE SITE TO REFLECT ACTUAL AS-BUILT CONDITIONS. MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have no notes. MR. HARLICKER-I believe it was modification for the drainage. MR. MARTIN-Drainage and landscaping. MR. HARLICKER-Landscaping. MR. BREWER-Mr. Wages, we have a letter. letter, Corinne, from the LA Group. Do you want to read the MRS. TARANA-Mr. Timothy Brewer, Chairman, Queensbury Planning Board, regarding the Black Cobra Site Plan approval number 10-93. "Dear Mr. Brewer: We have modified the site plan for the Black Cobra ride to reflect actual as built conditions as shown on the enclosed map. We enclosed 10 copies of the modified site plan. Also enclosed. please find a copy of the stormwater calculations previously submitted to Tom Yarmowich of Rist-Frost Associates. We request that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board approve this modification to the existing site plan approval at the next regularly scheduled meeting. We are available at your convenience to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Sincerely. Daniel P. Sheehan for the LA Group" MR. BREWER-Tom. you did look at this? You're satisfied with it? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. revision. I did actually visit the site. based on the MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? Tom, could you possibly come up and explain the modifications that you did make? MRS. PULVER-Is it the drywells here. Tom? TOM WAGES MR. WAGES-My name is Tom Wages. I'm the President of the Great Escape. We made some minor modifications. I'll say the word - 13 - - "minor", but the modifications during the time preceding the original approval. and we've reflected these, for your records. and for the records of the Planning Board, in an as built drawing that we're submitting to you today. The primary changes were a change in the stormwater runoff. which was really due to a calculation error. and Tom can perhaps speak to this better than I, but as I understand it. our engineers made a calculation error. They put in their computer that we were blacktopping the entire side of the hill. when indeed it was left as bare ground. So we were. when we got into the construction phase and we discovered that they had had a series of drywells around here. which was absolutely unnecessary, they re-ran the calculations. submitted them to Rist-Frost, for their review. and as I understand. they were approved. and that's the way we constructed it. The other changes included some minor changes in the planting plan. We actually planted, we did more plantings than what was originally on the site plan. We added additional landscaping, and we moved some of it from one spot to another. The other minor changes was a change in the location of the walkway, and we discovered in the construction phase that by moving a section of the ride slightly to the west. that it set better on the ground. So we did that while we were in the phase, final layout stage. Those are the four primary changes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have any questions we want to ask about this? Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-93 THE GREAT ESCAPE. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: To modifications to the site plan to reflect the actual as built conditions. as per plans dated 9/29/93. Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HAL RAVEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RR-3A. SFR-1A THE VISTAS ON WEST MT. RD. LOCATION: FROM AVIATION RD. GO SOUTH ON WEST MT. RD. TO 1ST ROAD RIGHT OPPOSITE PINEWOOD HOLLOW. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE EXISTING TWO LOTS INTO THREE LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 87-1-10.5. 10.6 LOT SIZE: 6.3 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 19-1993 Final Stage. Hal Raven. Meeting Date: October 28, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide two lots into three lots. The two lots that are to be subdivided are part of a previously approved subdivision known as the Berkeley Subdivision, approved on 2/6/80. The total acres that is proposed to be resubdivided is 6.334. lot 2 will be 2.93 acres. lot 3 will be 2.12 acres and the new lot, lot 8, will be 1.25 acres. PROJECT ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding issues after preliminary approval and staff can recommend final approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any questions on this item? somebody care to make a motion? Would MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1993 HAL RAVEN. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Whereas. the Town Planning Department is in receipt of final subdivision application. file # 19-1993, to subdivide existing two lots into three: and - 14 - -../ Whereas. the above referenced final subdivision application dated 8/23/93 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1 Modifications to Vistas on West Mountain, dated 8/23/93: and Whereas. documentation: the 1. above file is supported with the Staff notes. dated 10/28/93; and following Whereas. the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment: and Whereas. any modifications and terms contained in the preliminary subdivision approval have been complied with. Therefore. Let It Be Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board. after considering the above, hereby move to approve subdivision plat for Hal Raven file # 19-1993. Let it be further resolved. 1. That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board all appropriate fees shall be paid and that within 60 days of the date of this resolution the applicant shall have the signed plat file in the Office of the County Clerk of Warren County. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 23-1993 DONALD KRUGER PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE 2 EXISTING LOTS INTO 3 LOTS. LEON STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 23-1993. Donald Kruger Revised Preliminary Stage, Meeting Date: October 28. 1993 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to utilize a driveway easement to access the 4.39 acre parcel. Driveway easements as a remedy to an existing landlocked or difficult to access parcel is an alternative that has some merit. However. this is not the case with this piece of property: the property has no existing access problems. The access problems are a result of the proposed subdivision. It is an easement to gain access to a lot. The alternative to the driveway easement would require crossing the stream that traverses the property at least once and probably twice and require permits from DEC. It seems that the applicant is attempting to get too many lots out of this particular parcel. The subdivision was designed for 10 lots. not 11. This eleventh lot, proposed as an after thought. just cannot be accommodated on the remaining piece of property given the constraints that exist." - 15 - - MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Steves, would you care to address this? MR. STEVES-The original subdivision was approved, I think. in 1986, did indeed show a long driveway back to the rear end of the lot, where the house was proposed. There is an intermittent stream that traverses the lot going through what we show here as Lot 11. and back through to Lot 9. and then off the property again. The brook is controlled by the City of Glens Falls. as they deemed for release of the reservoir in each spring. water will flow. but the rest of the year. it's pretty dry. We have proposed putting the house in the front here. and maintain the 75 feet from the brook, maintaining the 100 feet setback from the brook for the septic. and we're allowing a driveway easement across the northerly portion of Lot 11, for the purposes of entering onto Lot 9. We're maintaining a 40 foot requirement for the frontage on a Town road between the revised Lot 10 and the new Lot 11 for Lot 9. I guess that's it in a nutshell. MR. BREWER-Okay. anything? Does anybody on the Board want to question MR. RUEL-Where's the driveway for the house on Lot 11? It's not shown. MR. STEVES-It's not shown. but we probably will have it on the north end of the parcel. MR. RUEL-It's not connected to the easement? MR. STEVES-No. not at all. MR. RUEL-It goes to the circle? MR. STEVES-It will go to the circle. that's correct. MR. RUEL-And what are these setbacks here? MR. BREWER-The setback is from the stream. The building, I think, is 75 foot setback. and the septic is 100 foot. Those are the two lines. MR. RUEL-I see. considerably. Yes. We looked at that property. You can't tell from this. though. It drops off MR. STEVES-It does drop off. MR. RUEL-How many feet does it drop off from the cul-de-sac to the house, approximately? It's all going to be fill? MR. STEVES-It's about 16 feet. MR. RUEL-It's all going to be filled in? MR. STEVES-No. The bank goes too close to that road. MR. RUEL-Is there water in that stream? MR. STEVES-The last I knew there was no water in that stream. MR. RUEL-After a heavy rain. maybe? MR. STEVES-No. It's all controlled by the reservoir. If the City wishes to release water because they have too much up there, they will do so. They haven't had too much, to my knowledge. MR. STARK-The driveway easement, how far are you from the property line of the people to the north of you? What kind of a buffer would you have there? MR. STEVES-As shown on the plans. it's around five feet, at the - 16 - '--- -- narrowest spot. Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Leon. where does this. you show the stream line, and it just stops in the middle of the lot. Where does it continue to go? MR. STEVES-It traverses easterly, and then flows southerly back across the lot line. MR. BREWER-So it ends up way back here? MR. STEVES-Yes. it does. MR. BREWER-I was just curious as to whether it went across this road that was there now? MR. STEVES-No. That's why we brought it. the easement. in this fashion. because if we bring it down here, the road, we'd have to cross the brook in two places. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Is this half acre zoning? MR. STEVES-One acre. MR. BREWER-One acre. I think he got it approved when it was half acre. MR. STARK-You left the public hearing open. MR. BREWER-Yes. I did. MR. STEVES-I want to bring to your attention that we are enlarging Lot 10, adding that 20 feet to the easterly line of that Lot 10. MR. BREWER-Well, I'm probably not going to make a lot of people happy with this, but I suggested that. I talked to Mr. Kruger when I was there the other day, about possibly moving the house from there and using the existing road or whatever it is. to accommodate maybe the houses further back in the lot. Have you considered that at all. Don? You don't have to. I'm just asking you to. DONALD KRUGER MR. KRUGER-We haven't really had time to sit down and do an analysis of it, because of the topography of the land. It really requires something unique. Despite what some people may think, I am concerned with the environment. and what we're doing back there. and we will consider that. In any event. it's a one acre zone. You could do just about anything with a five acre piece of property. In theory you could hack it into five pieces. I don't know. yet, if I want to do that or not, but I would consider it, but we haven't made that proposal yet. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Could you just tell me, Lot Seven ends right here at this northeast line? MR. STEVES-Yes. it does. MRS. TARANA-And then this whole thing, then, is Lot Eleven? MR. BREWER-Yes. Right. MRS. TARANA-And this is Lot Nine. and the easement, then. is going over Lot Eleven, 230 foot driveway. is that right? MR. STEVES-Yes. - 17 - "--' ~ MR. BREWER-Minimum. MRS. TARANA-We don't know where the house would be. MR. STEVES-No. MRS. TARANA-So it's 700 to the back. MR. MARTIN-Leon, were you going to show topo on this at any time? MR. STEVES-I could. I wasn't going to. You have it in your files. on the previously submitted plans. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-Could this ever be subdivided? MR. BREWER-It's possible. There's five acres. MRS. PULVER-Well. right now. no, you have to have 40 foot of road frontage. That's what this is right here. MR. BREWER-All right. I'll re-open the public hearing. It was left open. Is there anybody from the public that wants to speak on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN BARBARA CALVERT MRS. CALVERT-Barbara Calvert. I live on Bonner Drive. I was here at the original meeting. The reason why he's not supposed to be developing further up in here was because originally there could not be a road further up through there because of fire. In Queensbury they only accept roads that are certain length, if they do not have two egresses. So that's why all of this was not to be developed originally. Originally. because the rest of the lots were undersized. this was supposed to be a buffer zone. That's also the reason why we were told there was never going to be development other than just single homes back up in here. I showed you last week that this stream does indeed flow. plus the Town of Queensbury has, because of the lay of the land on Bonner Drive and the fact that it's hilly. they have built or dug or whatever you want to call it drainage down this street from Lot 33 down to Lot 23. Lot 23 is angled under the Mocks property and drains into here, which is why the lower part of this driveway is constantly washing away. Now I imagine if this is paved. which I would assume if you had a driveway or a roadway up here. it would have to be paved, all of this will be blocking into Lot 23, which the Town of Queensbury has dug únder in order to drain into here. MR. BREWER-When I was out there. I saw a culvert there. Is that the culvert? The Town of Queensbury drains water under your land? KRUGER-It doesn't matter. If the drainage situation preexists your problem seven years. you have nothing to say about it. The Town can do what they want. They have seven year rights. She's right. The drainage does go down through there. but. I don't mean to refute her. but if the Town can drain the thing down through there, why can't we simply extend the drain on. MRS. CALVERT-Also. because of the lay of the land. the road sort of dips down here. So you're also having water draining from this direction and this direction, which then has a culvert under Lot 23, which is the Mock's property. They're already getting flooding in their back yard because of this condition. Plus, if you leave this driveway here. you're not going to have. he said that he would move the driveway a bit so that it wouldn't be so close to people's property lines, and you're not going to be able to move that. This whole lot here, we were guaranteed in the original meeting in 1987. - 18 - 0, .:... not '86. '87. would be left as the buffer of green area because of these other lots being undersized. They're about half the size of the existing lots on this street. and then I have a problem up behind my house we have a construction dump site. and I do have pictures to show that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. CALVERT-My house has three sliding glass doors that face in that wooded area. so this is what I look at every day. MR. RUEL-What's your lot number? MRS. CALVERT-My house number is 33. but I believe the lot would be 35. MR. RUEL-This one here? MRS. CALVERT-Yes. MRS. PULVER-So. you're looking into it here? MRS. CALVERT-Yes. MR. RUEL-With vehicles? MRS. CALVERT-Yes. MR. BREWER-We were up there the other day. and there is a couple of trucks up in there. MRS. TARANA-Was this originally a subdivision. those things that you said. those conditions? Was that part of a subdivision that part of a subdivision? Did that go through the planning process? MRS. CALVERT-Yes. It went through the Planning Board in 1987, in April. MRS. TARANA-Are their minutes on that? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I read through the minutes, maybe I missed it. but I didn't come across the references that she's referring to. I might have missed it. I looked through the resolutions. and there's no conditions in the resolutions that state that this has to remain green. MRS. TARANA-Was there anything in the discussion that would have implied? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. like I said. I didn't see anything. they're very lengthy. It might have been brief and I missed it, but I didn't see anything. MR. RUEL-Well. it would have to be in the resolution, regardless of the minutes. MR. HARLICKER-It's not in the resolution. MRS. TARANA-Not necessarily. discussion. It can be implied through the MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else? MRS. CALVERT-I also have a disagreement with the buffer zone that you mentioned last week. From what I gathered, from attending the meetings, all developers have to pay a $3.000 fee for the Recreation Department. All developments had to pay this. It wasn't in lieu of changing from a green buffer zone, pay $3,000 and you can eliminate the buffer zone. - 19 - ..r MR. BREWER-I'm sorry, I don't quite understand that. MRS. CALVERT-Last week, or last Tuesday night, he said that he did not have to keep the buffer zone because he had paid $3 000 to the Recreation Department for his development, and from what'I remember reading. and hearing, all developments. after a certain date had to either donate land or pay the $3.000. and he has not do~ated land. and this was part. this buffer zone allegedly was my impression that it was supposed to be the land dedicated. so that he could use these smaller sized lots. MRS. PULVER-Well. I don't know what happened before 1988, that's when we adopted the new Subdivision Reg's and the Zoning Ordinance. but a developer has to pay $500 per lot when they develop. MRS. CALVERT-He claims $3,000. MRS. PULVER-Well. maybe that was for eight lots, you know. it could have been different. and the buffer zone had to have been. if it was a true buffer zone. would have had to have been either part of a homeowners association, or deeded to the Town in lieu of the Recreation fee. Now that did not happen. right? I mean. I'm correct in that? You pay $500 a lot, or you donate recreational land. MR. MARTIN-The first consideration is for land. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-And then the fee is in lieu of the land. MRS. PULVER-Right. and so. but a buffer is a buffer is a buffer. unle ss the Town has ownership to it. The Town didn't have ownership to that, though. did they? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. CALVERT-So that's our main concern. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? MR. KRUGER-I'm Don Kruger. and I guess I own the property. and I don't know how anybody can remember exactly word for word what happened six years ago, but I'll go ahead and try. I paid the Recreation fee in lieu of donating the land. There was never any mention about keeping anything as a buffer. as a donated buffer zone. to my knowledge. You can check the record. It's a matter of the record. I don't mean to refute Mrs. Calvert entirely. but we have done everything we can. Yes. I do have some construction trucks back there. We have a development which is under construction. I am in the construction business. The Town has seen fit to charge me taxes. which more than doubled this year on that piece of property. and the only use I'm getting out of it. other than to go for my morning walk, is to park a couple of construction trucks on it. If that offends Mrs. Calvert. I wish she'd have called me and told me. rather than trying to embarrass me in front of this group of people. However. it is a use of the land. and we are under construction. If she would like them moved, I think she should take a page from Mr. Butman's book and just discuss it. We'd glad move it. if it offends her. As far as being a construction dump. last week we paid $148 to dump in the Town of Queensbury Landfill. We're not dumping anything back there. We are parking trucks back there. When we're all done construction, those trucks will be out of there. I don't have any intention of donating any land to anybody. I'm in the construction business. The only security I have in life is what I accumulate in either dollars in the bank or the land that I own. Mrs. Calvert has the luxury of having tenure with the school system. Well, I'm not here to debate the merits of tenure. It does give her a guarantee that - 20 - nobody in the construction business has the luxury of. So, the differences on that point are totally insurmountable. I have to get maximum use out of my land, and that's all I'm asking for. MR. BREWER-Okay. George? MR. STARK-Mr. Kruger, Tim and I were up there yesterday. and we were thinking of possibly alternatives, rather than putting a long road down and so on. As far as your dump up there. it's not a dump. You've got construction material stored up there. That's fine. Is there any thought between you and Mr. Steves of purchasing a lot on Bonner Drive and putting a road in there and putting two or three houses down on the level part of the rear of lot nine? MR. KRUGER-I will attempt to purchase that again. When I did that before. I met with the stonewallers. There's an elderly widow that owns that. and her attorney has stonewalled the whole deal. So. he didn't want her to sell. MR. STARK-That would solve a lot of problems. You'd get more use out of the property back there. That's the way out of it, I would think. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-My only question was. yes. it was construction. and it looked like forms, which I'm assuming if there's a house there. there wouldn't be any construction there. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anybody left from the public that would like to comment before I close the public hearing? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have to do a SEQRA for this. or not? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-1993. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: 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 - 21 - - for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MRS. PULVER-Nobody has any questions? MR. BREWER-I'm just going to give you my thoughts. I think that this subdivision. or this piece of property. could be better developed. and I think that we should ask the developer to possibly come up with another solution, or another plan for this piece of property. That's my only thought to this. before we approve or deny. MRS. TARANA-I'll just state that I agree with Tim. that even at the Preliminary Stage. I wouldn't vote for an approval of this particular plan. MR. STEVES-What you're asking for is for the developer to have a shared driveway. if I'm reading you correctly, which is nothing more than a lengthening of the Town road. As the previous speaker has said, one of the restrictions that the Town imposes is the length of Town roads. Now you're telling us that it's okay to go on with a further driveway. and lengthen that Town road, if you wi II. by another 6. 700 feet. just call ita private road. So really you're contradicting your own planning requirements. So after shooting myself in the foot with that. with a future thought. so we would have to ask for a special consideration for that length of road, I think. MR. BREWER-I just think, Leon, that George brought up and option. Don said he's willing to pursue it. I just don't think an approval is. I'm not saying I wouldn't approve. if this was the only alternative. but I think there's other alternatives that you can pursue. and I think by just putting the house as close as you can to that 75 foot setback or 100 foot setback is not appropriate. I understand that Mr. Kruger has a right to develop the land. but I think there's other ways that he can do it, and that's just my opinion. I'm only one member of this Board. MR. STEVES-I hear that, and I've told you my opinion of it as well. and I think now that it's time for a vote. MR. BREWER-I think so, too. It's time for a motion. MR. STEVES-A motion. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I mean. naturally. we're looking at this on paper, and sometimes it's hard to believe that if you go out there you're not going to see these lines and see everything exactly the way you're seeing it on paper. and I agree getting a lot in Bonner Drive makes a lot of sense. It would make probably more sense to Mr. Kruger. He would get more lots out of hi s land, and I certainly would pursue it. I'm convinced he's going to pursue it, but in the meantime. he can't do anything with his property unless - 22 - he gets some sort of approval. I mean. he can't even develop on the smaller lot unless he gets some sort of subdivision approval. MR. BREWER-Why can't he? MRS. PULVER-Because he hasn't come in for a one lot subdivision or a two lot subdivision. I mean, he has to get some. MR. BREWER-He can build on Lot Ten as it sits right now. Carol. He doesn't have to make that lot bigger. MRS. PULVER-This is three lots. He's coming in for three lots. No. he doesn't have to make it, but he's coming in to get these three lots divided the way they are. MRS. TARANA-He could go ahead and pursue alternatives. MRS. PULVER-No. what I'm saying is that he needs to get some sort of approval to do anything on those lots, right now, even on the smaller lot. That's part of the subdivision. MR. STARK-Have you actively. lately. tried to pursue the purchase of that last lot. on Bonner Drive? I mean, have you hit a brick wall? MR. KRUGER-No. I haven't. but it's a good idea. and I will pursue it. MR. STARK-You could whack the back part up where it's nice building you could put three lots back there. I mean, you get more use out of it. MR. BREWER-He can come back and modify it to a two lot subdivision. and leave it as two lots. rather than make it three. There's a lot of options that he can do, and I just don't think the one that's in front of us is appropriate. MR. STEVES-We will be willing to table it. to give ourselves some time to review your suggestion, and we'll be back to the Board with our conclusions at another time. MR. BREWER-And I don't mean to be hard-nosed. there's another alternative for the. I just think that MR. STEVES-I understand. MR. BREWER-Then you're willing to table? MR. STEVES-Yes. we are. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion to table? MR. MARTIN-Tim. if I were you, I'd re-open the public hearing and leave it open. then, if you're not going to move on from Preliminary. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Well. if we table it for purposes of reconsideration. we ought to look at the reconsideration aspect of it before we have another public hearing or another SEQRA. We haven't said that we would make the change. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. STEVES-We said we would review it. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. STEVES-We understand when we bring back a different plan. - 23 - you're going to look at it differently as well. MR. MARTIN-When you come back with a different plan, I'd recommend a new public hearing and then going through SEQRA again. MR. BREWER-Okay. So we're going to table this application right now. until next month. our first meeting. All right. We've got to have a motion and vote. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 23-1993 DONALD KRUGER. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: For subdivision reconsideration. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 1993. by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-That means that this application is tabled until next month at our first meeting. You're going to take a look at the alternatives and see if there's something possibly they can do, and if there is. then they'll come back with a new application. If not. then they'll try to have this approved. the meeting will be the third Tuesday of the month. MR. MARTIN-The third Tuesday. I think it turns out to be the 16th, next month. IRENE WEAVER MRS. WEAVER-Irene Weaver. on 29 Bonner Drive. I was just wondering about the traffic on Bonner Drive. I don't know how many people were down there, to try to turn around. I go out of that road several times a day. and you take your life in your hands. because traffic is coming down on West Mountain, when that speed limit is 50. Our turn to go out on Bonner Drive is 30 miles an hour, and then the one on Mountain View Lane is 35. I believe. It's almost impossible at times. especially with school and workers getting out, to get out there. Now this summer they had boards that you drove over or. I wonder if they are ever going to put a light there to stop it. There's a three way. MR. BREWER-I have no idea. MRS. WEAVER-Is there any way you can find out? MR. BREWER-You can ask the Town Board. MR. WEAVER-The Town Board? MR. BREWER-Yes. it. The Town Board would have to ask somebody to do MR. HARLICKER-I believe West Mountain. it's a County road. MR. BREWER-So the Town Board would have to approach the County, or whatever. I'm not sure. MRS. PULVER-Yes. but she's talking Mountain View. that's where West Mountain goes into. MRS. WEAVER-The Y of the road, it's awfully hard to get out of Bonner Drive. MR. BREWER-I think that would be something that you'd have to take up with the Town Board, not this Board. - 24 - -' MRS. WEAVER-Well. I was just wondering if bringing in more houses would make more. MR. BREWER-I think even if he built five more houses. they're not going to put up a light because he puts five more houses in there. I don't think. You never know. BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Town Board. The Town Board, during the Workshop tonight. a gentleman came in relative to the intersection of Mountain View Lane. Bonner Drive. and West Mountain Road. and the Town Board will be talking to the County about that. MRS. PULVER-Betty. what was it, he wanted a light there, or he wanted the reduced speed? MRS. MONAHAN-It wasn't speed. He thought the stop sign was in the wrong place. that people were coming off at West Mountain Road at too high a speed and going into Mountain View Road. and Nick Caimano thought that perhaps the stop sign was in the wrong position, and they were going to go and talk to the County about it. MR. BREWER-Okay. SEORA REVIEWS: SEQRA REVIEW: RANDY RIVETTE /MIKE RIVETTE RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. RANDY RIVETTE. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 48-93 SEQRA. Randy Rivette/Mike Rivette. Meeting Date: October 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to expand an existing year-round nonconforming residence by more than 50%. The original structure contains two bedrooms. the proposed addition will not increase the number of bedrooms. The size of the addition is 24' x 24'. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment submitted with this project and offers the following comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? The proposal will result in a slight physical change to the project site. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The proposal will not affect any protected water body. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The proposal will not affect any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The proposal will not affect surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The proposal will slightly affect drainage flow or surface water runoff. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? The project should not affect any non-threatened or non- endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic. prehistoric. or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any site of historic. prehistoric or paleontological importance. 13. Will proposed - 25 - - ----- action affect quantity or quality of eXisting or future open space or recreational opportunities? The action should not have an adverse affect on open space or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an effect to eXisting transportation system? The project should not effect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel and energy? The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable odors. noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable noise. odors or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. RECOMMENDATION: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment: therefore. the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." MRS. TARANA-I had one question. The septic system test is over five years old. Does that make any difference? MR. RIVETTE-My name's Randy Rivette. There's a new one. It's all been pumped recently. and approved. I never knew where it was, so I had to pay somebody to come and do it. They came down. It cost me $132. So he found the tank and pumped it. So now I know it's there. where it is. where it goes, everything's in fine working condition. MR. MARTIN-Tim. you ought to do the resolution accepting lead agency status before you do the review. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to offer that. Corinne? RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Site Plan No. 48-93 Randv Rivette/Mike Rivette RESOLUTION NO.: 25-1993 INTRODUCED BY: Corinne Tarana WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Carol Pulver WHEREAS. in connection with the Site Plan No. 48-93. Randv Rivette/Mike Rivette, Town of Queensbury Planning Board. by resolution. previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review. and WHEREAS. the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows: 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action. as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the following reasons: and BE IT FURTHER. - 26 - RESOLVED. that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we have to do the Long Form. MR. MARTIN-Tim. I'd do your public hearing before you go through the SEQRA form. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here that would like to speak on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Do we have any questions from the Board. relative to the SEQRA? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 48-93, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning a 24 foot by 24 foot addition. and Board an WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning BQard 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 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. - 27 - Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 48-93 TYPE: UNLISTED RANDY RIVETTE/MIKE RIVETTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-IA LOCATION: SULLIVAN PLACE PROPOSAL IS FOR A 24' X 24' ADDITION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV' 77- 1993 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10-13-93 TAX MAP NO. 38-1-4 LOT SIZE: 15.481.3 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16 RANDY RIVETTE. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 48-93. Randy Rivette/Mike Rivette, Meeting Date: October 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to expand an existing year round nonconforming residence by more than 50%. The original structure contains 2 bedrooms. the proposed structure will not cause an increase in the number of bedrooms. The property is zoned WR-IA and is 15,481 square feet in area. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A., the project is in compliance with the 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 with 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 was reviewed regarding its impact on highways. There was found to be no significant impact on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D., the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. 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 addition will be compatible with the existing structure. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; This is not an issue. 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; This is not an issue. 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 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: Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-Warren County reviewed it, approval with the comment. "With the condition that there is strict adherence to the separation distance between the well and the septic be met. parking be on the owner's property and not on the Town right-of-way and that the Queénsbury Sanitary Code be adhered to." - 28 - MR. BREWER-And I'm sure you don't have any problems adhering to that? Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. RUEL-I'm looking at a map here. the structure has been crossed out. Do you have a different one? Is this thing valid or not? MR. BREWER-Where do you see it crossed out? MR. RUEL-Down here. MR. BREWER-That's the addition right there. MR. RUEL-This must be the new one then. MRS. PULVER-It just looks like somebody just scribbled on that. MR. RUEL-Yes. I know. It looks that way. This is a septic system and field here? MR. BREWER-I don't have that. Roger. system. I don't have the septic MR. RUEL-This is an old one. then. I'm just trying to figure it out. where the septic tank is and where the field is. and where the well is. I can't tell from this map. MRS. PULVER-Well. this is the septic tank here. See. it says existing 300 gallon septic tank located approximately three feet from existing house. MR. RUEL-Yes, and then this must be the field out here. MRS. PULVER-Yes. That must be the leachfield. MR. BREWER-All set? MR. RUEL-Yes. Thank you. MR. BREWER-The only thing I would say is we'd make the stipulation that this Warren County motion be adhered to. and that's the only thing I've got. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-93 RANDY RIVETTE/MIKE RIVETTE, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: With the stipulation that they adhere to the recommendations of the Warren County Planning Board. in reference to the separation distance between the well and the septic system. the parking on the owner's property and not on the Town right-of-way. and that the Queensbury Sanitary Code be adhered to. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint SEQRA REVIEW: ZAREMBA GROUP. INC.. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. TIM MORGAN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT: JIM CONNORS. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Jim. I've got one question. We're doing the SEQRA on the project, not. just on the store? MR. MARTIN-Just on the site plan. - 29 - MR. BREWER-The Town did the one for the re-zoning? MR. MARTIN-Yes. They did the re-zoning. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-We do have a prepared resolution for this? MR. MARTIN-Well. you have a resolution. MRS. PULVER-Just to accept lead agency status. MR. MARTIN-I'd hold off on until right before you do the SEQRA form itself. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-After you have your public hearing and all that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Scott. do you want to read your brief notes? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 33-93. Zaremba Group. Inc.. Meeting Date: October 28. 1993 "The issued outlined below were raised as potential environmental concerns in staff notes dated 6/21/93. Since that time the applicant has responded with the following information. 1. Depth to water table - The depth of the water table has been found to be between 3 and 12 feet. 2. Sewer service - The applicant will be accessing the municipal sewer system near Progress Boulevard. The sewer line and connection to the existing system has been reviewed and accepted by the Wastewater Department. 3. Traffic study. NYSDOT. and the The applicant has submitted a detailed traffic The study has been reviewed by Warren County DPW and Both agencies have accepted the results of the study associated mitigating measures. 4. Site Disturbance - The applicant is of the disturbed material on other the reconstruction of the wetlands. and will be performed by a qualified local and state regulations. proposing to utilize most areas of the site and in Some blasting will occur firm and comply with all 5. Stormwater and drainage The applicant has submitted a detailed stormwater management and drainage plan. This plan has been reviewed by Rist-Frost and all concerns and comments have been addressed. 6. Wetlands - There were found to be U.S. Army Corp of Engineers regulated wetlands on the site. The applicant submitted a mitigation plan to them for approval. The Corp of Engineers has accepted the proposed mitigation measures that include relocating the wetlands on another part of the site. 7. Air Quality - The applicant has indicated that measures will be used to reduce the amount of construction related dust and pollution. Erosion control plans. wetting down the site and the use of gravel at access points will mitigate construction generated air quality impacts. 8. Character of existing community - The project will have an impact on the character of the community. This is a maj or retail project that is proposed for an area that abuts industrial zoned properties. This project will encourage future retail/development in that area and industrial uses - 30 - will be forced out by the demand for commercial properties." MR. HARLICKER-There's a letter you were handed out today from Mike Shaw. There are two outstanding issues regarding the sewer. One is they had to connect to a DEC sanitary sewer plan. and also buy in fees to the Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant had to be worked out. technical matters. And their response. in a letter dated today, is to. "Dear Mr. Shaw: This is to assure the Town of Queensbury that any changes requested by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for the sanitary sewer system to service the referenced project will be incorporated into final construction plans. When completed. these plans will be transmitted to your office for your records." MR. MARTIN-Mike Shaw was in my office today. and he verbally indicated to me that was acceptable. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to go right into your comments, and then Tom's. if he has any. and then we can. MR. MARTIN-I think in your packet you have all the associated letters in which Scott referred to. You have the letters from the U.S. Department of the Army. the Army Corp of Engineers. outlining the special conditions associated with their approval. You have Tom Flaherty's letter of October 17th regarding the water service. You have a letter from the New York State Department of Transportation. dated October 18th. regarding traffic impacts on the State route. a letter dated October 20th. from C. T. Male. responding back to those comments. as well as those raised by Mr. Austin, and then you have Fred Austin's letter of October 6th. accepting the concepts. and a letter of August 25th. as further background. from Fred Austin. and then we had a comment from the public, which I would recommend that Corinne read in during the public hearing. from Binley Florist. and the second letter. dated October 25th from Binley Florist. I believe it's. basically. the same letter. MR. BREWER-This letter, here. with the unresolved issues. MR. MARTIN-What one's that? MR. BREWER-It's dated 8/27. is that superceded by a letter from Fred Austin? MR. MARTIN-8/25, you mean? MR. BREWER-Yes. I'm sorry. it says received 8/27. MR. MARTIN-Yes. What they did in that space of time. and I think Jim Connors can clarify this. is that there were a number of submissions made directly to the County as a result of the D.P.W.'s review of the traffic plans. and they've reviewed those. and that October 6th letter reflects that there were some simple technical matters that needed to be taken care of. striping and things like that. and that's the reason for that October 6th letter. MR. BREWER-Okay. One thing that I question on the August 25th letter from Warren County. it says. Number Four. the left hand turn lane existing onto Quaker Road will be built. It doesn't say when it will be built. Is it going to be built when you build this project? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-It is? Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Scott. do you want to go through your? STAFF INPUT - 31 - Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 33-93 Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 2-93. Zaremba Group. Inc.. Meeting Date:· October 28 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to const~uct a 167.000 square foot retail store and 1,189 parking spaces. The project also involves a wetland permit fòr construction within a designated wetland. The parcel was subject to a rezoning to PC-IA and is 28.21 acres in size. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A.. the project is in compliance with the other requirements of this chapter. including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located. In accordance wi th 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 completed a detailed traffic study. The study was reviewed by Warren County Department of Public Works and NYSDOT. Warren County Department of Public Works issued a letter indicating that they accept the study and are preparing to issue the required permi ts. NYSDOT has several outstanding issues that have to be addressed prior to issuing the required permits. In accordance wi th Section 179-38 D.. the project has been compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. 1. Because the bedrock is very close to the surface. drainage and surface water runoff are important concerns. The applicant has to show that the project will not negatively impact drainage and runoff patterns. The engineering concerns have been reviewed by Rist-Frost Associates and in a letter dated 9/23/93 Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost Associates. states that the outstanding engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed. 2. There are approximately 2.5 acres of Army Corps identified wetlands on the site and the applicant is proposing to relocate them to other areas of the site. The Army Corps has reviewed the proposed mitigating measures regarding the project's impact on the wetlands and in a letter dated 10/7/93 the Army Corps indicated that the mitigation measures could proceed providing they comply wi th certain special conditions outlined within the letter. 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 site is currently vacant so site compatibility is not an issue. Lighting dispersion patterns should be provided so that off site effects of the lighting can be examined. Signage. other than directional. is subject to separate approvals. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces . dividers and traffic controls; There are four points of access to the site: two from Dix Avenue. one from Quaker Road and one from Highland. The main access to the si te is from Quaker. Truck deliveries will be limited to the access from Highland and Dix. Truck traffic will be directed around the perimeter of the parking area to the rear of the building. Interconnection between parking lots will be provided with Livingston Furniture and an easement will be provided to allow for future connection with commercial property located to the south. Vehicular traffic access is adequate. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The project meets all the parking requirements of the zoning code. However. one handicapped space is required for every 25 parking spaces. Wi th 1,189 parking spaces, 47 handicapped spaces are required and 27 are proposed. The location, arrangement and appearance of the off street parking is adequate. 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 appears to be adequate. Crosswalks are provided at three locations at the front of the building near the garden center. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Rist-Frost has reviewed the project and all outstanding engineering comments have been addressed. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage - 32 - '- disposal facilities: Water and sewer service has to be worked out wi th the appropriate departments. 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 of the site is adequate. Sufficient screening is provided along the property lines and the landscaping has been approved by the beautification commi t tee. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Five new hydrants are proposed for the site. The site is also accessible to emergency vehicles. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. The drainage and stormwater runoff plans have been reviewed to ensure that ponding and flooding will not be a problem. Proper erosion control measures will be in place to control erosion. RECOMMENDATION: Providing the required permits are obtained. staff can recommend approval of this site plan application. Staff can also recommend approval of the wetlands applications provided the applicant complies with all conditions set forth in the Army Corps of Engineers permit." MR. BREWER-The Warren County Planning Board approved without comment. MR. MARTIN-There's a couple of things I'd like to state in terms of the traffic for the Board's consideration is that it was a lot better working with the County, in terms of the traffic impacts on this project. Staff was able to have a very active opportunity to participate and comment on the traffic impacts. and it was a lot easier having that direct access, when we're working with a State route, and I think the plans reflect that. MR. BREWER-All right. Is there anybody on the Board that has any questions? MRS. PULVER-Just to reiterate once again that all the road changes are going to be done with the project, not after the project's done. I know we had said that before. I just wanted to go on the record again. MRS. TARANA-I have a couple of questions. Scott. in your question. your comment about the bedrock being close to the surface. the applicant has to show that the project will not negatively impact drainage and runoff patterns. Has that been done sufficiently? That's part of your comments that you say everything has been addressed. right? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MRS. TARANA-Okay. The moving of the wetlands. is that something, the Army Corps of Engineers has all these stipulations. That's not something the Town has to monitor. That's something the Army Corps monitors, right? So our obligation. as far as that goes. MR. HARLICKER-Well. the Town has to. the Board has to issue a wetlands permit. MR. MARTIN-Again. we have a wetlands permit. due to the fact that our Wetland Ordinance is dated 1976 and predates a lot of the new changes that have come about with Wetland Regulation. Some of them. I think. are as recent as 1990, if I'm not wrong. and the Army Corps has a very detailed process and system by which they review the proposed mitigation. then I believe they have a five year monitoring. and they monitor that semi-annually. or annually? MR. MORGAN-Annually for a period of five years. MR. MARTIN-And it's going to be located in that large green area to - 33 - -. '~ the front of the parking lot, and I think that's a pretty proactive approach to dealing with a wetland. It's going to be right out in front. and will actually serve as an amenity to the project. MRS. TARANA-Okay. The lighting. I guess we'll address that later. the dispersion. right? How about the 47 handicapped spaces? MR. HARLICKER-That was my error in reading the Code. MRS. TARANA-Scratch that. The five new fire hydrants, is that the responsibility of the applicant to put those on the site? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MRS. TARANA-And then just one thing about SEQRA. When you do the blasting. you know CWI is right there. That's a rather sensitive insti tution. They would like to have a schedule of when you're going to be blasting. because they do have clients in that building. It's not all administration. and if you would just agree to do that. so that they can prepare any people that they have to, or the Seeleys. MR. BREWER-And you might want to talk to the radio station. too, before you start getting explosives in there. MR. MORGAN-Just submit that to Jim. would that be sufficient. the schedule? MRS. TARANA-As long as if at some point it does get to CWI in plenty of time. MR. MARTIN-As a general rule. I think it might be a good idea to notify the adjoining property owners. as a general rule, if we could. How long. Jim. would you project the schedule to continue for the blasting? Is it concentrated in a several week period? MR. CONNORS-It's anticipated to. yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. If you'll notify me. we can notify the adjoining property owners. MR. BREWER-Just a question. Maybe I'm way off base. but would the radio station there. with the waves they, would that affect any blasting or whatever? I know I've seen blasting sites, and it says. turn off your radios or whatever. MR. MARTIN-I know AMG's been doing some. and we haven't had any. and they're closer to the radio station than this will be. We haven't hèard anything anyhow. MR. BREWER-You will, if it does. right? MR. YARMOWICH-It's typically shorter wave frequencies that are a problem. They're not the length wave you get for commercial broadcasting. Otherwise there'd be a lot of problems. MR. BREWER-Lets see if the applicant has anything he'd like to say. MR. MORGAN-I think that we're in a position to address any comments in the public hearing. MR. BREWER-All right. then I'll open the public hearing at this time. and we've got a couple of letters to read in. if you would, Corinne. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. TARANA-Okay. This is October 19th. 1993. to the Queensbury Planning Board. regarding a proposed K-Mart project. "Binley Florist. Inc. owns and operates Quaker Farms Garden Center at 222 - 34 - -- Quaker Rd. (corner of Quaker & Dix) in Queensbury. At this location we have a number of greenhouses in which we grow our seasonal crops. It is my understanding that the K-Mart project under discussion is located opposite our store and behind Livingston Furniture. I also understand that the K-Mart will have parking for about 1000 or more cars. My concern is that a large parking lot like this will have a great deal of lighting. This. along with the brightness of store signs and entry signs. presents a problem for our eXisting business. At certain times of the year. the overflow of this lighting will. in fact. spoil and prevent our crops from flowering on time. The damage that this "light pollution" can do to our crops and business is measured in the many tens of thousands of dollars for each crop. The two most sensitive varieties of plants are the poinsettias and the chrysanthemums. Poinsettias are sensitive to the long-day effect produced by this strong light throughout the months of September. October. November and the early part of December. We grow two crops of chrysanthemums. The first, our Easter crop. needs short days during the months of February and March. The second. our garden (or hardy) mums are grown during the summer and would not necessarily be affected. The other types of plants that we grow are not overly sensitive to this light. It takes very little light to upset their internal system. This can come directly from the lights or even through reflection that often occurs during a time of low-hanging clouds (such as happens during the winter). If you need to know the exact number of foot candles needed to trigger this response. I am able to provide it for you upon request. We have no desire to block K-Mart's entry into the local marketplace. In fact. their being located across from us will. I believe. draw more people into our store. As I have already indicated. my concern is with the light pollution. I need to have some reassurance that this matter is addressed. Please stay in contact with me so that I can know that my crops and business are safe. Sincerely. Wallace Hirsch President Binley Florist. Inc." October 21 st. 1993. To Warren County DPW. Regarding: Proposed K-Mart Project "Binley Florist owns and operates Quaker Farms Garden Center at 222 Quaker Rd. (corner of Quaker & Dix) in Queensbury. It is my understanding that the K-Mart project under discussion is located opposite our store and behind Livingston Furniture. I also understand that the K-Mart project will begin preliminary road work this fall. continuing through spring and summer of 1994. Included in the scope of this project is the rebuilding of the Quaker Road/Dix Ave. intersection. I am greatly concerned that this road work may interfere with the traffic flow to our store during the spring and summer season. which is the most important time of the year for us. Quaker Farms does 70% of our yearly business during the period between May 1 and August 1. During this time. 100% of our profit for the year is produced. It is impossible for me to state strongly enough how critical this period is. both for this store and our entire company (including our other operation. Binley Florist). I realize that this work must be done sometime, but I'd like to make some suggestions that may help us come to a point of agreement. First, we'd like any work to be done on our side of the road to be started first and completed early. Second. during the crucial period of May 1 through August 1. try to keep all crews. equipment and barricades as far back from our entries as possible. The reasoning behind these guidelines is ~hat customers are often turned back by perceived problems. not just real ones. If my customers are afraid of encountering a traffic hassle. or a muddy (or dusty) road. they may feel that one of our competitors would be easier to shop. My feelings on this come from talking to other merchants toward the other end of Quaker Rd. who experienced the reconstruction of this road a few years ago. Due to the generally slow economy in the past few years and shrinking profits. such a blow could be fatal to not only the Quaker Farms store. but our entire company. The sales generated during the spring season are needed for us to operate for the balance of the year. It is important to note that the garden center industry is different than most other businesses in that so much of our business and profit occurs in such a short. intense period. We wish to be good - 35 - -- neighbors to K-Mart and welcome the added traffic that they will bring. but please. consider the delicate balance of improving the road and damaging our ability to survive. Sincerely. Wallace Hirsch President Binley Florist" MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment? WALLY HIRSCH MR. HIRSCH-My name is Wally Hirsch. I'm President of Binley Florist. We own Quaker Farms. As stated in the letter. I do have the information. I did provide some to the Staff. photocopies out of textbooks. In addition to that information. I also have this I will give to you folks. It's a letter from the Polleki Ranch. which are the leading poinsettia people in the Country. Basically. they say that the light intensity as low as one half or less foot candles has been shown to disrupt the flowering of the poinsettias. I have another letter from Yoder Brothers. which is the leading chrysanthemum breeder and grower in the Country. They say basically the same thing. but he goes on a little bit further saying that source of lighting intrusions have included such things as street lights. parking lot lights. night watchmen turning on the lights, and even car headlights and street traffic. and there's quite a bit of other stuff here that backs up what I said in the other stuff. Our real fear is not as much. well. it is partly from the direct lighting. but I'm sure their engineers are well versed enough in how to keep the direct lighting from spilling over. Again. my real fear is partly the indirect lighting. Again, a nice bright cover on the ground. it could be rain or snow, and low ceiling cover. will actually provide a lot of reflective light. As it is on that corner now, with the Community Workshop lights. security lights. our own security lights. and the lights from the gas station across the way. I believe we're, it is quite bright back there. and it is, I believe. right on the threshold of what's acceptable to the plan. The logo or sign of the store. the parking lot lights. and. again. you see on the drawing the cars coming out of the main entry. Their lights will pass directly across the face of our greenhouse, and I guess we need some reassurance that something will be done to help us on this. At the suggestion of the Staff. I looked into possible screening. mechanical screening of the greenhouses. I talked to my supplier. and he has not. as yet. gotten the prices to me. He's been working on putting a price. labor. materials and installation price together. but it is quite expensive. It's a lot more than a small company like us can afford to bear. So what I guess what we would need is some sort of a guarantee from you folks that they would do whatever's necessary to protect our crops. We've been around 100 years. We haven't missed a crop yet. We'd hate to start now. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. HIRSCH-And as far as the second letter. to the DPW. I got a letter from them. I think you might. from Roger Gebo of the County Highway Department. acknowledging the letter and asking the C.T. Male people who I guess are the project supervisors to go along with basically what I asked in that letter. and I'm satisfied with that. MR. BREWER-Okay. comment? Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to GEORGE HAGERTY MR. HAGERTY-My name is George Hagerty. I run a business across from that project. Hagerty Technologies. and Carol mentioned, or asked when the traffic controls would be in place. and the response of prior to opening isn't soon enough. I would say that prior to rock and dirt work being done with the trucking. something simple. like a left turn arrow. when you go east on Dix to turn left on - 36 - - Quaker, would solve a lot of problems. Right now I live with a lot of the truck traffic caused by the AMG Industries construction. and it's very frustrating to wait for a change of the light to get one truck through at a time. and traffic is only going to pick up when AMG opens with I don't know how many employees. but quite a few. and with what's going on here that intersection is going to get worse. Another comment on the blasting right. We work right across them. We don't get any warning on it. and we get a lot of interruptions with the delicate instrument calibrations. where we have to abort a test and re-do it. and some suggestion where they have an old time steam whistle. like in the past. or some radio communications. anything that they could do at a five minute warning or something. MRS. PULVER-Five minutes. would that be sufficient. five minutes? MR. HAGERTY-That's fine for me. Right now we get nothing. We get a thump in the ground. and you can see the oscilloscope. A whistle ought to work. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who'd like to comment. MARTIN SEELEY MR. SEELEY-Yes. I'm Martin Seeley. Seeley's Home Furnishings on the corner of Highland and Quaker. I'm basically across the corner from this project. As I stated before. this is something that we at Seeley's have waited. I'm sure a few of the others in the area have waited for twenty years to see something of this magnitude go in to this area. I look upon it as the greatest thing that could have happened to that part of the Town. I have one question as to the relocation of the wetlands. Up until just a few minutes ago, I didn't know that they were going to be relocated. and what was going to happen. My only concern would be. knowing the topographical lay of the land. and the rock that lies underneath. and how close it is at different points. is that there would be no spillover or whatever from this wet area that they're going to relocate as it would. at this point. flow directly across Highland Avenue onto my property. I'm sure that something could be done to mitigate that. as far as construction or engineering. but there is quite a wet spot in there now. even at later times in the year. So it's a great spot to relocate the wet area. That would be my only concern. As far as blasting goes. we've lived with the blasting because all our foundations are directly on bedrock and our building. and if the blasting was done at noon or slightly just before. our building anyway. would all think it was the cementworks. because that's exactly when they blast. We can feel the vibrations. So the time it was set uP. notice would not even be needed if everybody knew that. That's all I have to say. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Is there anyone on the Board that has any questions? MRS. TARANA-I'd like to hear the responses from them. maybe. first. MR. MORGAN-I'd like to take some time and address some of these questions. MR. BREWER-Yes. if you would. please. MR. MORGAN-If we will. why don't we start with Mr. Hirsch's concern regarding the letters. I think first and foremost the issue that the Board and Mr. Hirsch need to be aware of is that we. as the applicant. I'm sure that we can speak for K-Mart as well. would be more than happy to work with him and his company in any way it is feasible for both parties. On the other hand. as sensitive as we - 37 - - -- are to his livelihood. in regards to the flowers. an issue needs to be balanced against that. and that's the issue of public safety. Mr. Hirsch probably. if he had his druthers. would prefer that the average minimum foot candle along the perimeter of that property be at a level at or below what would ensure the viability of his crop, but with a store that's open 24 hours. we also have to be aware of someone that's shopping. a woman. single woman. women in a family. etc.. at 11 o'clock. 12 o'clock. 2 o'clock at night. The reason that K-Mart has established certain criteria that reflects an average minimum foot candle is in large part due to the requirements of their insurance carrier. which states that they want a certain amount of light along the perimeter of that property to ensure as best they can the safety of its patrons. So. as a general comment. we will do whatever we can to accommodate him and his business' wishes. as far. Number One. as the road widening goes. and. Number Two. in regard to the lighting. but I also don't want the Board to be swayed and hold the applicant captive because of the light situation. I think that. again. that's his livelihood. and that's very important, and we also have to balance the issue of someone walking back to a car in a parking lot at two 0' clock in the morning with a parking lot that's not well lit. because we're interested in protecting the chrysanthemums. I do not. in any way, mean to denigrate his issue. It's a valid one. I'd just ask that the Board balance the concerns. MRS. PULVER-Let me ask you a question. I was looking at this. Of course Livingston's has been there. and whatever lighting they have. it's always been there. The traffic lights. the gas station has always been there. Now I see that. what size trees are they. that are along there, buffering along Dix. lets see. that's really kind of. MR. CONNORS-For the record Jim Connors with C.T. Male Associates. I'd also like to point out that the nearest light pole to the flower shop is the over 350 feet away from. MRS. PULVER-That's my next question. My next question is. how hiqh is this? What is the height of that pole in the air? MR. CONNORS-Forty foot is the maximum height allowed. I think the actual mounting height with the lights is about 38. 39 feet. We had done a point by point calculation. and I can guarantee that lighting levels at the project site side of Dix Avenue and Quaker Road intersection. the southeast is less than .1 foot candles. and to turn it off. it will be less than .05 foot candles. at the opposite side of the florist's parking lot. which is still~ to go across their parking lot to get to their facilities. MR. MORGAN-I think that we would be very interested in putting that half foot candle up against what is currently existing as security lights in his parking lot. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-I'd like to point out one thing. Perhaps only white light effects the vegetation. Perhaps we should explore sodium vapor as an amber type light. Perhaps that will have no effect on it and still give you the same foot candles. In other words. not necessarily a bright white light. but some other shade might be able to do the job. because plants are not receptive to all light. all colors. MR. CONNORS-I would like to just point out that the criteria that Mr. Hirsch has implied was .5 foot candles. we're saying it would be .05 foot candles. So it's one tenth of, or ten percent of what the minimum requirements are. MR. MORGAN-Which we feel confident is less than what's currently on his property right now. - 38 - ......... MR. RUEL-So you're well below the? MR. CONNORS-Well below. MR. RUEL-Okay. Well. I don't know why he expresses any. MRS. PULVER-He didn't know. MR. MORGAN-The other issue that he brought up was he had a concern. as far as headlights flashing across his property. There's been traffic out there for years before this applicant ever walked into this room. and will there be increased traffic? Yes. but again. we want to stress. Number One. we will be willing to work with him in any way feasible. but we just ask that the Board keep in mind and balance the concerns. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else. Roger? MR. MARTIN-Yes. the Board at one time did get. this is a sheet dated 6/7/93. and it's a light dispersion calculation. and it does verify what Mr. Connors has indicated. At the nearest point with the florist's property. we're looking at levels of .05. .04, in that area. and that's at the edge of their property. MR. RUEL-Which is one tenth of the figure that he came up with, right. roughly? MR. MORGAN-Based on what he had read into the record. yes. MR. MARTIN-And Tom just told me, that's the equivalent of less than a full moon. MR. YARMOWICH-A full moon is about .1. MR. RUEL-Yes. I was going to ask about the moon. MR. YARMOWICH-.l is about a full moon. which. a foot candle is a measure of a candle. the brightness of a candle. whatever a standard candle is. a foot away from your eyes. There's quite a bit of light. and a half a foot candle would be a half a candle foot away from your eyes. It's quite a bit of light. MR. BREWER-Or a candle two feet away from your eyes. MR. YARMOWICH-No. it's not. MRS. TARANA-My only question. the question that Mr. Seeley raised regarding the runoff. was that addressed by you. Tom. or was that addressed by Corps of Engineers? MR. MORGAN-We'll get to that. I'd be happy to try and address it, Corinne, after we go through this. MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. MORGAN-The other issue that Mr. Hirsch had brought up was in the packages. an issue regarding the road improvements. Sitting here. in October. I would not think that we would do a whole lot of the road reconstruction work before August 1st. but again. we will keep Mr. Hirsch's situation in mind. We'd be more than happy to work with him. We're not interested in making an enemy out of any business. We realize that it's his livelihood. and his family depends on what he makes. The other issue that Mr. Hagerty brought up. in regard to the blasting. again. I think that the Board will put. as a condition upon this applicant. some sort of notification procedure. based on what has ensued this evening. The other concerns that I'd like to raise in regard to Mr. Hagerty's claims is I would like to know. Number One. if he had made that same request when AMG was before the Board. or if this is a claim that he is making at this particular project. He had mentioned that - 39 - - he'd been held hostage through the years with the AHG blasting. Did he assert this situation when AMG was before the Board as well? MR. BREWER-I don't recall it, no. MR. MORGAN-Okay. and if not. I'm just curious as to why it's a concern today. MR. BREWER-Only a guess, probably because he didn't know. Now he does know. MRS. PULVER-He's had the experience. MR. HORGAN-And secondly. the five minute notification. I don't think that's a problem. I think that we'd be more than happy to take a tax map and do an adjacent land owner notification, as to blasting. and the third point that I would raise to the Board is what kind of notification would they require of AMG when they blasted? MR. BREWER-None. probably because we didn't realize the effect that it would have on the other businesses. Sheer negligence. MR. MARTIN-We're learning. too. MRS. PULVER-Well. yes. and there hasn't been any real major construction done in that area in a long time. I'm the oldest member on the Board. I don't remember anything. So. yes. It's just something we didn't consider because the problem just hasn't come up before. MR. MORGAN-We'd be more than happy to work with the Board and Jim. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-The other thing we'll do. too. is we can give the applicant for AMG a call. too. and we can ask him to do the same thing. now that we're aware of the problem. MR. BREWER-That would be fine. MR. HORGAN-The last issue. just going through quickly. that was raised by Mr. Seeley in regard to wetlands. I will let Jim Connors address it. I think that Tom Yarmowich would be comfortable with the fact that those beds would be excavated to a depth based on runoff of the wetlands. that runoff would not be a problem. MR. YARHOWICH-I think that what's being referred to as, the poor drainage situation that exists. which is going to be part of the highway improvement package. is that correct, Jim? MR. CONNORS-In combination. the construction of the wetland area is actually going to be intercepting a significant portion of runoff that currently drains into that Highland Avenue ditch. As I've stated at the previous meetings. we will actually be improving the drainage conditions along Highland Avenue. So we can assure Mr. Seeley that that condition will not be worsened. Actually. it will be improved. MR. MARTIN-What's the depth of the wetland going to be. at its deepest point? MR. CONNORS-It's excavating out in some of the wet actually going to order to properly five feet. going to be a couple of feet. because we're that immediate area. but we're also maintaining area that he currently has complied. we are be constructing somewhat of a (lost word). in divert the stormwater. So it's maybe four or MR. MARTIN-Depending on the flow? - 40 - -- MR. CONNORS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Now you indicated. I thought an earlier meeting. that's going to be a fenced off area? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Anything else? I have just a couple of questions about the fill. Are you going to use a lot of fill in there? MR. MORGAN-We have a cut and fill analysis completed. which is exactly what we cut and how often. what we will use. MR. BREWER-Okay. My only concern is the route that you're going to use. I don't think. going into the City. you probably wouldn't do that anyway. but I think we talked about it at one time previous. and you mentioned that you would use the least? MR. MORGAN-I believe we talked about that in a special meeting. in the other building one night, and we agreed that whatever we can do to minimize the impact. as far as the trucks going down the road and the noise and etc., dust. MR. BREWER-Mud on the road. Another thing that we've learned from AMG. at least ~ have anyway. is when they were doing their construction. or they're still doing it. but at one time I drove down Dix Avenue. and the road was like driving on a dirt road. There was so much dirt on the road. and can we impose some kind of a schedule that they clean it? I mean. if they put two inches of dirt on the road. it's not. MR. YARMOWICH-Those untidy practices are violations of your Zoning Ordinance. which requires provisions to prevent tracking out onto the public thoroughfares. to stabilize construction entrance and even vehicle washes if necessary. or what's used. Glens Falls Cement Company is one that does use vehicle washing. MR. BREWER-Yes. They have a wash facility right there at the exit. MR. YARMOWICH-Any car leaving the site. has been down in their quarries. comes out and gets washed. That you have an ongoing project that's violating your Zoning Code is something that the Town might. you know, might look into. but this project has a sediment and erosion control plan which is designed to minimize that. I don't know what the other project's plans consist of. off the top of my head. MR. BREWER-I just think because of the location of the project. it's going to be out onto Quaker Road. It's going to be on the corner. It gets rainy and it gets wet. and there's going to be mud. and there's going to be more of a chance for an accident. I just thought maybe if we could keep an eye on that. MR. MORGAN-Mr. Brewer. our project specifications that are actually distributed to the contractors that bid on the job. specifically states that they are required to keep those trucks clean. in an effort to minimize the problem. MR. MARTIN-We'll monitor that. as well. MR. BREWER-Okay. It's just a thought that came to my mind. MR. MARTIN-That's another thing we'll pursue with AMG. MR. HARLICKER-Is there going to be a specific location on site where construction vehicles will enter? MR. MORGAN-I'm sure that there will be. but to be honest with you, Scott. I mean. it's going to come right through June. So I'm sure that you're not going to want a dozen of them. - 41 - ------~-_._.__.,---- '- --- MR. CONNORS-The plans presented identify. we're gOing to have to maintain a traffic pattern on the site. We'll disturb as little of the site as possible. MR. MARTIN-What is the expected time frame from early site work to occupancy? MR. MORGAN-I don't know that I even want to venture a guess right now. because of the winter months. It's a reluctance to try and answer. it's just a guess. A lot is going to depend on how the winter goes. MR. MARTIN-But you are going to start immediately on site work? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-So it will go through the winter? MR. MORGAN-Certain aspects of the construction will. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's all ~ have. The public hearing is closed. but I think Mr. Hirsch wanted to address the. if I'm correct. the lighting. Would you come back up and just identify yourself. MR. HIRSCH-Wally Hirsch from Binley's Florist. Again. I don't know whether the other gentleman misunderstood it. As far as the direct light. like I say. I'm sure their engineers will make sure that there's no spillage of the direct light. and again. they have the drawings over there that verify that. My concern is the reflected light. as parking. I have no intention of saying you should lessen the light. because I understand how important the light is. especially. even in our store. We want to make sure that the lots are lit down there. So I have no problem with anything of the direct light or the amount of light that they provide on their property. What my concern is. is the indirect light that's reflected off the ground. off the cloud cover, and I haven't see or heard them tell me or guarantee me that it will not put the light inside my greenhouse. and I'm concerned not about my store. I'm concerned about the large five bay greenhouse there. That the light levels must not exceed in that area. In some of the material that I gave Staff. one of the things. general guidelines that they say is. to tell whether you've got the right light or not. they say. the ability to read the fine print in the newspaper. and again. like I have said before. I think with all the existing light, on an overcast night where the light is reflected uP. we're running right on the threshold of the possible damage level. To comment on the type of light and the quality of light. I don't have any exact information on that, but there may be some validity to that. Most of the light on the corner right now is the orange type. and perhaps the damaging wavelengths are not present. Again. I don't know enough about that. and I don't have technical enough literature on that. If you need it. I'm sure I can get that for you. but if you've ever come up the Northway. especially on an overcast night. you can see the Wilton Service Center. or the Saratoga Race Track. miles away. and you can see that the light that's shown off those items is really quite intense and spills out even onto the road area. and I think that that is the area that I'm concerned about. What is going to get inside my greenhouse unreflected. It takes only one or two nights to spoil a crop. Even a full moon. he made a comment about a full moon. even a full moon. if it was that amount of light. if it was to be on a continuous basis for several days. and several times during the course of the crop. could spoil it. but of course. a full moon is a one day event. and it's usually buffered by changing weather and whatnot. The other comment he made was on the traffic. Again. if you look at the way their driveway points, cars will be turning directly into and the headlights will be pointing directly at the end of the greenhouse. where the existing intersection. that does - 42 - - not occur at anyone time. where the lights are pointed directly at this. I've seen studies where there was a green house that had. the poinsettias were not flowering. One end of the bench they were very green and they were flowering on the other end. and after considerable research and finally putting a graduate student in the greenhouse. they found that two times during the night a City bus came up to a corner. stopped at a stop sign. not a stop light, a stop sign. and then made the sweep. and as the lights swept away. the damage done to the plants was lessened. Again. I agree with what they're saying. The safety of the customer that they've got is very important. Again. that's why I looked into the suggestion Staff made about internally shading the greenhouses. and again. the preliminary. unofficial figures that I've got are a lot more than what we feel we can we accept the burden of. What I'm asking is that if they're going to put the lighting in the neighborhood. they take the responsibility for it inside of our greenhouse. That's the only greenhouse that I'm concerned about. that five bay greenhouse. There's other greenhouses on the property that do not carry crops that are sensitive. or we can grow a range of other things in other areas so that they're not sensitive to them. but the items that we're concerned about are the lights into that one greenhouse. MR. BREWER-Is that the only greenhouse you can grow them in? MR. HIRSCH-On that property. yes. We grow them on our Glens Falls operation. too. We handle the needs of our two stores. and the bulk of our customers. We need to operate that many square feet. If I could. I've seen other places where shopping centers and whatnot have. or twenty-four hour convenient stores have been established next to greenhouses. and what they've done is a combination of timers on the lights or you had asked about planting a buffer of trees. The buffer trees are good. but it takes 10 to 15 years before it's there. but growers have done things like changing crops out of their houses. but on that facility. all the houses go directly. the gable end is all directly facing the light source. and again. part of the light is coming in directly off the top. Again. reflective. damaging light will be coming directly in overhead. So. those are my feelings as far as that goes. Only that five day. approximately. I think it's 15.000 square feet. That's the only greenhouse on that property that is in jeopardy. The other houses. we do grow other types of items. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying is. the other houses couldn't accommodate that many plants? MR. HIRSCH-No. no. They won't accommodate that many plants. that many square feet in the other houses. and most of them are seasonal. summer only. In fact. two of them have no sides on them at all. Even. during the summer, three of them had no sides, except during the summer. and one has a covering on only during the summer season. MRS. PULVER-Let me ask you. You say you want them to accept responsibility for it. but what are you asking for? MR. HIRSCH-Well, again. I want to come up with a suggestion that Mr. Seeley mentioned. It's going to really improve the. I mean. even if it was an empty lot. their being there would increase the value of our property. but being we've got a viable business there. and I think their maps of advertising the garden department is going to bring a lot of people in our neighborhood. So we really do want them there. I'd rather have them across the street than down the street. We're going to get their overflow. and that's good for us. and their presence requires the amount of light that they have. and that's a fact of life. and so the next acceptable plan. I believe would be the one that was suggested by your Staff. which is having the greenhouse internally shaded. and there are mechanical systems that will do this. Kirkland Greenhouse Supply out of. their Albany branch sent a man uP. and we looked over the - 43 - '~ -- whole situation. and by putting a mechanical system inside the roof of the five bays and along the gable end facing their property and on the one side towards. sort of kitty corner. because it sits almost kitty corner. that one corner would pick up a lot of light. We felt that that would stop the light intrusion and prevent plant being deteriorated. MRS. PULVER-So. wait a minute, are you suggesting that they purchase that for you then? MR. HIRSCH-Yes. and install it. MRS. PULVER-That is what you're suggesting? MR. MORGAN-Can I make a suggestion. Mr. Brewer? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MORGAN-Mr. Hirsch. please correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Hirsch. you were insinuating that. for instance, lets say a full moon that shines directly down on your greenhouse over a one or two day period was minimal damage. MR. HIRSCH-No. I say. it could do damage. MR. MORGAN-But it hasn't to this point. and I'm sure we've had full moons. correct? MR. HIRSCH-Right. MR. MORGAN-Okay. Let me just make my point. The type of light posts that we're proposing are called directive light. They shine down. okay. We've already established the fact that the lighting at the perimeter of the property. Jim. correct me if I'm wrong. is be low the threshold that Mr. Hirsch fee Is. So we've already established the fact that the light levels here will not impact. correct? We are planning green areas here and shade. which you make a good point over a certain number of first years won't be effective. You take the light at the corner. which will obviously be the brightest. You have a directive light. okay. that will shine down. You said the ground reflects. true. So the light's going to go back up. okay. and then that light. to be of damage to your greenhouse. has to go down. up. and down. You would have to agree with me that a full moon shining directly down is far more intense. and yet you've said over the X hundred years. you've never had a damaged crop. MR. HIRSCH-Correct. MR. MORGAN-So how could you. in a fair sense. insinuate to the Board that a directive light going down. which we've already said isn't of damage there. going up. MR. HIRSCH-Correct ~ if I'm wrong. Those clouds are not flat like a mirror. The clouds are rough surfaced. uneven surfaced. and the moisture in the air. and it is a fogged area. That area gets very. very bright. just from the lights that are in that area. and there's no way that you can guarantee me that your lighting will not cause us to miss a crop. MR. MORGAN-Mr. Hirsch. I'm not going to humor you. the Board. or the public and say I can that I can control the weather. nor do I feel the Board adequately wants me to try and control the weather. MR. HIRSCH-No. We're not looking for you to control the weather. We're looking for you to control the light inside the greenhouse. MR. BREWER-Mr. Hirsch. this is an argument that's never going to end. How much is it? - 44 - -- -- MR. HIRSCH-A preliminary price is $40,000 for the materials and labor. MR. BREWER-I don't think this Board can impose that on them. MR. MORGAN-No way. MR. BREWER-This Board cannot impose that on an applicant. MR. HIRSCH-Then will you or K-Mart. take the responsibility for any crop that we miss? MR. MORGAN-No. MR. BREWER-Mr. Hirsch. the public hearing is over. We've heard your side of the story. I don't mean to be rude to you. but this can go on all night long. I have to go to work in the morning. We gave you your chance to speak. I think we've been fair. and I just don't want to beat it forever. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Let me just make a comment. I will only speak for myself. as a Planning Board member, I don't believe that the Planning Board or myself is in a position to make K-Mart pay for something in your greenhouse or make them guarantee that your plants will survive. any more than I would say to Mr. Seeley. your lights may damage their greenhouse. so therefore I want you. Mr. Seeley. to put whatever is necessary in their greenhouse to protect their plants. We aren't a Board that can do that. We can't make them do for you. and we can't make them guarantee for you. MR. HIRSCH-I understand that. but now lets say that I'm right and their wrong. and the lighting in there does effect. we miss a crop by a week. MRS. PULVER-I think you're probably in court. but you're not in front of the Planning Board. MR. HIRSCH-Right. but that's our only. MRS. PULVER-Well. we don't solve those kinds of issues. We can say. if they had a direct light shining. beaming right in. please. MR. HIRSCH-What about the car lights? The car lights will be going directly in. MRS. PULVER-Well. there was many. many workshops on this particular project. and the Planning Board had special workshops. The Town Board on the re-zoning and everything. Did you ever come and speak about the access? MR. HIRSCH-To be honest with you. it never dawned on me. the lighting. it didn't hit me until we were in the middle of our poinsettia crop. MRS. PULVER-But I mean. any of. the entire project. I would have thought since it was going to be such a major impact. that you would have come to at least one meeting. or one hearing. or something to see what the project looked like. where the entrances were. the exits were. at very minimal. I mean. I wouldn't even have thought about the lighting. because I'm not in the greenhouse business. MR. HIRSCH-We have followed it through the Highway Department. MRS. PULVER-Yes. that's been a concern with everyone. MR. HIRSCH-That was our concern. MR. BREWER-And I think they have addressed that. and they said they're more than happy. - 45 - -- -- MR. HIRSCH-Yes. That was our original thing on how the K-Mart would effect us. and the traffic. but the lighting. when the article appeared in the paper the other day about the car parking. that just sort of triggered something. and that's when we. impact on the lighting. MR. MORGAN-Lets say. for example. there's 2200 K-Marts in town. Lets say one out of every two has a garden shop. which this one will. that's 1.150 stores. Do you think K-Mart would install lot lighting that would damage their crops? MR. HIRSCH-That's not a valid point. MRS. TARANA-I'd like to ask a different question. If I understood him right. the indirect lighting that was a problem was coming out of the road directly into the greenhouses. isn't that what he said? MR. BREWER-No. the reflective lighting. I think. MRS. TARANA-I thought he said the traffic coming out of that road? MR. HIRSCH-Yes. coming out of. as they turn onto the highway, they'll be pointing directly to the greenhouse. MRS. TARANA-Are those his greenhouses. right across that oblong oval shaped. right across the street from your main. where are the greenhouses. in relation to that Quaker Road? MRS. PULVER-He's right there on that corner. His greenhouses are right opposite the garage. right. or the gas station pumping. MRS. TARANA-I guess I'm just trying to understand where the traffic is that's going to impact his? MR. BREWER-Right out in the back of the building. actually. MRS. TARANA-I know where it is. but is he saying. coming out of that driveway. the traffic? MR. BREWER-Yes. when they turn. How far of a distance is that? MR. CONNORS-Five hundred feet. MR. MORGAN-The light refracts over distance. too. so it's minimized. MRS. PULVER-When they're turning left. he says the lights are going to shine in. MR. BREWER-All right. Okay. The public hearing's been closed. and we have to do a resolution acknowledging lead agency. and then we'll do the SEQRA. MRS. TARANA-Can I ask one more question? Wouldn't it be possible for you to put up some kind of. without going through this $40,000 mechanical screening. some kind of a shading type thing that you mechanically. humanly close ever night. or whenever the light bothers you? MR. HIRSCH-We could do something similar to what the mechanical system would do. but that would require us having people there to do that. MR. BREWER-Yes. but if you had some kind of a system with a pulley on it. before they went home at five o'clock. you couldn't raise those curtains? MR. HIRSCH-It would have to go across the toP. and again. it's not just a few days. It's seven days a week. - 46 - '- MRS. TARANA-But I'm just wondering why you can't do that to protect your plants? MR. HIRSCH-Well. we can. but again. there's an installation cost to that, and what you're asking is to install everything except the motor. and what that would cost. I don't have the exact figures. but when I do. I'll drop it off to your people. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I'll introduce the resolution. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Site Plan No. 33-93 Zaremba Group. Inc. RESOLUTION NO.: 13-1993 INTRODUCED BY: Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS. in connection with the Site Plan No. 33-93. Zaremba Group. Inc.. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. by resolution. previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review. and WHEREAS. the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows: 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action. as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the following reasons: and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-SEQRA? MR. BREWER-Yes. - 47 - _..---..~.~- ..~ ------ MRS. PULVER-"Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?" MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Alteration of present movements of people and goods. MR. BREWER-Potential large. and they have shown that it can be mitigated. I would say that it's a potential large impact, in my mind. and it can be mitigated. because they have a traffic study done and they show the mitigation. I don't know if anybody agrees with me. MRS. PULVER-Well. if I look at this. it says. alteration of present patterns of movements of people and/or goods. There is no alteration? Present patterns. The roads are still going to be the same there. MR. BREWER-No. Thðy' re not. They're going to change right in front of Quaker Farms. They're going to change on. MR. RUEL-I think it's a small to moderate impact in that area. MR. BREWER-You're not going to change the flow of people? MRS. PULVER-No. It's still the same. MR. MARTIN-I think the second bullet there maybe is something you want to look at, more than present patterns. MRS. PULVER-Proposed action will result in major traffic problems? MR. RUEL-No. MR. HARLICKER-Well, that's what the mitigation is for. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. PULVER-So you're saying. yes. it would. but then they've mitigated it? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-No. The mitigation is part of the action. answer is no. So the MRS. PULVER-Right. That's what I would say. no. Okay. MR. RUEL-Let me get this clear. before any corrections? The answer to this document is MR. YARMOWICH-No. You're looking at the action as proposed. including all of the mitigative measures that the applicant is proposing. You're looking at the traffic plan. the site development. the stormwater plan. MR. RUEL-It's answered with that in mind? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-That's not the way we answered it. is it? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. it is. it's proposed to you now. Your understanding of the project as MR. MARTIN-They've proposed a wetlands mitigation plan, are the defined project. It then they reacted to. This a project stormwater management plan. a traffic mitigation plan. All those wasn't things that were discovered and was as submitted. - 48 - -- MR. YARMOWICH-The action isn't simply putting up a building in a ~arking lot. The action is more than that. It's traffic 1mprovements and everything else. MR. RUEL-Therefore. all the answers should be no. MR. YARMOWICH-No. It's acceptable to bear some small to moderate impacts that aren't mitigated. There's nothing wrong with that. MR. RUEL-You can answer yes. and then you have to modify it and say that it can be corrected? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-You have to justify it. MR. RUEL-Okay. RESOLUTIOR MHER DETERMIRATIOR OF RO SIGRIFICARCE IS MADE RESOLUTION RO. 33-93. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS. there application for: and is presently before the Planning Board an Construction of a 167.318 sq. ft. retail store. 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 impact and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Now would somebody care to make a motion? - 49 - '-- MRS. PULVER-Okay. sample? We don't have a printed. didn't give us a MR. HARLICKER-No. MRS. PULVER-All right. neighbors of blasting. I have. that we're going to notify the MR. MARTIN-Remember. you have two actions here. too. We have the Freshwater Wetlands Permit. and the Site Plan. MR. BREWER-We have to do them separately though. right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-We're notifying the neighbors of blasting. Do we want to do it within 500 feet? Is that sufficient? MR. MARTIN-I would think so. roads in a proper fashion. road. That the applicant will maintain the keeping dust and loose dirt off the MRS. PULVER-Okay. I have. stabilize the construction area. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I have schedule here. What does that mean? MR. BREWER-They will have to adhere to all of the Army Corps of Engineers letter. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That will be part of your Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. BREWER-It will? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would just. it would be my recommendation just to concur with those conditions. for your permit. MR. BREWER-Okay. and what about the letters from the Water Department? MR. MARTIN-I think they're all set. MR. BREWER-Every thing's all taken care of with them. MR. MARTIN-There's several outstanding minor things on the traffic improvements. I believe. from the County. and there's a couple of small outstanding items with the sewer connection. in Mike Shaw's letter. Well. they've already indicated. though. comply with those. MR. BREWER-That's it? MRS. PULVER-Do you want to do the Wetlands first? MR. BREWER-Yes. if you want to. MR. MARTIN-I'd take the vote on the site plan first. I'd get that out of the way. MR. BREWER-All right. SITE PLAN NO. 33-93 TYPE I PC-IA ZAREMBA GROUP. INC. OWNER: CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS WALTER & JUNE MITCHELL LOCATION: SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF DIX AVENUE AND QUAKER ROAD CONSTRUCTION OF A 167.318 SQ. FT. RETAIL STORE. CROSS REFERENCE: P4-93 BEAUTIFICATION COMM: 6-7-93 8-9-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6-9-93 10-13-93 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.1. 22 LOT SIZE: +28.2 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 D - 50 - - ---,-~ '- '",--..~ TIM MORGAN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT: JIM CONNORS, PRESENT MRS. PULVER-All right. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-93 ZAREMBA GROUP. INC.. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Construction of a 167.318 square foot retail store on Dix Avenue and Quaker Road. with the following stipulations: That all neighbors be notified of the blasting and be given a schedule of blasting within 500 feet of the project. That they stabilize the construction area. That the applicant submit two copies of the si te plan for stamping by the Zoning Administrator. the entire package. Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-And I'll give you my standard line. occupancy. your certificate. will be subject to you compliance with your landscaping plan. You heard you'll get a letter to that effect. Your final being in full it said. and AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-93 PC,-lA ZAREMBA GROUP. INC. OWNER: CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS WALTER & JUNE MITCHELL PROPERTY INVOLVED: TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.1. 22 AREA OF PROPERTY: 2.411 ACRES WETLANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DESIGNATED WETLANDS. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.1. 22 TIM MORGAN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT: JIM CONNORS. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. wetlands permit? that. right? Would somebody like to make a motion on the That's all we have to do is make a motion for MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would. the Corps of Engineers took a certainly more scientific approach to looking at that then we did. So I would certainly concur with their findings. MRS. TARANA-AII we need to do is have them adhere to their regulations. right? MR. BREWER-With their regulations. as noted in this letter. MR. MARTIN-I'd just reference the letter. because that outlines the special conditions. MRS. TARANA-AII right. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-93 ZAREMBA GROUP. INC.. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Wi th the stipulation that they adhere to the Corp of Engineers requirements of the letter dated October 7th. 1993. Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES,: Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint - 51 - -- SITE PLAN NO. 51-93 TYPE: UNLISTED ASTRO VALCOURt INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: DIX AVE. TO TECHNICAL PARK ROAD (PROGRESS BLVD.) ADDITION OF 30.000 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING WAREHOUSE. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 10-11-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10-13-93 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-24.30 LOT SIZE: 15.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 TOM NACE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 51-93. Astro Valcourt Inc.. Meeting Date: October 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 30.000 square foot addition to an existing manufacturing and warehouse facility. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A.. the project is in compliance with the 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 project was reviewed regarding its impact on the highways. There was found to be no significant impact on the highways. There was found to be no significant impact on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D.. the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrange.ent. size and general site co.patibility of buildings. lighting and signs; The project will be compatible with the existing facilities. No new signage is proposed and one new lighting fixture is proposed for illumination of the parking and loading area. 2. The adequacy and arrange.ent of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pave.ent surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; The existing access will be utilized. 3. The location. arrange.ent. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking and loading is adequate. 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: The existing stormwater drainage facilities will be utilized. Rist- Frost reviewed the grading and drainage plan and had no comment. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The existing facilities will be utilized. Mike Shaw reviewed the plan and had no comment on the sanitary facilities. 7. The adequacy. type and arrange.ent 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 .aintenance including replace.ent of dead plants; The existing landscape will be relocated and the landscaping plan was approved by the beautification committee. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The existing emergency access at the rear of the building will be lengthened to access the addition: no new hydrants are proposed. 9. The adequacy and i.pact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. This is not issue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-And they just showing that emergency access existing building number three. recently submitted revised would also be provided plans to the MR. BREWER-Okay. County Impact". and we have a letter from Warren County. Tom. we have a letter from Rist-Frost. "No - 52 - -- -- ---- ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Rist-Frost. Tom Yarmowich. Town Engineer. dated October 27. 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project and the revised Haanen Engineering Grading and Drainage Plan reflecting a fire apparatus access road serving the north side of eXisting BUilding No.3. The revised plans were received this date. There are no engineering comments." MR. BREWER-All right. We also have a letter from Mike Shaw. Can you read it. Corinne? MRS. TARANA-To: Jim Martin. from Mike Shaw. October 7. 1993. regarding Astro-Valcour. Inc. Proposed Warehouse Addition Site Plan # 51-93 "The current bUilding #4 has sanitary facilities and this addi tion is for warehousing only. So my only comments are that this addition will be using its current sanitary facilities. If you have any questions on this matter. please call me at my office." MR. BREWER-And we have Beautification site plan to approve. and that's it. MR. RACE-For the record. my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. I'm representing Astro-Valcour. With me also is Mike Carr. an engineer for Astro-Valcour. MR. BREWER-Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MRS. PULVER-I don't think so. MR. NACE-The only thing I'll call to your attention is that one thing the fire department asked for. that we will be doing. that does not show on your plans is. adding an extra fire hydrant. in the northeast corner of the building. MR. BREWER-Okay. We can note that on the plan. MR. RUEL-Where's the road leading into this area? How do you gain access to this property? I can't even see it. MIKE CARR MR. CARR-Out of Warren Street is the primary. MRS. PULVER-Warren Street. MR. RUEL-I can't see it here. MRS. PULVER-Well. this is Warren Street right here. MR. NACE-It really doesn't show on this. but it's down here on Warren Street. actually in the City. MR. RUEL-It's not on this map. MR. NACE-No. it is not. That's correct. MR. RUEL-Okay. It's right near the railroad. the overpass? MR. CARR-That's correct. MR. BREWER-I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here that would wish to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 53 - <- '-- -.----- MR. BREWER-We have to do a Short Form? MRS. PULVER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHBR DETERMIRATION OF RO SIGNIFICARCE IS MADE RESOLUTIOR RO. 51-93. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS. there application for: warehouse. and is presently before the Planning Board an an addition of 30.000 square feet to an existing WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-93 ASTRO VALCOURt IRC.. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Whereas. the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file #51-1993 to construct a 30.000 square foot addition to an existing manufacturing and warehouse facility: and Whereas. the above mentioned site plan application dated 9/29/93 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1. grading & drainage plan. dated 9/29/93 2. Sheet 2. layout & utility plan. dated 9/29/93 3. Sheet 3. landscaping plan. dated 9/29/93 4. Sheet 4. details. dated 9/29/93: and Whereas. the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Stormwater management narrative. dated 9/93 2. Beautification Committee review. dated 10/11/93 3. - 54 - Staff notes. dated 10/28/93 4. Short EAF. dated 9/29/93: 5. Rist-Frost comments. dated 10/20/93 6. Letter from Mike Shaw. Dept. of Wastewater. dated 10/17/93 Whereas. a public hearing was held on 10/28/93 concerning the above project: and Whereas. the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning): and Whereas. the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). Whereas. the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered: and Therefore. Let It Be Resolved. as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby move to approve site plan # 51-93. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature within 30 days of the date of this resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. That there will be an a notation about an additional fire hydrant. Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993. by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint SITE PLAN NO. 52-93 TYPE: UNLISTED H. ROBERT TYRER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 60 GLENWOOD AVENUE ADDITION OF A 3.082 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH 18 NEW PARKING SPACES. TO BE USED AS AN ANTIQUE MALL WITH A CONNECTING WALK TO THE EXISTING ANTIQUE MALL. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 10-11-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10-13-93 TAX MAP NO. 62-1-1.2 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SECTION: 179- 23 KEVIN WHITE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT: ROBERT TYRER. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 52-93. H. Robert Tyrer. Meeting Date: October 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3.072 square foot building as part of expanding the existing antique mall. The application also includes 18 additional spaces. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A.. the project is in compliance with the 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 project was reviewed regarding its impact on the highways. The plans indicate that this facility will have five access points on Glenwood Avenue. Staff believes that this is an excessive number and the possibility of reducing the number should be considered. This is a heavily traveled county highway that serves as a connector between Bay and Quaker roads. In accordance with Section 179-38 D.. the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. Project generated impacts on the Halfway Brook and its floodplain are a concern because of the plans to direct stormwater drainage to a detention basin located within the brook's floodplain. An al ternati ve method of stormwater management should be examined that does not affect the brook or it's floodplain. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E of the Zoning Code: 1. The - 55 - location. arrangement. size. design and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs; The location of the proposed building is far enough back from Glenwood Avenue that it's impact is minimal. Lighting should be directed so that it does not impact adjacent properties and no new signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pave.ent surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; As stated above. traffic access should be reviewed and attempts made to improve and control si te access and reduce its impact on Glenwood Avenue. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; There is sufficient number of parking spaces. The placement of most of the parking for the facility on the south side of Glenwood Avenue is an undesirable arrangement. An alternative parking layout would be to provide parking in the rear of the lot and utilize the gravel parking area as overflow parking. 4. The adequacy and arrangeaent of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access on the mall side of Glenwood Avenue is adequate. However. people parked on the other side of Glenwood will have to cross a busy local arterial road to get to the facility. This creates a hazard for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Concerns raised by Rist-Frost will have to be addressed. Consideration should be given to redesigning the drainage and stormwater management plan so that it does not impact Halfway Brook or its floodplain. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; Concerns raised by Rist-Frost and the Town Wastewater Department will have to be addressed. 7. The adequacy. type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other sui table plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands. including the maximua retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replaceaent of dead plants; Plantings between the south parking area and Halfway Brook benefit the brook and provide visual relief from the large parking area. Willows along the brook along with a hedge and deciduous trees around the perimeter of the parking area would enhance the brook and the parking area as well as better delineate the parking lot and provide shade for the farmers market. The impact of the proposal and the existing vegetation has to be examined. Plants along the east property line would soften the impact of the building on the nearby bike path. The addition of lilac bushes to the proposed pine trees would enhance the property and provide addi tional screening between the facility and the bike path. 8. The adequacy of fire lines and other eaergency 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 issue has been referred to in previous comments. RECOMMENDATIOH: The above issues have to be addressed prior to any action taken on this project. The applicant also has outstanding engineering fees. for a previous submittal of this proposal. that have to be paid prior to any action." MR. BREWER-Okay. and. Tom. we have notes. EHGIHEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer. dated October 15. 1993 "Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. The grinder pump unit specified will not pump at sufficient rates to establish velocities above 2 feet per second in 2 inch pipe. The grinder pump pressure sewer should be smaller than 2" from the grinder pump unit to the existing gravity sewer lateral connection. 2. The proposed 12" CMP crossing Glenwood Avenue may require approval by Warren County DPW. The pipe will have only 1'~ cover crossing Glenwood Avenue. Normally. 3' of cover is utilized. 3. The proposed 12" CMP passing through the existing gravel parking lot will have from 1'~ - 56 - - to 0 cover. This is unacceptable. 4. The proposed SWM basin is located in Halfway Brook floodplain (100 year flood - 316'). A Queensbury floodplain permit will be needed if the approach shown is pursued by the applicant. It is recommended that an alternate SWM concept be utilized that does not impact the floodplain." MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have a letter from Town of Queensbury Wastewater Department. Corinne, do you want to read that? MRS. TARANA-October 12. 1993. Mr. Robert Tyrer. regarding the review of the Sanitary Sewer Connection for the proposed 3.072' building addition. "Dear Mr. Tyrer: After reviewing the plans for the sanitary sewer connection of the above mentioned. please refer to the following comments. 1. Grinder pump detail. A. Tank vent is not needed. this unit has an internal vent. B. The tank inlet has a 4" PVC socket for solvent cementing bUilding drain pipe. The proper pipe should be used for this socket. C. The bUilding drain needs at least 4' ground cover for frost protection and the 1 1/4" discharge needs 5' ground cover. 2. Connecting to existing sewer line. our records show that the depth of this existing 4" sanitary line at the plan connection point is 1'. A different connection point will be needed in order to provide for proper frost protection. If you have any question on these comments. please call me at my office. Michael o. Shaw Director" MR. BREWER-We also have Committee for Community Beautification. MRS. TARANA-Committee for Community Beautification. regarding Site Plan No. 52-93. H. Robert Tyrer. "QCCB has reviewed the request for Site Plan Review and have the following recommendations: Disapproval Addition of a 3.082 sq. ft. building with 18 new parking spaces. To be used as an antique mall with a connecting walk to the existing antique mall. No one appeared at this meeting. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would you care to address any of the comments? MR. WHITE-Kevin White. The plans were submitted back in 1990 and were approved. and the drainage for the floodplain that we planned at that time met all the requirements at that time. The changes which have been made. will be done. on the floodplain. As far as the pumping of the Town sewage that's now there. that used to go to it's own septic. MR. TYRER-We had the sewer put in. MR. WHITE-Now we have the sewer system. He had submitted the same set of plans that were approved three years ago. MR. BREWER-Okay. So they're going to have to be adjusted to. MR. WHITE-They will have to be adjusted. MR. TYRER-This hook up going into the sewer is only going to be a matter of about 100 feet. because. if we look at the back of the building on your maps here. you can see that that is there. MR. WHITE-Where it says connect to existing sewer line. MR. TYRER-Yes. that's where the sewer line connection is going to be. from the building over. which is only a matter of about 100 feet. When we had that sewer put in. we had that connection put in so we could tap in from any other existing building that might be put up later on. So when the sewers went in. that was all taken care of. So that's going to be a very. very minor situation. as far as tapping into that sewer. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess what I'd like to do is go down Scott's notes one by one. and address them as we go down through them. Okay. I guess we can start with. - 57 - '- - MRS. PULVER-It says. the plan indicates that this facility will have five access points on Glenwood Avenue. Staff believes that this is an excessive number and the possibility of reducing the number should be considered. This is a heavily traveled County highway that serves as a connector between Bay and Quaker Roads. That's the third paragraph under "Project Analysis". Did you see that? MR. WHITE-The parking lot that's across the street is what was required for the existing mall there now. The 18 additional spaces is what's needed for the new proposed store. That's the reason why that. MR. HARLICKER-Part of the problem. we believe. is that you cannot find access to this big parking lot until you are on top of the actual access points. You can't do it. One possibility Jim just mentioned is line up access to that larger parking lot. MR. TYRER-You're talking about the one across the street? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I was out there yesterday. which one to go to until you were there. You do not know MR. TYRER-AII right. They have entrance and exits. What we would. the plans are. and I've talked to George Wiswall on this situation. as you come down Haviland Avenue. and you come onto Glenwood. it's a three way intersection there. not a four way. a three way. We had hoped that possibly we could get a three way stop put in there. whether my building is there or not. We've analyzed it. We've done all the cutting of all the shrubs on County property and on Niagara Mohawk property to give a clear view coming around Quaker Road. George and myself have done this. MR. MARTIN-Yes. George Wiswall. I was just speaking to him in the lobby. and that's true. they have done that. A couple of things he suggested would be to pursue the outright abandonment of Woodvale Lane. or Road. It's not used by anybody. It doesn't provide access to any property. Mr. Wiswall. I think. owns all the property down one side. The Power Company owns the other side. MR. BREWER-Is it shown here on this map? MR. MARTIN-It's in the lower right hand corner. Tim. It's in the site location in the right hand corner. MR. TYRER-That was a project. though. that we though might happen. but in the interim before that happened. we thought possibly getting a three way stop. which I think because of ACC and because of the Racquet Club. and because of the constant traffic coming in there. would control the speed of the traffic. MR. MARTIN-Well. I think something's going to have to be done. because the County is going ahead full speed on extension of the bike path. in through to the City. and it's going to cross at this point. and the current situation. I don't think. is conducive to that bike traffic. MR. TYRER-So our recommendations were that if we could get a. MR. MARTIN-I think the three way stop would help. but you have to get County approval on that. and maybe an ultimate solution would be to just get rid of Woodvale completely. MR. BREWER-He suggested you abandon that road? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's a road by use. MR. BREWER-Why would you abandon that? If anybody comes down Glenwood and goes up there to the Country Club. - 58 - -- MR. MARTIN-Well. I think it creates two dangerous intersections at either end of it. MR. TYRER-Especially the end going on Country Club Road. You've got almost a blank. and you're going to make a right onto Country Club Road or Haviland. you've got almost a dead issue there. If you don't do a neck twist. you're not gOing to see any traffic coming up Glenwood. MR. MARTIN-We'll look at that. too. of the Route 9/254 traffic study. That's part of the study area We can look at that. also. MR. BREWER-We deliver that way. there. We cut across lots and go over MR. MARTIN-Yes. but that doesn't serve any purpose that couldn't be served by Country Club Road coming into Quaker. MRS. PULVER-Except that it dumps more traffic out on Quaker. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but Quaker's your arterial. That's where you want the traffic. MRS. PULVER-Yes. and you get a light every. you know. we've got a 50 mile an hour highway with a light every intersection. MR. BREWER-Well. that's not our jurisdiction anyway. MR. MARTIN-It could be a recommendation wi thin your resolution. though. MR. TYRER-We are going to apply for a three way stop. MRS. TARANA-A three way stop where? Now you said Haviland. but I don't think you mean. MR. TYRER-On the corner of Haviland and Glenwood. MR. MARTIN-The other thing. I think Scott's point is well made. about. there's a lot of curb cuts here that I don't. I think this could be cleaned up a lot. and the County. unlike the State. they have the authority to take curb cuts away. MR. TYRER-As far as the parking where we hope to put up the new building. where we show 18 spots. we also have the availability of Niagara Mohawk area underneath the power lines. MR. HARLICKER-Where does your property line go. in relation to those power lines? MR. TYRER-It follows the power line. MR. HARLICKER-Right. but how far? They've got the tall power lines. then they have the smaller ones. MR. TYRER-It runs 777 feet alongside the power line. MR. HARLICKER-Right. but you've got the two sets of power lines going in. the larger ones and the smaller. utility poles. MR. WHITE-About 15 feet from the. MR. HARLICKER-From the smaller poles? MR. WHITE-Right. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. TYRER-And we can utilize. as far as parking on that side of the street. we have ample parking and ample property there. not only - 59 - --- '-.........-- with the existing property I have with the two and a half acres there. but with the property that we have. that we could use on Niagara Mohawk. If you note Key Bank. all their parking is all underneath Niagara Mohawk. all underneath their power line. So that should be no problem. as far as we're concerned. We will have ample parking on that side without even utilizing across the street. MR. HARLICKER-Is the parking area going to be paved or graveled. MR. TYRER-I think we're required. for handicapped. to have so many handicapped units paved. but I believe we eventually would like to pave the whole thing. yes. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Okay. MR. WHITE-And as far as. when you talk about the five accesses to the road. the circular driveway there isn't used for parking. That's only for moving and unloading of the furniture. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. large parking area? What about cleaning up the access to that MR. TYRER-Well. I vetched it because that was a requirement also. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. but like I said. I was out there the other day. and you don't know where these access points are until you are literally on top of them. MRS. PULVER-Can I just make a statement? I'm there very often. I never have a problem. and I cross the road. MR. HARLICKER-You know where they are. People who don't know where the curb cuts are. MRS. PULVER-Right. I know. but everybody that goes there pretty much knows where they are. MR. HARLICKER-What if somebody who's going there doesn't know. MR. TYRER-The entrance and exit are wider than the normal than the normal specifications for an entrance and exit. I've got them almost double the size that they're required. MR. HARLICKER-AII I'm saying is that it's difficult to see where these entrances are. If you're driving west on Glenwood Avenue, you do not know where these entrances are until you are on top of them. unless you know they are there. you know exactly where they are in relation to the other buildings on the site. MR. TYRER-Right. I agree with that. but as I drive up Bay Road and turn into. as I cross over Aviation Road to turn into Shop N' Save. that entrance comes on me as fast as my entrances do also. MR. HARLICKER-That doesn't justify these. If a bad situation exists in one part of the Town. why does that justify the situation existing in another part of the Town? MR. TYRER-Agreed. you're coming off an intersection there. as you're coming west. you're coming off an intersection. You're ei ther coming off a red light. or you're making a turn off the intersection. and by no means are you going to be in any excessive speed coming through there. How else am I going to modify that. to have the entrance and the exit changed? MR. HARLICKER-Signage. better delineated somehow. MR. TYRER-I have signs on each one. five signs. entrance and exit. MR. HARLICKER-Facing out towards the street. that you don't see - 60 - until you're here. I was just there. MR. BREWER-All right. We don't have an objection if you turn the signs so you can see them when you go down the road? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. somehow better delineate? MR. TYRER-Yes. that can definitely be done. other than with the plowing in the winter time. it would probably destroy it. MR. BREWER-How would it destroy it if it's on the fence? MR. TYRER-Yes. we can modify the signs. yes. MR. MARTIN-Why can't the entrance be moved farther. so it aligns with your new entrance proposed for the new shopping mall? MR. TYRER-You mean moved down towards Haviland more? MR. MARTIN-Towards Bay. yes. more towards Bay. heading. I guess. east. MR. TYRER-Yes. moving towards Haviland and Bay. MR. MARTIN-So it aligns. MR. TYRER-Yes. that can be done. problem. Yes. that can be done with no MR. BREWER-All right. Why don't we. we'll show that on the plan. MR. HARLICKER-And how about making that. making one entrance into that parking area. both. MR. TYRER-I can keep the existing exit. make that the entrance. and the new entrance on the other side of the exit would pull me closer to Bay. MR. HARLICKER-Why not just create one entrance point for that lot. MR. MARTIN-Yes. provide yourself with more parking. MR. TYRER-Fine. that's no problem. MR. MARTIN-Consolidate it right across from the proposed mall entrance. MR. TYRER-Yes. that's no problem. MR. BREWER-Okay. We can show that on a new plan. MR. MARTIN-One 20 foot wide entrance and exit. MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets go down to the next thing. Project generated impacts on Halfway Brook and its floodplain are a concern because the plans would direct stormwater drainage to a detention basin located across the Brook's floodplain. Alternative method of stormwater management should be examined that does not effect the Brook's floodplain. MR. TYRER-When these plans were drawn up. these plans were drawn up before the change on Quaker Road. before the widening of Quaker Road. and before the new existing buildings across the street. That's when these plans originally were drawn up. At that particular point. we were told that. within the next 50 years we're going to have a serious flood. and if it rains enough. the water's going to. if I knew that. I would have built an arc. but if the water was going to flow across my property. which is 450 feet away from Halfway Brook. across Glenwood Avenue. and across the existing parking area. and if it went into Halfway Brook at a temperature of - 61 - over 70°. the trout would be effected. That was the reason that was stipulated. That's why that was stipulated. Since then. we put about 18 inches of black macadam on Quaker Road. widened Quaker Road. which is less than 50 feet away from Halfway Brook. and on any good. hot summer day. and we get a rain shower. the water's going to go in there at about 80°. I think that whole theory of us having a major storm in 50 years. I've been there 11 years now. and we've never had hardly a puddle in the parking lot. So the theory that we need this sophisticated storm drainage and facilities was based on before Quaker Road was even widened. and that's when these plans were actually drawn up. MR. BREWER-Is there a requirement. Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. This is mirrored in Tom's comment. Number Four. also. MR. YARMOWICH-It' s not a water quality impact issue. It's a floodplain issue. and the Town has a mechanism in place with an individual of authority to issue floodplain permits. The concern is that an individual not place material in a floodplain or floodway that's going to exaggerate upstream effects. The Town has to exercise that authority in order to protect the FEMA Insurance program that's in place within the Town. Whether or not you agree with FEMA regulations isn't the issue. You have a broader interest to protect. If you issue a permit and you're in compliance with the FEMA program. everybody upstream maintains their coverage. In a case like this. I'm not suggesting that it's. the apparent impact of something like this is probably negligible. given the fact that there's an upstream constriction. a culvert. This is a different situation. other floodplain matters. I would expect that a floodplain permit would be acceptable for this project. However. where alternates exist. if an infiltration approach. I don't know what the groundwater conditions are like there. That's the only suggested al ternati ve. I think the topography is such that you really can't drain your site in any other fashion. Is that correct? MR. WHITE-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-There's kind of a low spot over by the power pole right-of-way. It doesn't really go anywhere in the springtime. MR. WHITE-Right. There isn't really that much water there anyway. MR. YARMOWICH-What do you know about the water table? MR. WHITE-What is the water table? MRS. TARANA-It's very high. MR. TYRER-Not to my knowledge. We've never had any problem as far as water. any accumulation of water. MR. YARMOWICH-The alternate approach. which would be cheaper for you. rather than go this earthen basin construction. would be a couple of drywells. if your groundwater isn't high. and that gets you away from the floodplain issue. MR. WHITE-The things that you didn't like in the plans. as far as the height and everything. MR. YARMOWICH-It gets rid of the culvert and DPW approving it and things like that. MR. WHITE-That's what was required when Richard Jones drew this all up. MR. YARMOWICH-Well. I was discourage this approach. invol ved at the time. and we would Not to say it's still not something I - 62 - would encourage. I'd encourage you to go ahead and see if you can put drywells in. MR. MARTIN-I'd much rather see on-site infiltration. if you could do that. MR. TYRER-We will eliminate anything with Warren County. as far as going underneath the highway. MR. YARMOWICH-And maintaining culverts under the highway. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. What I would recommend exploring. and Tom would know better. is infiltration within your proposed new parking lot. and then in the existing one. see what can be done to infiltrate it right there. MR. YARMOWICH-Well. the existing one. you're not changing that. If you can. it would be advisable to address it within to address it wi thin the confines existing construction. The re-alignment of entrances and exits is simply moving fence posts and pushing gravel around. right? MR. TYRER-Yes. and as far as. the drywells are no problem at all. MR. YARMOWICH-You'll have to conduct a test pit and see what you get for sand. rock. or whatever. and put together some detail on how you would pursue it. MR. BREWER-All right. So you'll adjust the plans to that? Okay. Number Three. MRS. PULVER-The placement of most of the parking for the facility on the south side of Glenwood Avenue is in an undesirable arrangement. The alternative parking layout would be to provide parking in the rear of the lot and utilize the gravel parking area as overflow parking. MR. WHITE-The way. using the back space of the property is just for the looks of it all. That parking lot is already in existence there. and the only thing that is required is these spots. MR. HARLICKER-I think their agreement to relocate the access points and that stuff goes a long way in rectifying that. The other concern there is they could arrange to get a crosswalk across there for pedestrian access. also. MR. TYRER-But also with the 18. like I said before. we're going to be able to utilize probably three times the amount of the 18 parking lot with Niagara Mohawk. underneath the power lines. which we keep beautified and trimmed ourselves. and we do that anyway. and so we shouldn't have any problem in there at all. as far as parking. on that side of the street. The same side as the antique mall. We'll have ample parking there. MR. WHITE-Niagara Mohawk's already given permission to use that property for parking. MR. BREWER-They have? Okay. MR. TYRER-As long as there's no building going up or any construction on the property. there's no problem with Niagara Mohawk. and we keep that property clean now anyway. MR. WHITE-As far as the sewage disposal. the Town sewer going through there. there won't be any problem. tying in to that. MR. YARMOWICH-Well. the comment that I made is the discharge pipe really ought to be smaller. otherwise. it'll clog uP. and save you headache in the future. You can put the two inch in now. if you want. and inch and a quarter is really what you ought to be using. - 63 - MR. BREWER-All right. and the last comment that Scott made. his recommendation. "the above issues have to be addressed prior to any action taken on this project. The applicant also has outstanding engineering fees. for a previous submittal of this proposal. that have to be paid prior to any action." I don't know if you care to address that with us. It's none of ~ business. I don't think. MR. MARTIN-Well. you don't get a building permit until the fees are paid. MR. TYRER-Well. we haven't gotten any building. any fees yet. MR. MARTIN-Okay. There's some outstanding from when this was approved in 1990. That's how old they are. and the reason why it never came up was because you never came in for a building permit. MR. TYRER-There were existing fees? MR. MARTIN-Yes. There were fees that were never paid from 1990. MR. TYRER-Where were they mailed to? MR. MARTIN-I wasn't here then. All I know is I've got a computer printout that tells me there's money owed. MR. TYRER-We never got any. In fact. there was a change of ownership in the corporation. I took over complete control of the corporation. and at that particular time. there were never any fees. any back fees that were owed on the property or anything at the time of closing at the new ownership. MR. MARTIN-Well. this is not anything that would have been like a mortgage recorded lien or anything like that. MR. TYRER-Where would I find out these fees? MR. MARTIN-In my office. MR. TYRER-We'll get right on that. definitely. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. TYRER-And any other fees existing on what's going on now. MR. MARTIN-We'll have all of that. MR. BREWER-All of Tom's comments. How does everybody feel about this? MRS. PULVER-Well. what's Tom's comments? I don't have a problem so far. but about your comments. Tom? How are we handling this? MR. YARMOWICH-At a minimum. I think it's appropriate for this site to investigate an infiltration approach. some drywells. and if they prove feasible. obviously. it's to the applicant's benefit to implement that. because it doesn't mean going before Warren County for the culvert permit and that sort of stuff. That's the obvious solution to the problem. If that's a feasible solution. it doesn't really change the layout of the parking lot. as far as ~ can see. It doesn't change the location of the building or any utilities associated with it. If that's not a feasible approach. then what's being shown is. I guess. the alternative. in which case. it throws you into the situation of having to deal with the floodplain issue. MR. BREWER-How would everybody feel about tabling until all the concerns are met. and then re-hearing it? MR. RUEL-Yes. I think the changes are extensive enough. MRS. TARANA-I agree with Roger. - 64 - MR. STARK-Well. the only concern is. what. the drywells for on- site? MR. HARLICKER-You also have changes to the parking. You also have changes to sewer system. MR. BREWER-Wastewater. MR. WHITE-The only changes to the parking are the. MR. BREWER-That's minimal. I understand that. MR. TYRER-Just a matter of moving a few posts and putting a few addi tional posts in. That I can do tomorrow morning. I'm not concerned about changing the parking. That's something I can do immediately. MR. BREWER-What I think I'd like to have. in my mind. is proof to Tom that that will work, and then have Tom get back to us with it. the details about the wastewater. I'd like to have Mike Shaw send us a letter saying it's taken care of. I'm not saying you're not going to do it. I'm just saying. I'd like to be sure that it's done. That's my opinion. MR. WHITE-The only problem that I'd foresee in that is that it puts us a month down the road. MR. TYRER-We wouldn't be able to get a C of 0 if we didn't conform wi th all of these things that we were supposed to do. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-You won't get a building permit. MR. TYRER-And you won't get a building permit. So if we're going to do this, we've got to want to. we're coming into the winter months now. and it's a project that I would like to get going. and just a minor thing like moving a couple of fence posts. We haven't had a flood since I've been there. for eleven years. and I hope we're not going to have one in the next six months. MR. MARTIN-It is wi thin the discretion of the Board. you know. obviously. table this. MR. STARK-When did you plan on starting construction? MR. WHITE-We would like to start as soon as possible. MR. TYRER-We've been approved by the bank on the finances this. and we'd like to get going as soon as possible on it. wait another month before another Board meeting. then we're to have to wait until probably March or April. to do If we going MR. WHITE-The problem. as far as the drainage that we'll need to do is going to have to be done in springtime anyway. before this building can be occupied. MR. YARMOWICH-No. You'll have to build the drainage facilities before you put up any building or something like that. because that's what it's there to protect. Drainage is one of the first things you should accomplish in your construction. You can't convey the water. you're going to be generating stormwater when you put up a building. a floor slab or anything. that's what you have to control. So. you'll need to make that investigation real quick. decide what you're going to do. MR. WHITE-We bring that to him. and he gives it to you. that it's fine within a week. if we wait another month to get going on the building project. MR. BREWER-Do you have a problem with that. Tom? - 65 - MR. YARMOWICH-I don't care. I'll be looking at it again one way or the other. is what I see. As Jim said. it's at your discretion. If you want to have me do it after you give an approval. and then that letter will reside with Jim. and he can make the final. receive those two copies. MRS. PULVER-And then. Jim. you won't issue a bUilding permit. though. until everything is satisfied. right? MR. MARTIN-Exactly. including the fees paid. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I want to ask some questions about the plan itself. The proposed dumpster area. how many dumpsters are there there? MR. TYRER-How many dumpsters are there? I remove all my trash completely myself. I don't leave any trash on the property. My feelings are that it's an eyesore to the property. that property that I have there. to have dumpsters. So I remove the trash daily. MRS. TARANA-But you've got an area listed here as the dumpster area. MR. TYRER-AII right. there might be an area for a dumpster. in the back. I think. and if it was a thing that we had to have a dumpster. we'd have a dumpster with a proper cover over it. that wouldn't be an eyesore. We're exposed there. and to me. the property. the beautification of the property is important. MRS. TARANA-So is this dumpster area there or not there? MR. TYRER-If it is required to be there. we'll put it there. MRS. TARANA-Well. where do you put your dumpster now? MR. TYRER-I don't have a dumpster. because I don't leave any refuse on the property. MRS. TARANA-You take trash every day? MR. STARK-He doesn't want a dumpster. MR. TYRER-I don't want a dumpster. I prefer not having a dumpster. I take my trash every day. MRS. TARANA-Okay. so we can assume this dumpster is out of this plan? MR. TYRER-If I'm required to have a dumpster. I will put a dumpster in there on the property. MRS. TARANA-Okay. My point is. if he has to have a dumpster. I don't like the dumpster on the bike trail. It's basically on the bike trail. MR. TYRER-The dumpster will not be on the bike trail. MRS. TARANA-It's what you will see from the bike trail. You can move it somewhere. You can take it and move it some place else. MR. TYRER-Either that. or I would build a cover over the dumpster so that it would not be able to be seen. MRS. TARANA-It's not required. I'm saying if he has one. I don't want to see it there. MR. TYRER-Because on my property. you can see the front and the back and the side. both sides. - 66 - MRS. TARANA-I realize that. MR. TYRER-And that's why I was always against having a dumpster there. MRS. TARANA-Right. and that's why I'm concerned that it's there. because it's right there on the bike trail. It's right where the bike trail is. MR. TYRER-If it's required. I'll have it there. If it's not required. I'd like to remove my trash on a daily basis. MRS. TARANA-AIl right. let me ask you. why is the building way over here. instead of part of the rest of it? MR. TYRER-Because I have a perimeter of property here. which is two and a half acres. and I didn't want to block the access coming into the back area. We're going to make a commons in the back there. There'll be a walkway going with probably a garden area going into the main house. and I put it here. as far over as I could. so I could utilize the back part of the grounds. If I put it attached to the other buildings. it would have blocked the whole access to the back of the property. which is the beauty of the property. So. we left it over here. and the design is going to be similar to a Saratoga horse barn. and it's going to be done in very. very good taste. as far as beautification. as far as shrubs and plants. and I think my place is in very good taste as it is. and this is only gOing to increase the beauty of the property. So we did it with eye appeal. MRS. TARANA-Let me ask you. now. on the circular drive. you've got three handicapped places shown there. parking spaces. MR. TYRER-That's on the circular drive there. entering the building. MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. TYRER-Yes. so they don't have to park across the street. or park anyplace else. that handicapped can pull right up to the front of the manor. MRS. TARANA-Now he said that that's not used for parking. MR. TYRER-For handicapped. yes. it is. for handicapped. not for everybody's parking. It's not for people who come in. For the handicapped. it's an advantage for the handicapped. MRS. TARANA-So people can go in and park there. because how would they know that they can park there? MR. TYRER-I have signs there. parking for. handicapped is one thing. Parking for dealers and customers are parking across the street. So. and my dealers know this. The only time they park there. if they're going to take a five minute unload. and unload their merchandise into the manor. and then they remove their car from the circular drive and put it across the street. or put it alongside the parking area I have on the same side of the street. We also have parking on the same side of the street. MR. MARTIN-Are you going to continue to have the farmers market. if this is done? MR. TYRER-That's something that. if the Town of Queensbury feels it's not a proper thing to do. I'll get rid of it. I don't charge any services for the farmer's market. They're there. I let them there on a free basis. except they supply the liability insurance that's required for them to be there. They got the okay from the Town of Queensbury. We'd like to keep them. but if it's going to be a hazard to the property. I won't. and they know that. but if - 67 - '--' they can stay. we're willing to let them stay there. What we're going to do. we're going to change the situation as of next year. I think Monday was their last show until next year. Instead of having them along the fence where they've been. we're probably going to push them over towards the other far end. towards the Quaker Road end of the parking area. so it won't create any kind of a problem there. If it does. they know that they would have to leave. If it does create a problem with the Town of Queensbury, we will definitely. but we would like to have them there. I think it's an addition to the Town of Queensbury. Everybody is in favor of it. and it doesn't bring any money into our situation. but it does create more interest in the area. So we would like to keep it. if at all possible. MR. BREWER-Okay. How does everybody feel about the stipulation? MR. STARK-It's fine. MRS. TARANA-To vote. or to send it back? MR. BREWER-Whatever you want to do. MRS. PULVER-I don't have a problem with having the staff handle it. MR. RUEL-Since they must meet all the conditions to get a building permit. and I really wasn't aware of it. originally. when I agreed with you that we could table it. I guess I'd be in favor of letting it go the way it is. to give them an opportunity to get started on the construction. MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets do the SEQRA. MRS. PULVER-Short Form? MR. BREWER-Yes. RESOLUTIOR WHBR DBTBRMIRATIOR or RO SIGRIrICARCE IS rOURD RESOLUTIOR RO. 52-93. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before an antique .all. and the Planning Board an WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has an environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official - 68 - 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 effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-One thing I forgot to do. before we go any further. I forgot to open the public hearing. It's open. Would anybody care to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-93 H. ROBERT TYRER. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Whereas. the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file #52-93 to construct a 3.082 square foot building and 18 space parking area as part of an expansion to an existing antique mall: and Whereas. the above mentioned site plan application dated 9/29/93 consists of the followingl 1. Sheet SQ. grading. drainage & utilities. dated 5/30/90 2. Sheet S2. landscaping & parking. dated 5/30/90 3. Sheet 3. elevations. dated 5/11/90: and Whereas. the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Engineering comments. dated 10/15/93 2. Wastewater Department comments. dated 10/12/93 3. Staff notes. dated 10/28/93 4. Beautification Committee comments. dated 10/11/93 5. Short EAF. dated 9/24/93: and Whereas. a public hearing was held on 10/28/93 concerning the above project: and Whereas. the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning): and Whereas. the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). Whereas. the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered: and Therefore. Let It Be Resolved. as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby move to approve site plan # 52-93. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. when complete. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature within 30 days of this resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. The applicant shall address all engineering concerns from Rist-Frost. dated October 15th. Mike Shaw. dated October 12th. the Staff Notes. dated 10/28/93. all being addressed before a building permit will be issued. 8. The parking lot entrance shall be moved to the northeast end. to align with the new parking lot at the opposite side of the street. 9. The applicant will approach the County for a sidewalk crossing. and a three way stop. Duly adopted this 28th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Corinne just brings up a point. that the entrance that - 69 - ~~.., '~' we're asking him to move across from the other entrance is right on the curb. MR. TYRER-We' re going to move that curved entrance to the flat entrance. MR. WHITE-There's no curve there now. MR. MARTIN-I would also suggest the applicant pursue with the County a three way stop. MR. TYRER-When we go for the crosswalk. we're going to go for the three way stop. AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 70 -