Loading...
1996-05-30 ~ QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 30, 1996 INDEX. Site Plan No. 20-96 Tax Map No. 49-2-32, 33 John F. & Laura Flower 1. Site Plan No. 21-96 Tax Map No. 74-1-19.2 Roger LaFontaine 9. Site Plan No. 19-96 Tax Map No. 124-1-9 Alfred J. Merchant 24. Site Plan No. 24-95 MODIFICATION William Threw Tax Map No. 137-2-7.3. 29. Site Plan No. 22-96 Tax Map No. 148-1-2.1 The Michaels Group 37. 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 MlNUTES.~' ~ "- ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 30, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER DAVID WEST CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST FROST, PAUL COLLINS STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI ---- MR. PALING-Cathy, do you want to start us off. MRS. LABOMBARD-Sure. Okay. The first item on tonight's agenda is New Business for Site Plan No. 21-96, Type II, for Roger LaFontaine, Zone: Highway Commercial One Acre. The applicant proposes a 12' by 22' trailer at the site to serve lunch in dinner. All land uses in a Highway Commercial zone are subject to site plan review and approval by the Planning Board, and there is a public hearing tonight. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. GORALSKI - I don't see Mr. LaFontaine in the audience, yet. He's not here. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't, either. MR. PALING-All right. Then why don't we just put that off on the agenda, lets move that to the last, and we'll come back to it. SITE PLAN NO. 20 - 9 6 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN F. & LAURA FLOWER OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 30 SUNNYSIDE RD. NORTH APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IMPROVEMENTS TO DRIVEWAY AND ACCESS TO LOWER LEVEL PARKING. CONTINUE DRIVEWAY AND INCREASE PARKING. INCLUDES STABILIZING EXISTING BANK. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 49-2-32, 33 LOT SIZE: .36 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JOHN FLOWER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-96, John F. & Laura Flower, Meeting Date: May 30, 1996 "The applicants are proposing driveway improvements to their property on Lake Sunnyside. Staff has reviewed this application and has the following comments: No hard surfacing is allowed within 50 feet of any lake in Queensbury. Construction of this driveway must conform to this requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends a stipulation that before construction takes place on this driveway that any slope created as a result of this construction will be seeded and stabilized as required by Section 179-65 of the Zoning Ordinance. All comments from Rist Frost should be addressed prior to any Planning Board action. " MR. GORALSKI-The Warren County Planning Board returned a - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) recommendation of No County Impact, and Paul Collins is here from Rist-Frost to give you their comments. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-IIWe have reviewed the above plan received May 2, 1996 and have the following engineering comments: A short EAF should be included. The layout plan does not include existing and proposed contour lines. Level of detail not sufficient for review. There is no landscaping plan indicating existing vegetation or clearing limits. More detail is required on the retaining wall design and construction details. Grading and erosion control plans are not noted on the drawings. A slope stabilization study may be required. The "New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control" manual should be referenced and followed. If increased runoff is expected a Stormwater Management Plan should be provided. This submittal is too limited to provide adequate review at this stage. If you have any questions, please call us. II It's signed william J. Levandowski, P. E. Senior Vice President & Director of Technical Services" MR. PALING-Okay. Is the applicant here? ..--- MR. FLOWER-Yes, I am. MR. PALING-Would you identify yourself please, in the mic, for the record. MR. FLOWER-I'm John Flower. MR. PALING-Okay. Flower? Have you seen these Rist-Frost comments, Mr. MR. FLOWER-Yes. I saw them yesterday morning. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to comment on them? MR. FLOWER-I've turned in the Short Form of the EAF this morning. When we did this drawing, I didn't have an engineer do it. I had a draftsman friend of mine. We went up and shot elevations. They were marked on the drawing that I turned in. So there's not a topographical contour type lines on the drawing. If you have the drawing that was submitted, I have it numbered Number One, it shows that the water level on the east side. MR. PALING-Which print are you looking at, for our clarification? Okay. That's not this. Here it is. It's marked Number One in the lower right hand corner. There's a one and a two. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. FLOWER-And if you start on the east side of the property, on the right hand side of the page, it's marked there with kind of a bull's eye. It says four foot above the water line. Then that comes up, the next elevation we shot was just off the corner of the cabin that's sitting there. It's seven feet eight inches above. The next one we shot, going straight up the slope, was at the height of ground where the center level parking area is. It was 31 feet 6 inches, and then it's 37 feet 9 inches up farther on the upper bank. So that's the elevation. I understand you people have been over to see it. It's quite steep down through there. The bank itself, 18 feet off the property line. The bank, right now, it's cut away, it's 18 feet at the highest spot to the ground level. The double terrace stone wall that we're proposing to put up there would be two, four foot high sections. The grade would be brought up, initially, to 15 feet, and then there would be two, four foot high terrace stone walls that are indicated on the drawing as the, kind of the dotted lines that you see running out. - 2 - '-- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. PALING-Now that would be going back to the west, when you're describing that. Am I following you right? MR. FLOWER-The wall would run back to the west, and up the slope. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. FLOWER-Okay. So those walls, each terrace would be six foot wide, and the wall would be four foot high, and that's shown on the other detailed drawing that was marked as Drawing Two, and I did a little more smaller drawing and turned it in today. It's very similar to this one. It just stipulates that we're going to use, from like 18 inch to 4 inch cobblestone to build the wall. It's going to have about a 15 degree slope on the wall, and abouD a 15 degree slope on the terrace section as it goes up, and indicates, we didn't label it, but it shows, that would be seeded on the terrace, you know, as you get up to the first level, you go back, that 15 degree slope would be seeded, then you'd go up another four foot, and then the rest of that slope up to the existing grade is labeled as grass. The grade is approximately 24 degrees by the draftsman that did these up for us and did the calculations. So that's kind of the contour. Granted, it doesn't have the topographical type contour lines on it. We've tried to indicate, on Drawing Number One, where the edge of the bank is right nowvand where we perceive the stone walls to run from. I mean, they're going to taper down on both ends, and the highest section would be four foot. MR. PALING-We're all looking at these drawings for the first time, including the gentleman from Rist-Frost. So I think we're going to rely more on his re-action right now than our own. I don't know if there's time enough to look at this, or what would you say? MR. COLLINS-I would really like to take a closer look at it. It mayor may not be all right. MR. PALING-Yes. I can understand that. Okay, and this, you're saying, includes your grading and erosion control also, on these prints? MR. FLOWER-Yes. It'll be all seeded and covered with hay, after it's graded, until the seed comes up. MR. PALING-That's a very steep slope, and I think I'm anxious, I think, at least, to hear what the engineering analysis of it would be. I'd have to rely on the rather than my own observations in that case. How does everyone else feel? MR. STARK-John, are you happy with this, what you received yesterday and today? MR. GORALSKI-I think, in concept, that this solution could work. I guess I can't say, definitively, 100% yes it will work, but I think in concept that it could work, yes. MR. FLOWER-I have similar stone walls at a house I own over on Sunnyside. The grade isn't quite as high as this, and they're retaining that wall. They have for 10 years. There's a double set of walls, there's actually three there. They're not four foot high, they're more three foot high. The only thing that I did put in this that I didn't do on those walls is there's a Number Four stone going behind the cobble stone here for a filter fabric. That sand there is very fine, and if you get any precipital rain running down that washes right through the stone. So that's another thing that's indicated on here that really holds that sand from washing out through the cobblestone. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments on this? - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem waiting for the engineer, but why are we reviewing a driveway? MR. GORALSKI-Because of the slopes that they're creating to build the driveway. You can only do that with a site plan review. MR. PALING-This, lets see, it calls for a public hearing tonight, and it also calls for, this is an Unlisted Action. So I think maybe now the thing to do would be to go to the public hearing, unless there was other comments at this point. So the public hearing on this matter is opened. Does anyone care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL MOORE MR. MOORE-I'm Paul Moore of 31 Sunnyside North. I'm across the street from this proposed project. I haven't reviewed the drawings yet, but as I drove around the lake on Sunnyside North today I could see there appeared to be a significant amount of excavation going on, and I guess my question is, how much work has already been done, and is it being done to Code, or whatever the standards are. It appeared there was a considerable amount of tree cleaving going on this winter in that area. I don't know if that's a part of this project or not, but I just though it would be good if Mr. Flower could answer some of my concerns or questions. I'm not saying I'm opposed to it or for it. I just would like to clarify what it is that's been done so far, and whether that's part of this program, and whether all the approvals are in place for this construction. MR. PALING-Okay. Your questions have to be directed to us. MR. MOORE-Okay. I'll direct them to you. I live across the street. I would like to know if the work that I observed today is part of this project, as I drove around down Sunnyside North, and if, in fact, this is being done according to approval and Code. That's all. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to comment about this? JOAN BOVEE MRS. BOVEE-My name is Joan Bovee and I live on Lakeview Drive, which is Sunnyside Estates, and we have a common beach there, which is right next door to this property, and I saw it last weekend. I mean, I saw it last fall, too, when there were starting whatever, but I was concerned about the sand and everything washing into the lake, and the hay. I mean, right now it looks to me, because I haven't been over on the other side of the property, that everything is going to wash into the lake. I missed the beginning of the meeting. So I'm not exactly sure what Jack said about the lake. The lake is what 1 was concerned about, as far as everything washing into the lake. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. BOVEE-Because we do have a beach right next door. MR. PALING-Yes. I can understand your concern for that. MRS. BOVEE-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. DEBORAH CHAMPAGNE BARDIN - 4 - - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MRS. BARDIN-I'm Deborah Champagne Bardin. I live at 37 Sunnyside North, across the way. I'm more concerned about the placement of the driveway. I don't know if this is what I should be bringing in front of you or not. It looks as if it's going to be on that sharp turn, and it's going to take away some of the parking that is up on the top level at this time. Again, my concern is just for the parking, and I'm not opposed to this project or whatever. During the winter time, it's difficult to get out of that area. So all of the tenants and owners need to park up on the top level, and it seems as if this driveway is going to take away from part of the parking up there, and I wouldn't want to see a situation occur where we're going to be parking on the sides of the road. MR. PALING-Would you take a look at this, if you would, please. MRS. BARDIN-Yes. I haven't seen it. MR. PALING-And tell me if I'm following you right. This is the driveway, I believe, and is this the pullout area you're thinking about? MRS. BARDIN-Okay. This is the driveway we're talking about right here. This isn't my turn¡ so this is the driveway in here, you take away this. MR. GORALSKI-There's a parking area right at the turn. MRS. BARDIN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-This driveway is not going to affect that. MRS. BARDIN-Okay. There were stakes out. MR. GORALSKI-I think they're just staking out the lot, is what they were doing. MRS. BARDIN-Okay. So the driveway is still going to be the same area. MR. GORALSKI-The driveway is going to come down, that same road cut that there is now, that comes across the back of the three houses. MRS. BARDIN-Okay. Yes. Because it looked like a place where the driveway was going, and it's difficult because all of the work was being done in this area. I was concerned about, you know, it looked like that was going to be the driveway going off, to give these people over here access to the main road, because this has been, I guess, purchased by someone else. MR. PALING-Okay. So the driveway we see marked on here, blacktop drive, is what we're talking about. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. BARDIN-That's currently blacktopped, yes. MR. PALING-Yes, and down here. MRS. BARDIN-And then it goes down into here to dirt parking, and then this, but this is where we're being, this is what was all being, like, staked off here, so it looked as if the driveway was going to be here, and I was concerned because of this turn, and taking some of this parking away for the winter time because they cannot get up out of this driveway. Because it looked as if they were trying to access this cabin from here, to eliminate this problem. MR. PALING-Right. That isn't going to happen¡ though. - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MRS. BARDIN-Okay. MR. PALING-All right. MRS. BARDIN-That answers my question. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to comment on this? Okay. If there is no one else that cares to comment from the public, then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now I wonder, you heard the initial questions. I wonder if you care to comment on those. We're talking about washing into the lake, the construction that's been done, and, John, you may want to comment also. The driveway is off the list, but the construction that's already started, the cutting of trees and so on. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I can give you a little bit of history. Back, I guess it was about two months ago now, I got a call. There was some excavation being done near the shoreline. I went out and took a look. In fact, they had done some, basically done the cut t~at you see now. When I talked to Mr. Flower about it, he immediately went out and put haybales and did everything that k asked him to do to stabilize the site until a site plan review could be done, and in fact, the erosion control measures that he's put out there now have been successful in keeping everything out of the lake. MR. PALING-And no further cutting or anything was done? MR. GORALSKI-No additional cutting has taken place since then, and I don't believe that any additional cutting is proposed. MR. PALING-I think the next question that's been raised is the work in progress, if you will. Can we talk about that? MR. FLOWER-Yes. Like John said, when we started working, I didn't realize that we needed a site plan review and neither did the individual that was doing the work. I wasn't doing it myself. There was probably six or eight trees, big trees, removed, white pines. Those are probably the logs that you saw at the top of the, if you went by there, they haven't been removed yet. We haven't done anything since John asked us to stop. There was some dirt removed to create that grade and that bank. The slope that we removed is a similar slope to the one that we're going to re- construct. It's just going to be, the terracing part of it will make up for the difference of where we're putting the driveway in. MR. PALING-Are you working on it now? MR. FLOWER-No. We haven't done anything since John asked us to stop to get this approved. Yes. It took me a couple of weeks to get an engineer, a friend of mine who's, well, he's not a degreed engineer, but a draftsman over there with a transit to get the elevations, and he did the drawing, and the stuff works. So that's, like I said, about eight big pine trees. There's a lot of brush stuff that was probably cut down, and there was numerous loads of sand drawn out of there. So, yes, in response to Mr. Moore's, there was some excavating done. There were some trees removed. There's not going to be anymore trees removed, and, you know, the sloped driveway is going to be, right now, just crushed stone, and like John said, we have no proposal to pave anything within 50 feet of the driveway, even if we stopped at the bottom of the slope, like the existing blacktop driveway. That's more than 50 feet from the water's edge. The runoff that was also addressed in the Rist-Frost thing, there's always been extreme runoff down - 6 - '-- - -" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) these slopes on either the blacktop driveway or where this exists now. There used to be, we dug up ~bout a 10 inch fiberglass pipe that was buried in the ground that kind of collected the water and pushed it out down onto the lake. On the drawing, it shows, just on the front edge of where the existing camp is, there's a cobblestone drywall that's about three feet wide and runs all the way across the front. On the Number Two drawing, you see kind of a slope of that area there. There's going to be depressions on both sides of that drive area, to collect the water and run it down into that drywell area. So, really, I think the runoff, as far as going into the lake, it's going to be better now than it was previously. Before it was just running down through the dirt and going out in there. In fact, we had to cut a tree down a~ one time, as it had washed out from under the roots. MR. PALING-This is Unlisted. We should do a SEQRA on this. We should do a Short Form SEQRA on it. Now, should we do it prior to final comments from engineering? I address that to the Staff as well as to the Board. MR. GORALSKI-It's really up to the Board. If you feel that you've got enough information to address these questions, then you can go through it. If you feel that you need more input from--the engineer, then I'd recommend you wait. MR. RUEL-I would recommend that we delay this application until we hear further from Staff, certainly from engineering. MR. PALING-Okay. Tim? MR. BREWER-I don't want to delay him, but I think we ought to at least have our engineer look at it. I mean, if we sent it to him and he says he doesn't have enough information, maybe some kind of an arrangement could be made between the engineer and the applicant. MR. PALING-All right. Dave, how do you feel? MR. WEST- I agree. How much time would be required to complete that assessment? MR. COLLINS-I would guess less than one day. MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I think we should get a little report. MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK-How did we ever get this application if it wasn't complete, when it was turned in? MR. RUEL-I agree. MR. PALING-There is some last minute information which the Rist- Frost did not have an opportunity to review. I agree. I can't answer your question. MR. STARK-Ask the applicant if it's going to be a hardship to wait a few more weeks. MR. PALING-Craig, how do YOU feel? MR. MACEWAN-I'd prefer to wait. MR. PALING-Yes. I think it's the consensus of the Board that we'd like to wait until we have final comments from Rist-Frost, and I, personally, would like to wait on the SEQRA until I've got that. - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) I think I have too many questions. MR. BREWER-Yes, if we're going to wait for that, we probably should. MR. RUEL-Yes. Sure, wait on it. MR. PALING-Now, is this something that could be put together for the next meeting, so we don't delay you too much? MR. GORALSKI-You're next meeting wouldn't be until. MR. PALING-June. MR. RUEL-Three weeks. MR. PALING-Yes. The other alternative, a possible alternative would be to go ahead with the whole process, conditional upon an engineering favorable response. MR. BREWER-If you want to wait and do the SEQRA, how are we going to do that, without the report from the engineer? .--- MR. PALING-You can't. You're going to have to do SEQRA now, and then make the motion, have to make it conditional upon Rist-Frost's reply, a review by Staff. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not willing to do that. MR. BREWER-I'm not, either. MR. PALING-Okay, then I think that's no. Okay. Then I think what we're faced with is that we'd like to delay this until the first meeting in June, which is June 18th. There's no reason they can't be on the agenda then. Is there? MR. GORALSKI-I can tell you that you're going to have at least three meetings in June. What we'll do is put it on the first meeting, whatever that is. MR. PALING-All right. So that would have to be the 11th, then, because there are no more Tuesday's in June, the 11th or the 18th, and put this application on the one that comes first. Okay. Now, what do we need to do, table this motion? MR. GORALSKI-I think you would table it for more information from the engineer review. MR. PALING-All right. Do we have your consent to table this, which we must have. MR. MACEWAN-You didn't close out the public hearing, did you? You left it open? MR. PALING-I closed the public hearing, but I can amend that. We will, I'll re-open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. PALING-And keep it open into the next meeting. Am I okay doing that? MR. SCHACHNER-You don't have to, but you can if you want. MR. PALING-I think we should. MR. MACEWAN-I'd encourage that, only because we haven't seen the EAF and we haven't gotten engineering back either. - 8 - - '-, ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. BREWER-And we will get an EAF with our packet? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We have one. That was submitted today. MR. PALING-But we didn't see it. Okay. All right. Then with the applicant's consent, I'll entertain a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-96 JOHN F. & LAURA FLOWER, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until the first meeting in June, pending information from the engineer. Duly adopted this 30th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. We'll see you the first meeting next month. ..-- MR. BREWER-Do you want to do LaFontaine? MR. PALING-Is he here now? Okay. Do you want to go back to the first one. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I wonder if it might not be appropriate, since we seem not to be sure when that last matter was tabled until, based on your meeting schedule, just make sure that the members of the public that commented on it realize that the public hearing is remaining open to some future meeting in June. MR. PALING-All right. We had how many, two or three come up to comment. MRS. LABOMBARD-One lady left, but another is here. MR. BREWER-I know one of the audience. I'll let them know. MR. PALING-All right. Then that would cover the three that talked tonight. MR. BREWER-Actually, I know two of them that commented. MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy, go back to Number One, if you would. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. We're back to Roger LaFontaine. SITE PLAN NO. 21-96 TYPE II ROGER LAFONTAINE OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1133 ROUTE 9 - MARTHA'S APPLICANT PROPOSES A 12' X 22' TRAILER AT THE SITE TO SERVE LUNCH AND DINNER. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/6/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 74-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 8.3 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 DENNIS & ROGER LAFONTAINE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 21-96, Roger LaFontaine, Meeting Date: May 30, 1996 "The applicant proposes a 12' by 22' building to serve lunch and dinner at Martha's ice cream stand. This expansion meets the setbacks and density requirements of the HC-1A zoning district. The only staff concern is vehicular access at - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) this location. This site currently uses three access points off of Route 9. The center curb cut is ¡ocated next to an area used by customers to wait for ice cream orders. Staff would offer a stipulation that this center curb cut be eliminated in order to prevent vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at this location. Consideration should be given to providing mulch and street trees in this area along Route 9." MR. GORALSKI -The Warren County Planning Board approved. The Queensbury Beautification Committee approved the above. MR. PALING-Yes, there's a Beautification. middle of the letter. Well, notice in the MR. GORALSKI-II In addition to the above Landscaping, Screening and Planting Provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve: 11 MR. BREWER-I think that's standard, the nonconforming signs. MR. GORALSKI-I guess they just approved it. MR. PALING-Well, John, read the sentence before that, too. --- MR. GORALSKI-"Planting box across front. Nothing we can do. We saw him. 11 MR. RUEL-What does that mean? MR. PALING-Well, we'll have to ask the applicant. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe the applicant can comment. MR. PALING-All right. Why don't you go ahead. We'll come back to that. MR. GORALSKI-And then there's a letter from the Glens Falls Transportation Council, from Joanna Brunso, Staff Director, 11 I have reviewed the proposed site plan for the addition to Martha's Ice Cream on Route 9 in the Town of Queensbury and would like to make the following comments: 1. Martha's Ice Cream is located at a difficult spot on Route 9. The center turning lane on Route 9 is located so that northbound vehicles waiting to left into Martha's must share the lane with southbound vehicles waiting to turn left onto Round Pond Road. Since 1991 there have been three accidents involving vehicles waiting to turn left into Martha's. Two of these accidents involved personal injuries. 2. There are two businesses on the site, one for ice cream and sandwiches and one for the motel, and yet there are three entrances/exits all used by the restaurant business. Parking is limited, and at times during the peak recreational season, traffic in the parking lot may contribute to a delay to vehicles entering the lot because a parking slot is not immediately visible to the entering vehicle. 3. In preparation for the resurfacing of Route 9 in 1998, an access management plan is being prepared. This plan is being developed with a view to managing congestion and minimizing accidents in the Route 9 Corridor between Sweet Road and Route 149. It is very possible that this plan will recommend the elimination of one of the access driveways. Therefore, this may be a good time to rethink traffic circulation within the Martha's Ice Cream parking lot. 4. The elimination of the center access drive would provide several additional parking slots and reduce vehicle conflicts. Striping on the pavement to indicate parking slots, vehicle direction, and pedestrian walkways would improve traffic flow in the lot. If possible, Martha's should provide additional parking. 5. As soon as possible the barriers between the adjacent businesses should be removed to facilitate the flow of vehicles between these businesses. Thank you for the opportunity to comment - 10 - '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) on this proposed site plan." MR. PALING-All right. Yes, that's the extent of the letters we have an income for this. So, yes, the vehicular access, and there's a couple of, three questions. Would you identify yourselves, please, for the record. MR. LAFONTAINE-That's Dennis LaFontaine, and I'm Roger LaFontaine. This is my son. I own the property. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Would you clarify the statement by the Beautification Committee regarding the planting box across the front, nothing we can do, we saw him. MR. D. LAFONTAINE-I met with her, and she wasn't really sure why I was there. She just wanted to see what we were planning on doing with the property. We laid all fresh sod down. We've got a planter box going, I've got a planter box going in front of the Grill, if that's what she's talking about, I'm not sure, but there's one going across the front window there. Nothing she could do. She made that comment in the meeting, saying there was nothing further we could do. Everything was fine with her. ~ MR. PALING-You're saying in front of a window? MR. D. LAFONTAINE-Well, there's a planter box going in front of the window in front of the building, a flower box. MR. RUEL-On the building MR. PALING-A window box. It says "across the front". I took that to mean out near the street. MR. D. LAFONTAINE-No, there was nothing ever mentioned. MR. PALING-There's no comment about that? MR. D. LAFONTAINE-Not at all. MR. PALING-Let me look at one other thing here. Okay. I guess the other question I had was, the barriers between the adj acent businesses, that would be, that would include the zoo. MR. D. LAFONTAINE-I don't know what barriers between the businesses. MR. GORALSKI-I think what she's talking about is, no, I believe she does mean, because you can circulate around your entire site back to the motel. Is that correct? MR. D. LAFONTAINE-Correct, to the back lot. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-There's a motel parking lot. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I believe what she means, see, I guess the most current theory in access management is to have interconnections between adjacent businesses, so that, say people that went to the zoo, and then they were going to go to Martha's for ice cream or for lunch, they wouldn't have to go onto Route 9, across Route 9, make a left hand turn, come down 100 feet, then make another left hand turn across. What was encouraged is to have an interconnection between commercial properties. MR. D. LAFONTAINE-You just have conflicts with insurance companies, insurance companies on the liability side. MR. BREWER-That's in our Zoning Ordinance also, isn't it? - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. GORALSKI-For new commercial uses. MR. BREWER-Just new commercial uses. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-I didn't put up that so called guardrail between the zoo and our property. That was put up by the zoo. So I have no say whether it can come down or not. That's not mine to say. That's owned by the Zoological Park. MR. PALING-Yes, but did you talk to them about the possibility of taking that down and making it a common drive? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Well, they put it up there because they didn't want cars going from one to the other. It wasn't like that until just, what, a couple of years ago. MR. PALING-So you haven't talked to them about it recently, though. Okay. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-He's sitting right back there. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. --- MR. RUEL-Can't people walk from one to the other? You don't have to drive from one to the other, do you? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-From the Zoo to our property? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Yes, they can walk if they want. MR. RUEL-Well, then why should someone leave the Zoo, go out on Route 9, go back in again? It doesn't make, sense. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-No. MR. RUEL-They can just walk over, can't they? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Yes. MR. RUEL-Now, what's on the other side of your property? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Kay's Motel. MR. RUEL-They can do the same thing there. MR. R. problem. LAFONTAINE-Yes. They do it all the time. There's no barriers there. Tha t 's no MR. RUEL-Then the only vehicle she's talking about is the vehicular barrier, right? MR. PALING-To the Zoo. MR. RUEL-Because there is no other barrier. They could walk. Didn't we, at one time, talk about a brick walk in front of the Zoo property, for just that, to gain access to other properties? MR. GORALSKI-When the miniature golf course was in, we talked about pedestrian access along Route 9 to connect all those properties. MR. RUEL-Yes. So, can we continue on that basis, I mean, just allow people to walk back and forth? MR. GORALSKI-They do now. Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. - 12 - --- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. PALING-How do you feel about the curb cut, cutting back on that, to two? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-I'm not quite sure what that was. I've never seen a copy of this letter. So I don't know what it was all about. MR. RUEL-They want to eliminate the center one, the center curb cut. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-The center driveway? MR. RUEL-Driveway, yes. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-That is the most viable one, I would imagine. The one on the bottom, further south, is used mostly by the motel guests. By eliminating the center one, I think we're going to create, it's going to create more of a hassle in that one driveway, because when we have our lines out there, the people, they can't cut across the front of the ice cream stand, because of the lines, that go from one driveway to another. If they come in the north end of the driveway, they park on that side, or in my back lot, and go out that side. They come in the center, they park there, and the center one, the end one, the south one, goes to the motel,-and the house that's there. MR. RUEL-The center one we're talking about, is that the one directly in front of the restaurant? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Directly in front of the restaurant. MR. RUEL-Okay. I came in that way the other day, and I wanted to go out the southern driveway, and I couldn't, because the lines were too long. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Well, that's why I say, if you take that driveway out now, you're going to have people trvinq to do just that. MR. RUEL-If you take that driveway out, if you come in on the southern one. MR. D. LAFONTAINE-You're going force people to try and cut through the line. MR. RUEL-You can't get through, because of the lines. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-But you're forcing people to try and do that, because that lower driveway on the north end is not very wide, and it's at a crazy angle because the house is there, and you've got, the motel's back there. MR. RUEL-Yes. John, I was just wondering whether the person who made this assessment, as far as the removal of that curb cut, I wonder if they were aware of the long lines that exist there, all the way back to the highway practically. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Right. I don't want to go creating a hazard. I've done everything I could on that property to avoid creating a hazard with my customers out there, and I, to block off an entrance and an exit which is very wide, it's a nice size entrance and exit, is the main one used on that side, I'm telling you, people would try driving through the lines. MR. PALING-Maybe what they're saying is that the lower, that the northerly entrance should be reconstructed and that the middle one be done away with. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning when you're saying crossing the lines, because I've driven in all of the entrances and exits, I guess, there, and I've seen people, I don't do it, I hope I don't, but I've seen people wend their way through - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) the people when they come in that middle slot. They're going to go off to the left, out where you've got most of the parking, come hell or high water, and that's why I'm not following your reasoning that they would, it would tempt them to cut across. If you eliminated that middle entrance, you might even add a few parking spaces. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-I think it would be creating a hazard. MR. BREWER- If people realize that that entrance is not there anYmore, they're either going to have to realize that they're going to come in the southerly most entrance and park there, or the northerly, and they're just going to realize that that entrance is not there, and they can't go in there to park there or try to get across. MR. D. LAFONTAINE-So she addressed, at the beginning of the letter, that the cars were having a problem not finding, looking and not seeing a spot and having trouble getting in. If you shorten one driveway, so it's going to have less access into the property. You're lessening the access into the property. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-And it's liable to back up things up on Route 9 even worse. We have a motel there. We have a restaurant. We have a house on the property, and we have our ice cream business. We've got to have the access to the property, without somebody thinking, coming up, if they're heading south, coming up Route 9, and all of a sudden they realize they're missing that one opening, and they jam their brakes on, you know, I think it would create a problem. We haven't had a, she's talking about accidents out there. We haven't had any accidents caused by our property, per se. The last two accidents were on the corner of Round Pond Road and Route 9, and, you know, Round Pond Road is where there's an accident problem, and they finally fixed that light up there after two years of complaining. It was the darkest intersection there is, and they just did it, what, two weeks ago, after the last accident. MR. PALING-These are the people, however, who study and traffic problems and provide us with input in regard to this, and we do rely on them quite a bit because they go out and analyze it and give us benefit of their findings and their experience, and so we have to think heavily upon what they do submit as a recommendation, and I think everybody here's been in and out of Martha's many times. MR. STARK-I have a question for John. accidents in five years is a lot? I hardly any, myself. What do YOU think? John, mean, do you think three I don't think it's MR. GORALSKI - I'm not a traffic expert. I don't know if three accidents in five years is a lot. I really don't know. MR. STARK-For the amount of traffic that goes in and out of the place for six months of the year, I don't think that's a lot. Maybe you could argue three is three too many, but. MR. GORALSKI-The only thing I can say is I think sometimes, in their busiest times, whether it be during lunch or on the weekends in the evenings, but when they're busy I think access from the site is a little bit confusing, and anything that can be done to kind of make things more defined as to where you're supposed to go, where you're supposed to turn in, where you're supposed to park, would be helpful. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Everything has been striped. I do it every year. My driveways are all striped. There's arrows there. Everything is well marked. All my parking places are defined. I honestly think I've done everything and more than I can. We built a successful - 14 - - .- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) business. I don't feel we should be penalized for it. MR. BREWER-I don't think anybody wants to penalize you, and I think what this Board has been doing in the past and hopefully will continue to do it is to cut down on the curb cuts. Right up the street we eliminated some. Up the street we've tried, and on Quaker Road. Many, many places we've tried to eliminate extra curb cuts. I don't know how far that span is. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-The front of our property is 500 feet. MR. GORALSKI-Three entrances in 500 feet, I would agree with Staff and Glens Falls Transportation, that I think if you define the entrances, people may not get used to it riqht away, but I think it'll be better off in the long run. MR. RUEL-Now, the recommendation for the reduction in curb cuts by this agency is to eliminate accidents? Is that it? Because it's accident prone? MR. BREWER-Accidents and/or maybe confusion. If there's less confusion, there's less of a chance, probably, for an accident. ..-- MR. PALING-They keep trying to preach to us, Roger, that the more accesses that you have, the more confusion it is to traffic, as traffic is passing. If they can come at you three ways, it's harder than if they can only come at you two or one, and the fewer accesses that you have, practically speaking, the better off you are, and I think that's their basic message to us, and, George, you had a comment. MR. STARK-I'd like to wait, before we discuss anYmore, and get Art's comments, from the Zoological Park, to see if they can internalize off Route 9. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. I think I agree. If there are no other comments at the moment, lets open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would care to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ART SMITH MR. SMITH-Okay. My name is Art Smith. I represent the Lake George Zoo for David Osbourne. First off, we are not against this. We feel it goes right with the business. It should have been there a long time ago. So we are not against it. The only thing we have, and we've sol ved it, but I'd just like to bring it to your attention. I've made an agreement with Roger, and it's all taken care of, but there's been a little garbage problem. The stuff would blow over. People, you can put a garbage can here, and they're going to throw it on the ground, but I've talked to Roger, and his man is picking it up. So we have no problem. As far as the guardrail, we put that up because of our insurance company. People from Martha's would drive, zoom, right up through our parking lot, go through our front entrance and out to the, up there by the miniature golf course. It's like a race track, and my insurance man almost got run over one day. That did it. So that's why we put that up. Because we are liable. He says we are liable if they hurt someone on our property, or have an accident. That's what the insurance company says. We are in the process of blocking our other driveways up. We don't want parking on there. We are stopping all parking there. We've had some problems just recently. I did. I asked the gentleman to move, and he proceeded to tell me my pedigree, and was going to fight with me. MR. PALING-He was parking in the Zoo parking lot and doing business elsewhere. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. SMITH-In the evening, going over to Martha's. People park there, even if he's half full. They still park at my place. It makes sense. It's an empty parking lot, but we're liable, and when they throw their garbage out up by my gorilla and that, you know, I don't expect Roger to go clear up there. MR. PALING-So you're blocking access in the evening. MR. SMITH-To the evening. MR. PALING-In the evening you'll block it off. MR. SMITH-From six o'clock on, my entrance, the whole big parking lot down below will be blocked off. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SMITH-But we're in favor of what they're doing. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to comment? RICK ROGGE ~ MR. ROGGE-My name is Rick Rogge. I'm a resident here in Town, and I think that what they're proposing is a good idea. I'm for it. Regarding the three entrances, I've been there on numerous occasions, as most people in Town have, and I think the three entrances is actually a good idea, because if the parking lot is a little congested instead of sitting out on the street waiting for some place to go, I can simply move to the next entrance, get off the highway and immediately move into the parking place. So I think it would be a bad idea to change the current arrangement. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would care to comment? Okay. If there is no one else, then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Now, do we have any comments from Rist-Frost on this? MR. GORALSKI-They didn't comment. MR. PALING-Okay. So we are to the point, and this is a Type II, yes. Right. So there is no SEQRA involved. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-So I guess it's up to us now, to talk it over a little bit and come to a conclusion with a motion. Well, lets start with Craig. How do you feel, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-We've been working hard in trying to cut down the number of curb cuts throughout the Town, and it's a bad corridor up through there. To top it off, that particular area, you know, with Round Pond Road coming out there and some other businesses makes it very congested. I'm in favor of closing off the middle one. MR. PALING-Yes. George? MR. STARK-No, and for the reason that, coming south many times during the day, I have to wait a lot of times while people take a right in there, and I think if you cut off the middle one, you're going to have to wait longer. People turn in the first one, they turn in the second one, they turn in the third one. A lot of times - 16 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) I'm waiting, and I'm coming down at night a lot of times, too. I don't think we have to. MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I think this is a tough one. It's been operating all these years, probably quite successfully, and I know that our job is to try to eliminate the curb cuts, but I just don't know. I know what George is saying is true. Personally, I've been in there so many times. You have to be careful. There's always lots of traffic there. I don't know eliminating which one would be the best, to tell you the truth. I don't know. Maybe if it's working successfully, if three accidents in five years is, considering the number of people that are in and out of there, maybe that's not a bad record. Maybe you ought to just leave it alone. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-But like I say, I really, I think this is a tough one. MR. PALING-Roger? -- MR. RUEL-Do we necessarily have to buy the Glens Falls Transportation Council's recommendations? MR. PALING-It's an input. It's a recommendation like any input that we have, and we have to take that along with all of them. MR. RUEL-I know, but can we have our own traffic engineer look at this? I'm not convinced. I'm siding a bit with George, in that, in most cases, the elimination of curb cuts seems to be a logical thing, and I certainly buy it. However, this is an entirely different situation. Where this building is located, the number of lines of people in front of it, the access and the exits. It just seems to me that the more entrances you have, or the more exits you have, the better it is, in that particular case. In most cases I've seen, it didn't work that way, but in this case, and this is why I'm not totally convinced that GFTC is necessarily 100% right, in this case, and I was wondering, is it possible for us to have another party, an engineering or traffic engineer look at this, in light of. MR. PALING-I think you could hire one, but I don't think we have one. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't think we need to go to that. MR. RUEL-Well, if we don't go that way, then I don't necessarily buy this Glens Falls Transportation Council, 100%. MR. PALING-So you're saying leave it as it is? MR. RUEL-I would, yes, in this case. I think this is a different case. MR. PALING-Okay. Dave? MR. WEST-I think I have to agree with Roger. I'd like to hear a little bit more on what exactly is this access management plan that they're alluding to in this letter. What are the details of it? Yes. It probably would be nice to eliminate one of the curb cuts, but I think, based on the situation, the different entrances, where they're going, the flow of traffic, I don't think that eliminating a curb cut is justified. MR. BREWER-I agree with the Transportation Council and Staff, in that, if we are to eliminate a curb cut, it makes the best sense to - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) eliminate the curb cut where the biggest mass of people are. I think if you've got cars coming down the road 40 ~iles an hour, they go by the first one. They know there's a second one. Heaven forbid if there ever should be anybody pull in there. I'm not saying it'll happen. I'm not saying it won't happen. I hope it doesn't happen, but I think in the past we've done it, with every other possibility that we can, and I think we should continue. I don't think we should pick one business and say, no, lets not do it to him and do it to the next one. MR. PALING-George, did you want to add additional? MR. STARK-Yes. It seems like, you know, they came to us for approval for the place that sells hamburgers and hot dogs, and we're holding them up by saying, well, okay, we'll approve that, if you eliminate a curb cut. That's like if someone else wanted to come for an approval for something else. Say he wanted to add more motel units. Are we going to make him eliminate a curb cut on that, then? I don't see the connection really. MR. MACEWAN-I think you're way off base, George. MR. PALING-All right. Lets get a comment from Staff or legal on that issue. That's a good question. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not sure I follow the comment, only in that that would actually be precisely when, when somebody seeks a site plan review or a modification of a previous site plan approval, that would actually, I think, legally, at least, be the appropriate time for the Planning Board to consider things like traffic flow, and you don't have to have the perfect match up. In other words, it doesn't have to be traffic flow, for example, created by the additional restaurant or the additional trailer serving food. From a legal standpoint, the appropriate time for the Planning Board to look at any number of issues, including traffic, would be when an applicant would returns to the Planning Board and seeks some type of modified approval or additional approval. From a legal standpoint, I would be more troubled by, if a Planning Board felt it wanted to try to reach out and get somebody to eliminate a curb cut or do something like that when there was no application pending. That would trouble me. MR. PALING-All right, and I better give my own feeling here before I go any further. I think we all remember the situation on Route 9 not too far from Martha's and the Passarelli thing where we let it go at two curb cuts, and, wow, did we get brought down on that one, and told that it was wrong, and I believe in what the Department of Transportation says, that the more exits and entrances you have, it's more confusing to the drivers going in both directions, and the fewer that you have, the safer that you are, and the much more stable condition, and I personally feel that in this situation, they should keep the south entrance access as it is, eliminate the middle one, and perhaps even do a reconstruction job on the north one, so that you do have the best possible condition, and do some more striping in the lot where you've lost that curb cut. So I guess we've all spoken our peace on this. Unless there's further comment, we'll entertain a motion to act on it. MR. STARK-Why don't you ask the applicant, if it appears that this is the only way it's going to pass. MR. PALING-Would the LaFontaine's come back up to the table, please. The only other thing I was going to add is the Department of Transportation also indicated that, with the re-development of Route 9, they're probably going to ask for this to be done anyway, the widening of Route 9. - 18 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. D. LAFONTAINE-When we talked to the State last, they plan on re-striping the road and changing, the center lines of the road. That's what they plan. They didn't say anything about changing the curb. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Well, they plan on wideninq the road, and that is the time for something to be done, not in the middle of the season. They're planning on widening the road, apparently from Sweet Road down to 149 and re-doing that whole road. MR. MACEWAN-But when they re-do that road, that will be done during the summer months, which would be in the middle of your season. MR. BREWER-They're not going to do that road in the spring, George. MR. STARK-That's the way I understood it. O'Connor put in a bid for it or something, and he was telling me that they had to do it in the spring. They couldn't do it in the summer months. MR. RUEL-What's the schedule? MR. STARK-Next year they're supposed to do it. .---- MR. PALING-' 98. MR. BREWER-It would make sense if they could do it in the spring, but, boy, I don't see how they could. That's a long stretch of road. MR. STARK-Well, from history, when they did our section from 149 to the Beach Road, April, May, June, and they had to be out of there by the Fourth of July. They did the same thing, you know put the curbs in and the bricks and the red planters and all that. They wouldn't let them do it in the summer. MR. PALING-Well, as Cathy says, we've got a very difficult situation here, to make a decision one way or the other, but unfortunately that's our duty, is to decide on these things, vote on them, and that's the process. Has anything we've said changed your mind, or what do you think? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Not really. I feel the same way I did before. I'm afraid it would create accidents. You've got people that go to turn in, and they miss that southern driveway, and they're going to hit their brakes. It's true. It's very true. I've watched the traffic flow. The road is designed wrong. It's not my fault. The State of New York, when they re-did that road back in '85, '86, an engineer from the State of New York actually published in a State news letter saying that that road was designed wrong, and that it would have to be re-done at some time in the future, which still hasn't been re-done. The road design is wrong. The center line is wrong. They did it. I didn't do it. I have been having to live with it. We do the best we can. Our property is well marked. Our driveways are well marked. Everything is striped. We've got arrows in and out. I mean, really, I'd be afraid of creating a problem where somebody wants to go out the north driveway and is going to cut through that, trying cutting through those lines of people. You have yo yo's out there, and you all know it. MR. WEST-Has anybody ever been struck in your parking lot? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-No. No one has ever been struck in our parking lot. MR. D. LAFONTAINE-You're going to create an accident by cutting off an access for people to get out of their driveway. Now they want to head south on our property, they can't go out from that side, from the north end of the property anymore, so they figure they - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) have to go, they're going to have to cut through the lines to get up there. They're not going to go t,o the north end of the property to go up the hill. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-We have never had an accident in our driveway, and we have never had anyone struck in our lot. Any accidents that have happened have been out in the road, and most of them have been involved with Round Pond Road, which is out from us. It's across from the Zoo more than it is from us. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I think maybe this is an exception. I know just what you're saying about slamming your brakes on. I know just where you're coming from. MR. BREWER-What do you mean, slamming your brakes on, Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, you're going south, and you decide, yes, there's Martha's, I want an ice cream, and you miss that first turn, and it's just, the way the road kind of comes up and goes, it starts going up the hill there. It just is always, to me, an unpleasant situation, and, where, if you miss the first turn in. MR. D. LAFONTAINE-Then you're going to force them to go up to~he south end entrance, and if the parking lot is full, you're going to force them to come back through the line to the north end of the property. MR. PALING-But can't you say that about any parking lot, if you miss Wal-Mart, where the light is coming south, that you turn in the next one? And they only have two entrances there. MR. BREWER-Cathy, the thing I'm trying to say is, the most northerly entrance, the next one is the shortest span, so if you go by the first one, more than likely you're going to be half way beyond the second one. You're going to have to go in the third one. So, if that's not here, you could still go in. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see what you're saying. I know what you're saying, and I'm not going to disagree with you there either. I just think it's a precarious situation to begin with, and maybe what we have has been working. I just don't know if we should change it. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-What I'm trying to explain is, the cars coming, heading south, they're going to be coming up there, and this is actually the shortest driveway, the narrowest driveway right here, the one on the south end. They're going to miss that, because there is a house there, as you well know, and there are trees there. They're going to miss that one as they see the ice cream stand, or the restaurant, or the grill, whatever they happen to want to go to, or the motel. Now, if this driveway is no longer here, they're going to have to keep going and go into this second one. That is the problem driveway, because if you go out there and look at the road, that's where the turning lane is, going to Round Pond Road. That is, it would be a real hazard. I'm telling you it would be creating a hazard. This center one is the most used driveway. It is the most used driveway. MR. PALING-But the center one is on the far side, it's away from your parking lot. Excuse me. It's right in front of the restaurant. So many times to get through there you've got to go through people. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-No. They use the north driveway when they're going to this back parking lot. MR. PALING-But what about if they come in the one in the middle? Which way should they turn? - 20 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. R. LAFONTAINE-If they come in the one in the middle, they're either parking in front of the res~aurant or on the right side of the restaurant. I have parking all the way back there. MR. PALING-Or making their way through the crowd. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, Bob. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-This center driveway goes to the restaurant here. Here's the ice cream stand here. MR. PALING-Right. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Okay. This center driveway goes to the restaurant here, the parking here, and to the motel here, and this driveway here goes to the back parking lot here, and the additional parking here. This center driveway is very viable. MRS. LABOMBARD-It is. We always use it. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-It's the most viable driveway on the property. MR. MACEWAN-I have a question for Staff. Do you, offhand, know what the plans are for that road reconditioning, what they hav~ on the books? MR. GORALSKI-Actually, the only thing I can tell you is if you read the wording of the GFTC letter, they have not developed final plans yet. MR. MACEWAN-So you don't know whether that section of the road is going to be widened or just re-surfaced or re-striped or what? MR. GORALSKI-I do not know, and I don't believe their final plans have been made. I think their final plans won't be made until they complete the access management plan, which has not been completed yet. MR. MACEWAN-If they go ahead with their plans through that whole section up there, and they deem not only this parcel, but maybe some other selected parcels along the road need, at that time, to have access cut off, will they take control of it and go ahead and do it? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know, legally, what ability they have to do that. Mark might be able to answer that better. I know they do have control over access. One of the things they have to do is provide access to the highway. MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is, they're certainly not required, "they", the State, is not required to provide more than one access. The State is the entity that would have the legal authority to close off an entrance, if it felt it was appropriate. That's not something that's to be done without a procedure, and you already have the curb cuts there. It would be a matter between the applicant and the State as to whether that was done validly or not. MR. MACEWAN-How do they go about doing that? Do they notify the applicant saying that, you know, our upcoming work schedule, we plan on taking out one of your entrances? How does it work? MR. SCHACHNER-Typically, there would be a notification of the applicant, and typically the applicant would have an opportunity to make his position known to the State. Let me just make a generalized statement. It's a lot tougher for the State or any entity to come along and try to go back and remove curb cuts that have already been approved or have been there, unless the applicant was trying to gain some additional approval, which the applicant would not be trying from the State. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. PALING-We have a tough situation here, and I'm not sure what's going to happen, but I want to get just one other thought in this, and someone else had the same thought I did. Supposing we did require that the middle access be closed, but we said that the re- construction and the work on it didn't have to be done until after the middle of October? Would that make a difference to you? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-No. The middle driveway is the most viable dri veway there. It's tough to, you know, if something's not broken, why fix it? And it's not broken. We haven't had a problem there. There is traffic at times, but we haven't had a problem. MR. D. LAFONTAINE-Charlie Wood has some serious traffic down there. He creates a back up on his Route 9, because you expect it. It's a busy location. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-We have a busy location, and people that go there, especially our local customers, know, there's liable to be a back up, and they know the area. It's not broken, why fix it? That middle driveway is really a viable driveway. MR. STARK-I think the owners know more than Joanna Brunso about this situation. They've been there for many years, 17 year~or something like that. Martha had it for, like, 35 years before that. They know what's valuable to them and what isn't. MR. PALING-How would you feel about closing the northerly entrance? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-If anything, that's the one I would consider, and, again, not in mid season. I just, you know, don't want to be putting construction equipment there and everything else. MRS. LABOMBARD-My suggestion is, why don't we just leave it alone, and in 1998, when the Department of Transportation comes in and builds the new road, let them put their two cents in and mandate whatever they want. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-If I may put my two cents in, in that respect, what I was trying to think of, when you were talking, back in '85, '86, when they re-did that road, the State did come in and tell us where our driveways would be and what size they would be. The driveways that are there now, the State is the one who put the curbing in. They're the ones that put the brick in. They're the ones who told us what size they were going to be. MR. MACEWAN-Did you have three existing ones prior to the State? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-No, prior to the State, we had, actually we had almost the whole front open. We had one little curb there, which was, I don't know, maybe, the State's the one who came in and told us what we have to have, and I imagine they're going to do the same thing again, but right now we really have had no problem, and I'm afraid of creating a problem. MR. WEST-How did they arrive at three driveways? MR. R. LAFONTAINE-Because of the fact there was a house, a motel, a restaurant and the ice cream stand. They went by the fact where the motels were located out back you needed an access to it and from it, without cars cutting through the lines. People coming in and out of the motels use that most southern driveway, because it's a straight shot. Now, without the southern driveway, they're going to come out of the motels. They're going to be cutting across and out one of the other driveways. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't they go straight out? Why do you insist that they have to go across that line? - 22 - - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. R. LAFONTAINE-I'm not insisting. avoid. That's what I'm trying to MR. BREWER-Traffic can be controlled, can't it? MR. D. LAFONTAINE-It's very well controlled now. We don't have a problem. MR. R. LAFONTAINE - We controlled right now. don't have a problem. It's very well Why create a problem when there is not one? MR. PALING-All right. everybody. MR. MACEWAN-I'd be willing to be flexible here, and he's saying if he had to do without a curb cut, he could live without the northern curb cut. I'd be willing to go along with that, and doing his re- vamping of it in the off season. Any final comments? One more shot for MR. PALING-Okay. George, do you want to make anymore comment? MR. STARK-No. ~ MR. PALING-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. You know how X feel. MR. PALING-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-Stick to my original comment. MR. PALING-Dave? MR. WEST-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Tim? MR. BREWER-I'm fine. extent. I would agree with Craig, I think, to an MR. PALING-Close the north. MR. BREWER-Close the north and do it off season. MR. PALING-Do it off season. MR. MACEWAN-Just an added thought to this. If we decide, and the vote goes that we don't do anything about this, and the State comes, next year or the year after, you may not have a choice or an opportunity to work with it, and we're giving you an opportunity, here, to work with it, at least. MR. D. LAFONTAINE-Even if you guys make us put one driveway, and the State could come in and change it. MR. R. LAFONTAINE-They could come in and change the whole thing. MR. MACEWAN-They probably won't, because now you've got it down to two. Because they've sent those messages to us, as well, especially when we dealt with the Passarelli site up the road. The State did say that, although there was room for, I think, three curb cuts up there. Is that what it was? They wanted to see less than that. MR. PALING-They wanted one. MR. MACEWAN-They wanted one. - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. PALING-All right. I will entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-96 ROGER LAFONTAINE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For a trailer at the site. Duly adopted this 30th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-No, with the qualification that I think that one curb cut should be removed, and I don't think this Board is being consistent by approving it. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West NOES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 19-96 TYPE II ALFRED J. MERCHANT OWNER: BESSIE E. CALLEJO ZONE: LC-10A LOCATION: CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON 1.67 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 4-1996 AV 36-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 124-1-9 LOT SIZE: 1.67 ACRES SECTION: 179-13/ JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT ALFRED MERCHANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 19-96, Alfred J. Merchant, Meeting Date: May 30, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to construct a home on a 1.67 acre piece of property on Cormus Road. The applicant has received setback and permeability variances from the ZBA for this proj ect. Any comments from Rist Frost should be addressed prior to the Planning Board taking action on this application. Staff would recommend approval of Site Plan No. 19- 96." MR. PALING-Okay, and you've got the County. MR. GORALSKI-The County had No County Impact. There were variances that were approved. Rist Frost comments, "We have reviewed the site plan received May 2, 1996 and have the following engineering comments: Variances have been granted for non-conforming setbacks and permeable area in an LC-10A zone. Town of Queensbury must approve curb cut. Vegetation may limit visibility for access. No utilities connections or water well locations are shown on the site plan. The stormwater management report indicates no increase in site runoff. The drywell overflow pipes discharge toward the rear of the site. Test pits and perc test locations and results should be shown. The plan indicates the general location of the septic system. Details need to be shown and noted on plan. A perc test should be performed at the septic site to confirm compliance with DOH regulations. Also design flows should be indicated. MR. PALING-Are there any others, John, any letters or whatnot? MR. GORALSKI-No. That's all I have. MR. RUEL-What's the zone on here? MR. GORALSKI-Land Conservation 10 Acres. MR. MILLER-My name is Jim Miller. I'm a Landscape Architect. I'm here with Al Merchant who is under contract to purchase the property. The site is an existing nonconforming site. It was existing when the land was re-zoned for 10 acre Land Conservation, and that's why the variances were required, because a 10 acre lot, - 24 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) obviously a much larger site was required. In response to Rist- Frost's comments, the driveway permit will be required and the grading of that driveway, selection of that driveway location, I'll go over that. Cormus Road is a dead end, at the south side. So the driveway is entering out on the low end of the site, and it's also exiting in the direction where Cormus Road intersects with Luzerne Road. The grading there, we brought the driveway in at about a three percent grade. So that we can have a level area before the driveway drops onto the site, and the filling of that area, in addition, some clearing will be required. I think we'll meet the visibility requirements. The utility connections weren't shown. To be honest, we don't know exactly how they'll come in. They're going to come in off of Cormus Road. They'll either follow the driveway or come the shortest direction in from Cormus Road, and will probably be made by the utility companies. The stormwater discharge, we've completed a stormwater management report, and we're siting drywells throughout the site, for infiltration, and we've allowed to avoid drainage across the road. We have culvert pipe with overflow, on the lower end of the site. The septic system, Haanen Engineering is going to be doing the septic design, and it's our understanding that's going to require a separate permit, and that information will be submitted. The location of the septic system was selected. It looks like the site--- was previously graded. There was an existing driveway and that area had been graded, and it was the flattest area on the site. So that's why part of the house location in the site plan was to allow for that area to be utilized for septic. There will be deep tests, perc tests and engineering design done on that. We've also, we did have a well location indicated, and the well location, we've indicated, at the north portion of the site, away from the leachfield, and one thing that I'd like to add about this. This sand, Cormus Road here, beautiful views down to the east, to Glens Falls, and when Al came to us to talk about this, he wanted to locate up there on the hill, and he knows the access from Luzerne Road and the steepness of the site is going to be a concern, and in locating the house, we pretty well have located it in a way that the only way that we could really access the driveway, and the house plan that he's selected has a lower level access, and the driveway is located at the low corner of the site. We have a three percent grade at the top intersection to allow a car to stop exiting. It drops fairly steeply about 15%, then levels off across the entrance of the house, which really established the upper floor grade of the house, then continues, and it sweeps back a little bit to give us a curve to the lower level, and this is about a ten percent grade down to a flat area here. There will be a retaining wall. It's going to be a concrete wall, possibly faced with stone, that's going to be sloping along this area of the house to help transition that grade. The grade on the upper side, we'd actually end up cutting a little bit on the uphill side of the site, and we're filling on the downhill side, and one of our concerns, other than storm drainage, was erosion control on these slopes, and where we have cut some of these slopes, stable soils, are one on one slope, and in fill they're two horizontal to one vertical, and on the detail sheet that was submitted, we're calling for these areas to be seeded, mulched with straw, and then jute mesh netting installed over the top of that, on all these disturbed areas. The only area that's really going to be a finished lawn area is going to be in this area near the septic field. The rest of it's going to be natural, in an addition, what we've suggested is that in these areas where the jute mesh is installed, once the seed becomes established, to come in and reforest that with some hemlock and maple oak seedlings to essentially create that back to a natural condition. We've also, for storm drainage, in the limits of the grading, are installing a silt fence. MR. RUEL-The existing driveway, is that paved? MR. MILLER-This here? No, that's just a dirt road that was cut in - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) there, Roger. This portion of the site had been cleared, and there's an existing dirt road tha~ was cut down there to do some grading, and I don't know why it was put there. The reason we didn't use that, it's at a much higher point on the road than where we came in. So it would have been not practical. It would have been too steep to try to access that. This site drops about 90 feet from this corner to this corner. MR. RUEL-You'll probably seed that area. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-This is new construction? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-It is Code to have a detached garage? MR. GORALSKI-You can have a detached garage. You can't have two garages. MR. MILLER-Well, I think I labeled them both garage, and one is actually a storage building, you know, for lawn mowers. ~ MR. GORALSKI-If he's got a detached garage, that other building will have to be some type of storage building. He will not be able to store motor vehicles in it. MR. RUEL-The reason I ask is that I wanted to build a two car garage, to put cars in it, and I was told I can't. MR. GORALSKI-Did you have another garage on the property? MR. RUEL-Yes. The house has an attached two car garage, and I needed two more. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-But this isn't an attached garage. MR. MILLER-At the lower level, there's a grade access at the basement level. The house is actually, it steps down the slope. So the basement opens to the lower end. MRS. LABOMBARD.,.. Right . So that's not considered an attached garage, really. MR. MERCHANT~Really, we're just covering our bases. We haven't selected the definitive house yet. So I'm not sure if the garage will fit into the basement. So if it doesn't, I've got something to fall back on. If it does, I believe it might be just a storage facility, if anything, maybe perhaps a woodworking shop or something. MR. RUEL-Do you have garage doors on the detached garage? MR. MERCHANT-I wouldn't think so. It would probably be, you know, more barn-ish type. MR. STARK-Jim, how much fill are you going to have to put? That's kind of like a plateau down there. I didn't think you had to put too much fill in there at all. MR. MILLER-Well, no, not very much. Where the fill is required, because if we build the house, we'd need to fill a little bit on the downhill side of the house. Actually we're going to have some deep foundation walls there, and a little bit of fill to grade back the natural grade on the downhill side, just because of the way - 26 - - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) we're benching the driveway and the house in. There's not going to be very much. No. MR. RUEL-Staff, how are we doing on the Rist-Frost comments on this application, have they been addressed? MR. GORALSKI-Rist-Frost comments, Paul has addressed them. I think mainly what they're looking for is some perc test data and some deep test pit data. MR. PALING-I don't think we have any trouble with not commenting on the location of the utilities and the water well. MR. GORALSKI-The well is on there. The utilities, the way they come in, it's been addressed already. MR. RUEL-It's okay? MR. MILLER-No matter how we draw it, NiMo goes the way they want. MR. PALING-Yes, well, the perc tests are there twice. MR. MILLER-We had included some information in the stormwater management report on the perc tests for the drywells. We will add that to the plan. We will have to submit the septic design, and the perc test for the septic design, when that's submitted for permit, that will be included with that design. MR. PALING-But we'd have to still make it conditional on the perc test, at least for the stormwater management end of it. MR. MILLER-Well, that perc test is included in the stormwater management report. It just was not on the plan. MR. RUEL-It's supposed to be on the plan. MR. MILLER-Yes. I'll add it to the plan. MR. PALING-Okay. That's all right. Then the other is taken care of when there's a septic system permit process. MR. GORALSKI-Right. They will have to get a septic permit from the Building Department, and at that time, what I would recommend is that you put a condition that when they get their permit for their septic system, that they provide perc test data, location of the septic field. MR. PALING-Okay. That shouldn't be any problem. All right. Okay. This is a Type II. There is a public hearing. So we'll open the public hearing on this matter now. Does anyone care to speak or comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICK ROGGE MR. ROGGE-Hi. My name is Rick Rogge and I live on Cormus Road. I have property adjacent to the property that we're talking about right here. I'm next door. I have one question, and that is the storm sewers. I understand that there's a pipe being put underneath the driveway and I was just wondering where that was going to be piped to. MR. PALING-Okay. Was that your only question on that? MR. ROGGE-Yes it was. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. All right. Would you care to comment - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) on that? MR. MILLER-Sure. First, the only drainage that comes on the site is from the center line of Cormus Road over. There's a drainage ditch on the other side that intercepts the drainage from the hill above us and takes it off site. We'll have a stone lined swale on the uphill side of the driveway that will go into drywells. There's one drywell. In this area it's six foot by eight foot deep and it was three drywells that pick up the water in this expanse (lost word) by the storage shed and the garage, and the pipe that goes under the driveway, the only reason for that is just an overflow. Ninety-five percent of the time, the stormwater management report addresses a 50 year storm that most of the stormwater will be infiltrated into the soil. That is purely a safety precaution. If there's a situation where it would overflow, it overflows in two points, on each side of the house, and that's only so the water doesn't overflow the driveway, and right now, the site drains in a northeasterly direction, and actually further down the mountain it turns into a stream down here. So what would happen with this is it would discharge in two points, and these would be rip wrapped, and then it would continue down the natural course it flows now, and there'd be no increase in what's flowing down there now. ~ MR. ROGGE-The dotted line. Is that where the telephone pole line is? MR. MILLER-This here? MR. ROGGE-Yes. MR. MILLER-I don't know if it's a pole line there. roadway that goes over and down. It's an old MR. ROGGE-Yes. Okay. All right. I've lived up there for over 11 years. I'm really familiar with the property, and I've picked berries on this particular property for probably most of those 11 years. This plan makes a lot of sense, and some other people have tried to build there before, and I was very opposed to those plans because I didn't think they made sense, and I did not think they were good ideas. I've never seen a plan that made more sense for this particular piece of property, and as the person who lives right next door to it, I fully support it. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other comments or questions? MR. RUEL-The drywells are four feet? MR. MILLER-There was four of them, yes. MR. RUEL-Four feet deep. MR. MILLER-Six feet by eight feet. One of them was six by eight. The other are four foot deep. MR. PALING-Okay. comment? Do we have a motion, bearing in mind John's MR. SCHACHNER-Did you close the public hearing? MR. PALING-I'm sorry. Does anyone else care to comment on this matter? Okay. If not, the public hearing is closed. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-96 ALFRED J. MERCHANT, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by - 28 - '-- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) George Stark: To construct a single family residence on 1.67 acres, with two conditions. One, to provide perk test data at time of septic design application. Two, stormwater management perk tests to be included on the plan. Three, that the applicant shall have only one garage on site. Duly adopted this 30th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 24-95 TYPE II MODIFICATION WILLIAM THREW OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REVISIONS WHICH INCLUDE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE PHASE 2 BUILDING, PEAKED ROOF, PARKING PREVIOUSLY INDICATED AS FUTURE WILL BE INCLUDED IN PHASE 2 AND WILL BE SIZED TO ACCOMMODATE TRAILER PARKING AS WELL AS CARS, INLETS AND DRYWELLS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO COLLECT RUNOFF AND ADDITIONAL SCREEN PLANTING OF 15 PINES TO BE ADDED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF PARKING AREA TOWARD BIG BAY ROAD TO PROVIDE VISUAL SCREENING OF THE PARKING AREA. BEAUTIFICATION COMM. : 5/6/96 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-7.3 LOT SIZE: 7.7 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-This is a modification. hearing on something like this? Why don't we have a public MR. GORALSKI-You can require a public hearing, if you feel the modification is significant enough. It is not required. MR. PALING-Okay. John, your comments, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-95, William Threw, Meeting Date: May 30, 1996 "The applicant is proposing revisions to a site located on Big Bay Road including an increase in size and changing the location of the Phase 2 building. These changes will result in conforming setbacks and density for this site. Staff would recommend approval of this site plan with the condition that the plan be revised to indicate a phase line showing what area of the site is to be included in Phase 2. Any development that is shown as being a part of the second phase will need to be constructed before a final Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Comments from May 24, 1996 Rist Frost memo should be addressed prior to any Planning Board action." MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-This is from Rist-Frost. "We have reviewed the modification to the approved site plan which were received on May 2, 1996 and have the following comments: A NYSDEC SPDES Construction General Stormwater Discharge Permit is required if the area to be disturbed is greater than five acres. Addition of stone roof runoff construction trenches and the increase in infiltration capacity should ensure adequate on-site drainage. The drain in- lets to the drywells from the paved area could allow some minor ponding, but would infiltrate rapidly even after a greater than 50- year storm. Additional parking has been included to conform with existing and future use. There are no further engineering comments. If you have any questions please call." Signed Bill - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) Levandowski. MR. RUEL-Is that second comment, are they saying, yes, they're agreeing with what he has? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I believe so. MR. RUEL-Yes. That's an okay. The only one is the first one, if it's over five acres. MR. GORALSKI-And the Queensbury Beautification Committee, "Removed island - 15 addition pines on Big Bay Road. All green space on Big Bay side of building. Will approve if Phase I & II are completed. Planning to finish Phase I. Moved by Mr. Lorenz, seconded by Mary Reese." MR. RUEL-John, could you exert your influence, talk to the Beautification Committee, tell them to use a few more words. No, really. They used to give us the details. MR. GORALSKI-I will do that. MR. RUEL-And now they don't do it anYmore. All right. ~ MR. GORALSKI-I will do that. MR. PALING-Okay. This is Jim Miller's here. Is that in response to Rist-Frost? MR. GORALSKI-I think Jim Miller's letter is simply describing the modification that they're proposing from the original site plan approval. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MILLER-I'm Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. BILL THREW MR. THREW-I'm Bill Threw. MR. PALING-Okay. Have you seen the Rist-Frost letter? MR. MILLER-Yes. We will submit the Stormwater Management report to DEC, and the other two comments, I think he's agreeing with what was submitted. MR. RUEL-What about the first item? MR. MILLER-The Stormwater Management report will be submitted to DEC. It has not yet. MR. PALING-I'm a little confused with the Beautification Committee, too. Have you seen their letter? MR. MILLER-Well, no. I was at the meeting, and I can explain. They were concerned, the landscaping on Big Bay Road, at the end of the Phase I building hadn't been completed, and they were commenting that they wanted that area landscaped. In addition, I'll go over the plan, that as part of the modification, we propose an additional 15 pines to screen the area along Big Bay Road. We suggested 15 additional pines for screening, and they agreed with that, and I think their other approval was that, before they would recommend approval on Phase III building, that all the landscaping and site work for Phase I and II should be completed. MR. PALING-All right. I think that's reasonable. Yes. Okay, and the 15 pines, is that on the print? - 30 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. MILLER-Yes, it is. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. If you look to the south of the entrance drive, you'll see 15 white pines. MR. PALING-Okay. So that should take care of that. MR. GORALSKI-Just a comment. I noticed here, the way, I was out at the site today, and the way the gravel fire lane has been constructed, it does not turn around the east side of the existing warehouse building. It actually comes straight out to the road. MR. MILLER-Yes. That's part of the reason for the modification, is the first phase, the second phase building is near completion right now, and what's happened, in the construction of that building, some things have changed relative to the Building Department fire codes and the engineering of the building, that when we came back in to talk to Staff about it, they said we should come back for modification. The first thing was, the building size increased by 250 square feet, and that was because of the engineering system. This is a pre-engineered metal building. It didn't change the parking requirements or anything. In addition, there was also, you know, originally there was going to be a fire wall separating the two buildings because of the amount of space, and what happened, the size of the space and trying to tie into the old concrete and steel building, and the steel building, it really got to be an engineering nightmare. So they had the area so one of the options was to separate the two buildings by 10 feet, and that's what Bill had done, and there's overhead doors and a connection between the two, but they're essentially two freestanding buildings. In addition, being a pre-engineered building, this has a sloped roof on it, as opposed to the other building, which had a flat roof and drains. So that changed our drainage requirements. Instead of having roof drains going to drywells, we now have stone trench drains down each side to collect that roof runoff, and that runs into a series of drywells. So those were the changes, and as John said, the Fire Marshal wanted to eliminate this gravel drive on the east side of the building, and extend it straight out, to Big Bay Road, which actually give us more lawn area and green space there, and the hydrant locations were changed and things, and these things have actually been going on since we've submitted this plan. So those changes that have since happened, we will modify this plan so, after this modification, it will be accurate. In addition, the other requirements came out, this is leased by Encore and it's used for storage of their paper products. Encore has come back and made some requests, and actually additional loading doors were added here, and the original plan, we had left some of this area as unpaved, setting it aside for future spaces, and what's happening with the circulation in here, Encore has asked that they have more area here, and spaces that were previously going to be lawn an set aside for future, they asked that they be added. So what we did here was expand this area to accommodate the tractor trailers, and that was why we made the suggestion on the east side, here, our concern being, you know, increasing that pavement there. We narrowed the pavement enough on this side. This is existing pines in here. It's pretty heavy, to plant those additional 15 pines on that east side, because the trees that are there, you can sort of see under them a little bit, and that would give us a denser screen to give us a more positive screening across. MR. RUEL-Where would the trailer parking be? MR. MILLER-Most of the tractor trailers come in, they load, unload and leave, but with the depth of these parking spaces, it can accommodate some storage of some trailers there. Right now, yes, they store some right in this area here. So, the intent was to widen this out to allow some trailer parking, but mostly to accommodate the circulation that they need to get in and out of - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) those loading docks. MR. RUEL-AIl of the parking that's marked on here is for cars, right? MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, it's laid out as a car requirement. As we talked about before, we really don't need that amount of car spaces, but it will, you know, by designing it this way, it'll be available for the circulation of the tractor trailers. MR. RUEL-Is it wide enough for a trailer? MR. MILLER-They're nine foot spaces. MR. RUEL-That's wide enough? MR. MILLER-No, but, you know, if a trailer parked there and overlapped and they took, you know, and two of them took up three spaces, it's not going to be a problem, because we have adequate space. We're still, you know, 30% green space requirement, we're still at 38%. So even with modifications, we're not. MR. STARK-The modification is fine and everything, but I thought, when we gave the approval for this before, that he was going to clean up the back, and it still looks like an outhouse out there. Plain and simple. MR. BREWER-Do we have our previous motion, John? MR. GORALSKI-That is included in a previous motion. MR. BREWER-Yes, but I was just curious about the date. Didn't we set a date or something? MR. RUEL-Yes, there was. MR. GORALSKI-Wasn't the motion prior to CO on the building? MR. BREWER-I thought we set a date. MR. STARK-I don't remember what the motion was, but I thought you said you were going to clean it up or something. MR. THREW-Yes. Before we could get approval of this, I'd have that second phase all cleaned up, which it is. The third phase isn't cleaned up yet. We've been concentrating on the second one right now. MR. PALING-But it does appear that he's moved that stuff back. That's all wide open now, where it wasn't before. Now, I'm not saying what is back there some day we've got to address, but for the purpose of this, I believe he's clear. MR. THREW-That stuff is going to disappear, too, because I've got. MR. MILLER-One of the comments that Staff had made was showing a line on this plan delineating the end of Phase II, which is actually the line at the west end of the Phase II building, and I believe it was their recommendations that the site work would have to be done up to that Phase, and then the rear portion cleaned, prior to moving in. MR. GORALSKI-A final CO has not been issued on this building yet. I will check that motion, and if there is a certain date or, I thought what it said was before CO was issued. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I recall. - 32 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. GORALSKI-Whatever that condition is, that condition will be, they'll be required to do that before a final co is issued. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, what is left to be done that the final prints don't show. MR. GORALSKI-There are a couple of things that I would like to see on this plan. One is that the gravel fire lane, as it has been installed, should be shown on the plan. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-A question regarding that Farr Lane. Doesn' t· that create another "curb cut"? Does that present a problem. MR. MILLER-Well, it's only an emergency access. MR. GORALSKI-It's an emergency access. It was requested by the Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal. MR. RUEL-Are you talking about this one here? MR. MILLER-That one, Roger, goes straight out to the road. ---The Fire Marshal didn't want it being, it was too close to the building. If there was a fire, they would have trouble using it. With it going straight out to Big Bay Road, they could come straight in, and it's only 10 foot wide, and it's only to access the rear of the building. MR. RUEL-On your existing warehouse, you show a septic tank, and an eight by eight foot leach pit. MR. MILLER-That's existing. MR. RUEL-Do you have one for the Phase II warehouse building? MR. MILLER-The Phase II warehouse is, we share that one. same company and there's only two people at the site. connect the pipes from one to the other? It's the You'll MR. BREWER-One bathroom. MR. MILLER-No. There's no bathroom in the new one. There's only, the office space and the bathroom is only in the first one. MR. PALING-We've got the gravel line, and there's another one, John? MR. GORALSKI~Yes. The water line and the hydrant that run along the north property, I spoke to Bill about this, and I believe he's going to stop the hydrant at the north west corner of the Phase II warehouse building. He's going to stop that line at the north west corner of the Phase II warehouse building, and not extend it out to that planter area until Phase III is developed. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MILLER-Yes, and this hydrant here has also been located back along the property line at the direction of the Fire Marshal. So this hydrant on the plan will be moved back to here, and this hydrant will move back here. This will be a future location for Phase III, then. MR. PALING-All right. So that will be, the hydrant locations have got to be noted. Okay. Is there anything else, John? We've got three of them, gravel line, the water line, and the hydrant locations. MR. GORALSKI-And then I would like to see specifically delineated - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) on the plan where Phase II ends and Phase III begins. MR. PALING-Yes. Right. MR. GORALSKI-So all the work included in Phase II would be complete~ prior to the issuance of a building permit. MR. MILLER-Okay. John, I'm envisioning that that's going to be pretty much in line with the north end, or the west end of the Phase II building. MR. GORALSKI-Back to the corner probably? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-You could show it with a dotted line or something on the plan. MR. MILLER-Yes. I'll show that. MR. PALING-And it'll have to be run by Staff. MR. GORALSKI-The other thing that the Planning Board should be aware. Because Encore Paper is looking to get into the building fairly quickly, and this was the earliest we could get them on for this modification, we were planning to issue a temporary CO for Encore to start providing paper (lost words). One of the previous conditions, it didn't say anything about not issue a temporary CO before cleaning up the building. MR. PALING-Okay, conditions of last motion. So there's really five items. The fifth item is the conditions of the last motion. MR. MACEWAN-So what you're saying, then, if the conditions say that the site, or this particular area all had to be cleaned up prior to issuance of a CO in Phase II. If it doesn't have wording in there to the effect that you can't even issue a temporary one, you'll go ahead and issue one. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That's what our plan is right now. MR. BREWER-What is the purpose of us saying that a CO won't be issued until the stuff is done, then? MR. GORALSKI -Well, in this particular case, a temporary CO is issued for a certain amount of time, which will allow him to complete the project, while they start (lost word) building. If you want to make the motion that not even a temporary CO be issued, that's certainly up to you. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying that, but I thought our, when we say that, as far as the that condition no CO will be issued, I thought the reason was that they don't use the building until the conditions are met? MR. GORALSKI~That's fine with me. MR. MACEWAN-To me, I interpret that CO, permanent, temporary or otherwise, period. MR. GORALSKI-Fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Unless otherwise stated, I would agree that that's what that, when you imposed that condition. MR. BREWER-Not just this site plan, but any site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-No, I'm speaking generically. If the condition is, no Certificate of Occupancy until whatever, I'm speaking - 34 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) generically now, that unless the motion specifies permanent, temporary, I think it would apply to any Certificate of Occupancy. I don't know if that's what your motion says, because we don't have it. MR. RUEL-So the conditions of the last motion were predicated on a CO. Is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. I'm not sure. MR. RUEL-If it was, then this temporary CO you're talking about would negate that original one. MR. BREWER-No. MR. PALING-And he's got to go back to the original motion. MR. GORALSKI-We haven't issued anything yet. (Lost words) temporary CO or a permanent CO. I will check the previous resolution, unless you give me different directions. MR. BREWER-No. I think when we say, before a CO, it means any CO. ----- MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And I'm saying that, legally, I think that's correct, unless it is specific mention of which type or a particular type, it means any CO. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MILLER-Mr. .Chairman, could I add one thing to this? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MILLER-Well, two things. One is, Mr. Threw has been working on the construction of the building to meet a June deadline with his contract for Encore, and because of some of the weather and things, the site work has been left until last, and I think if this temporary CO cannot be issued, it's going to cause a breach of contract, with his agreement with Encore, and I would request that possibly allow the temporary CO to be issued for a month or whatever, and then give him that month to complete that site work, and then at the end of that one month period, review it and the temporary CO would expire if the work's not done. MR. MACEWAN-And in the mean time the warehouse is filled, and there's nothing you can do. MR. STARK-No. The temporary CO is revoked, that sounds fair. MR. PALING-What does that do if the temporary CO is revoked? MR. GORALSKI-If a temporary CO expires and no permanent CO is issued, they couldn't occupy the building. MR. PALING-They're out of business. MR. MACEWAN-How difficult is that to enforce? MR. SCHACHNER-It's a lot harder if a building is not already up. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I thought. Thank you. I'm not in favor of that. MR. STARK-John, he's for the approval tonight. passes tonight, he'll get a CO then, right? I mean, if he - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. BREWER-Not unless all the conditions are met. MR. STARK-He's in the middle of meeting them. MR. BREWER-We made the conditions a year ago, didn't we? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-I don't want to hold it over his head, but can we go next door and get the motion and find out what it is? It's probably har~ to find. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Lets just discuss it a little bi~ more. I would be inclined to go with the temporary CO route, for this reason. I think that it's reasonable, and the weather has been bad, in that he can comply with everything that's been said, and lets face it, he's got a lot more after this to come. If he would decide to, lets say, not use as right, or not comply with the CO that's been pulled, then we would hit him with the book later on, I would assume. MR. GORALSKI-The only thing I would say is, regardless of what the previous motion said, you have him here in front of you doi~g a modification now. If the Board's feeling is that every tree has to be planted, everything has to be paved, everything has to be cleaned up, prior to the issuance of a CO, well then you can make that motion tonight. MR. PALING-Yes. That's our option. MR. GORALSKI-If you want to see certain things done and certain things. MR. BREWER-How long is it going to take you to do all the work, Bill? MR. THREW-All the work and trees, except for those 15 that they made the stipulation, has been done, and as soon as you give me the temporary CO, the paving will be done in a couple of weeks. That's as fast as I can get a paving contractor in there. MR. BREWER-As far as the clean up. conditions were? Are they met? Do you know what those MR. THREW-Yes. Each phase had to be cleaned up before I got a CO on it, completely, nothing, none of the debris whatsoever. MR. MACEWAN-So everything in Phase II is cleaned up? MR. THREW-Is done. Phase III has not been touched because I've been concentrating on Phase II, to get that building done. MR. MACEWAN-So the only thing that you would be lacking to meet the conditions of the previous approval would be to get the lot paved before these people could move into the warehouse? MR. BREWER-And those trees. I don't have a problem with that. MR. MACEWAN-Right, is that what you're saying? MR. THREW-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-So you just need to pave the lot and plant 15 trees. MR. THREW-Right. MR. MACEWAN-That's doable by me. MRS. LABOMBARD-Me, too. - 36 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. STARK-Why don't we listen to Mr. Miller's, give him until July 1st to do everything, and then if ,everything is met at that point, John can issue a permanent CO. He's the one that said a month. MR. PALING-That's plenty of time. MRS. LABOMBARD-June 30th. MR. MILLER-The reason I said that, he's been concentrating on the building, and he just completed the building. As a matter of fact, they were finishing the floors the other day, and then the concrete slab. So now that he's got that completed, he could focus on the site work. MR. RUEL-Lets give him a 30 day temporary CO for site work. MR. MACEWAN-I'd hate like heck to see him lose a customer. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-A temporary CO to June 30th. MR. PALING-We could go to June 30th with a motion, with th~five conditions that we talked about originally. MR. BREWER-Right, and then June 30th, if the work is not done, then. MR. PALING-There's no CO of any kind issued. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Might I suggest that since this is a modification, that the Board mention in your motion that, if this is the case, that it does not feel this is a material modification that requires any further public hearing or SEQRA review, if that's how you feel. MR. PALING-Yes. I think so. Okay. You should make that part of the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 24-95 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To include size and location of Phase II building, peaked roof, parking previously indicated as future will be included in Phase II and will be sized to accommodate trailer parking as well as cars, inlets and drywells added to collect runoff and additional screen planting of 15 pines to be added along the east side of parking area toward Big Bay Rd. to provide visual screening of the parking area, with the following conditions: One, the gravel fire lane, as installed, will be shown on the plan. Two, the water line and hydrant to be located at the northwest corner of Phase II warehouse and to be indicated on the plan. Three, indicate on the plan, and to Planning Staff's satisfaction, where Phase II ends and Phase III starts. Four, that the applicant will have to submit stormwater discharge permit application. Five, that a temporary CO may be issued to June 30th to complete the site work in Phase II. No public hearing or SEQRA since it would have no significant effect. Duly adopted this 30th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 22-96 TYPE II THE MICHAELS GROUP OWNER: HUDSON POINTE ZONE: P. U.D. LOCATION: COMMUNITY RECREATION SITE - - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) HUDSON POINTE BOULEVARD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT, BASKETBALL COURT, SOFTBALL FIELD" TRAILS AND PARKING AREA FOR HUDSON POINTE HOMEOWNERS. CROSS REFERENCE: P6-95 TAX MAP NO. 148-1-2.1 SECTION: 179-58 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT DAVE MICHAELS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-96, The Michaels Group, Meeting Date: May 30, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to construct tennis courts, a basketball court, softball fields, trails and a parking area for the Hudson pointe subdivision. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with this development and would recommend approval of Site Plan No. 22-96 as long as all Rist Frost comments are addressed to the Planning Board's satisfaction." MR. GORALSKI-And the letter from Rist-Frost, dated May 24th, "We have performed a review of the recreational area site plan for the Hudson pointe P.U.D. and submit the following engineering comments: A review of the previously submitted comments does not specifically refer to a planned recreation area, however, it would be considered as green area under existing regulations. The road drainage system above the proposed site will not affect site runoff. The sight distance on the access road to the open space institute parking area should be checked for limitations due to existing vegetation. We interpret the drawing that no clearing is required. The site plan indicates no utility connections. Any proposed water and electrical services should be shown. There are no specific regulations for required parking for recreational areas. Requirements should be checked for handicapped parking on the OSI access area. The stormwater management report is acceptable. Erosion details are noted and properly controlled. The site is over five acres and stormwater construction general permit requirements should be checked. Generally, post-construction details are acceptable. Percolation tests are not specifically referenced, although they are mentioned in the stormwater management report. Notes should be added to the drawing. The site plan appears to conform with the original planned unit development. All previous comments have been addressed. Any future revisions must be reviewed on a site specific basis by the Board. If you have any questions, please feel free to call." Signed Bill Levandowski. MR. PALING-Okay, and there are no other letters or what not on this. No. Okay. MR. MILLER-Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. MR. PALING-Okay. Have you seen the Rist-Frost comments? MR. MILLER-Yes, I have. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to comment on them? MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, the first comment being green area, we have no comment on that. The road drainage, it will not affect the site. It's a Town road, with wing swales, so there's no drainage coming on to the site. The site distance, actually the next two, the site distance and the clearing I addressed together. This drawing I hung up is actually the master plan drawing, and it shows the site plan that's before you, this portion. This also shows the future day care center. I thought you might be interested in seeing how those two tie together, but there is some clearing, and because the loop road is being built right now, and they're clearing in this area here. This was the borrow pit which extended back across the Hudson Pointe Boulevard, and it was wooded. The - 38 - '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) woods came out across the top of the borrow pit in this area, but what happens, the way the road is designed in this area to meet the grades for the lots, they're cutting the road right here down to about three feet. So in doing that, they're ending up clearing some of the trees in that area. Since they cut the road down three feet, for us to have our parking access, we've got to cut the parking lot down. So there will be some trees removed in the area of the OSI parking area. So there is minimal clearing in there, and also because of that clearing and grading, that will improve that site distance for these driveways, which I think will resolve that concern. There are no utility connections. Any utility connections will be at a later phase with the day care center. The handicapped parking, the management plan for the Open Space Institute trail system just requires a five car gravel parking lot, which we've shown, and there was no requirements for handicapped access, and, you know, it's not designated. It could certainly be used for handicapped. One of the reasons I would question that is that, if you take that trail and go back and start down the bluffs, there's about a 15 to 20%- gravel road that goes down into the wetlands into that Open Space Institute area. So I don't know that it's really suitable for handicapped access, but I think, you know, it will be accessible. The trails will be at grade. It's a crushed stone parking area, and we just haven't designated anything for that. There is handicapped parking provided for in the lot for the recreation facility. In the stormwater management report, since it was a borrow pit, everything drained into it, so we essentially graded the site so that it terraces down. The parking area and the day care center are at the higher elevations. The tennis court, basketball court is going to be like at a lower plateau, and the softball fields would be at a lower level, and then we've kept the area outside of the softball field as low areas, and the stormwater from the parking area would discharge into there and will be contained and will infiltrate. The same, swales will be provided around the tennis courts. The future day care center, we envision that, there's not a tremendous amount of paved area. There'd probably be some drywells in there to handle the stormwater runoff, or, if need be, they could drain this lower area so the stormwater shouldn't be an issue. The site is contained because of the shape of it. So erosion control is really not a problem. Again, the percolation test, we included some perc test information for the stormwater in the stormwater management report, and we'll also add that to the plan as required. MR. PALING-Have you seen those perc tests, John? MR. GORALSKI-They're in the stormwater management report. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Thirty to sixty seconds it is, Bob, excessively high. In the stormwater plan, it says excessively high rates. MR. PALING-EXcessively high. MR. MILLER-It's all gravel. As a matter of fact, I think in some of the septic systems, they had to modify the soil to reduce the infiltration, and the last comment we have no comment on. One of the requests earlier that Staff made dealt with the connection points to the driveways, and we modified the plan earlier (lost words) sand, the day care center was in this area, just combined parking for everything, and we've since made a decision to separate them, but one of the concerns was locating driveway accesses across from lots. If you can see, the north side of us are single family lots. Obviously, the Open Space Institute's only a 60 foot wide right-of-way, and that's a low impact, but we've located our access driveway where it connects to one of the community green spaces, which is also a trail system that runs throughout the project, so that this rec area can be accessed by the trail system and also the - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) driveway will come out onto that green space. So if somebody's playing softball over here at night and half a dozen cars over there, even, they won't be shining lights right into people's windows, and we did the same thing with the day care center. The day care center is really going to be more of a drop off kind of a circulation than a parking condition. So we provided a one way in and out loop. In here it's all lots, but what we've done is we've designed this driveway to come out on a lot line here. That area could be mounded and planted. The landscaping for the property, this is the old Sherman Island Road, here, which is now community green space, and this trail also connects through and connects back to the housing lot. So any of the housing sites can access this area. Everything to the north side .of this trail is the future day care center. That's the dividing line that you see on your plan. What we propose for landscaping, this is all wide open now. There's existing woods on this lot here, and existing woods from the top of the borrow pit area along here which would remain. This is the nature preserve area. Even though some of that's cleared, it's going to not be maintained. That's going to revert back. What we've done is we've indicated some berming and some planting of pines and shade trees along the road to provide some separation from this active recreation from the residential lots, and also these will be about four or five feet below the grade of the r~ad. So we're trying to provide some buffer and leave some openings for some visibility in there also. This trail system is really like you see it defined through here, and, you know, proposing a row of maple trees along there to provide some screening and buffering around the parking area, and the other landscaping that's proposed is some planting in and around the different activities to sort of provide some separation between these areas, in addition to trying to create, down at the softball field, have a bench area to maybe have an area that's treed with some picnic tables or something. The other thing that works out nicely with this plan is the way this bank wraps around the ballfield, this actually ends up being a nice spectator area over looking the field. MR. PALING-Okay, and you're satisfied with that site distance now, that there are no blind spots? MR. MILLER-Well, I think, right now, this is heavily treed in here, and I think when they reach the final grades, and Paul Naylor requires the clearing in the right-of-way, the full 50 foot clearing, and then when we grade our accesses in, I think that will satisfy that concern. MR. PALING-It's hard to visualize with re-visiting, but I'm sure you're right. Okay. Any questions? MR. RUEL-Yes. How come the Beautification Committee doesn't get involved in this? MR. GORALSKI-The Beautification Committee looks at our agenda and picks what things they want to look at. MR. MILLER-Yes. I was there for the other project. I asked them why this wasn't on. I thought they'd like this one. MR. PALING-I would think so. MR. RUEL-They could learn something. MR. PALING-Okay. This is Type II. We have a public hearing tonight. So, at this point, why don't we open the public hearing. Does anyone care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROLAND AKINS - 40 - - --' - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. AKINS-I'm Roland Akins. I live on the Corinth Road. The only thing I have one question on is, I received a notice of public hearing, and on here, it's either a mistake or misleading. I don't know what it is. It lists parking areas for Hudson pointe Homeowners. Now, one of those parking lots is going to be for the public, right? MR. PALING-Excuse me, sir. Would you please address the question to the Board. MR. AKINS-One of those parking areas is going to be for the public, the way I understood it in the past, and the application is. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. There is a parking area for the nature trails. That's definitely public parking. MR. AKINS-So in other words the application states that the parking areas are for the homeowners, and that should be. MR. GORALSKI-The parking area for the Open Space Institute is a public parking area. MR. AKINS-Okay. That's the only question I had. ..---- MR. PALING-Okay. Has it been answered to your satisfaction? MR. AKINS-Yes. That's the way I understood it to be, for the public, that one parking area. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else care to comment? MR. RUEL-Does that have to be designated on a plan? MR. GORALSKI-It's designated on the P.U.D. agreement and the management plan for the Open Space nature preserve. If you'd like, you could have the applicant also add that now as a note on his plan. MR. RUEL-Yes; That's what I was thinking. MR. GORALSKI-That the Open Space Institute nature preserve parking area is open to the public, but that's a requirement P.U.D. MR. MILLER-Yes. That was a public access parking lot. MR. PALING-Okay. If there are no other comments, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. Anyone want to comment or question, or we can go right to a motion? MR. STARK-I have a comment. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. STARK-Mr. Miller, this is probably one of the nicest plans that's ever come in front of the Board. MR. PALING-Yes, it's very nice. MR. STARK-We were down there. We thought it was, you know, for my own information, is this building faster than you anticipated? Maybe Mr. Michaels I should ask that. MR. MILLER-Dave Michaels. - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. MICHAELS-Yes. We're, right now, very much ahead of schedule. We've got five lots in the first phase that don't have any activity on them, that aren't sold yet. We've got quite a bit of interest on them. We have a model under way. We'll wait on that until the next phase, and the development work, we're actually ahead of schedule. We ended up getting a late start because of all the weather that we've experienced, but we anticipate paving the 10th, about 10 days from now we plan on paving. So we're moving right along, I would say, ahead of schedule. MR. MACEWAN-When will you be sodding over the remaining portions of Sherman Island Road? MR. MICHAELS-My name is Dave Michaels, and I'm President of the Michaels Group. MR. PALING-Go ahead, Craig. MR. MACEWAN-My question was just, when do you plan on sodding over and seeding over the remaining abandoned portion of Sherman Island Road? MR. MICHAELS-Well, part of the development plan, once they..--get paved, the next thing will be to grade up the road shoulders, and then we have top soil already spread along the road. Right now we've kept it to the side, and then we'll be done utilizing that as an access road. It's been used as an access road to aid construction right now, and then I would say within 30 days after that we'll be grading that up and seeding it, and where that is, being all topsoil and so shaded, you know, it should grow pretty well, even though we're planting it in the summer. MR. MACEWAN-It is at the other end. It looks real nice. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. We usually like to try to plant, you know, maybe up to, we usually use the rule of thumb about June 15th as the cut off and then we try to get back in there the middle of August, because it seems like if you try to seed areas that are difficult to water and maintain, the time in the middle, you know, it's tough to get any growth. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions, comments? All right. We'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-96 THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To construct a tennis court, basketball court, softball field, trails and parking area, with the condition that, One, percolation test notes be added to the drawing. Two, to add a note to designate parking area for OSI, which is public parking. Duly adopted this 30th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-John, did I understand you to say we're probably going to have three meetings this coming month? MR. GORALSKI-Based on the preliminary review of the applications, yes. I believe there will have to be an extra meeting. If you'd like to discuss when you'd like to schedule that third meeting. - 42 - -' '-' -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/30/96) MR. PALING-All right. Then we're forewarned that meetings, then, will be June 11, 18 and 25, probably. MR. GORALSKI-Well, June 18 and 25, probably. The third one, would you like to do it on the Thursday. MR. STARK-Tim, what about 18th, 20th, and 25th? MR. GORALSKI-How about the 20th? MR. PALING-How's the 20th suit everybody? MR. STARK-18th, 20th, 25th. MR. MACEWAN-That's fine. MR. PALING-Okay. I thought we indicated the 11th to one of the applicants? That's why I did that. MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. PALING-All right, then 18, 20 and 25, and that would leave site visits staying on June 13th at 4 p.m. No minutes to approve tonight. Meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 43 -