Loading...
1997-10-07 SP (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL CRAIG MAC EWAN GEORGE STARK MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER LARRY RINGER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -JOHN GORALSKI PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LARRY CLUTE OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF RALPH ROAD AND EISENHOWER PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A .90 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.46 ACRES EACH. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 42-1997 TAX MAP NO. 120-1-60.55 LOT SIZE: 0.90+/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Now, Laura, do we have Staff comments on this? Do we have them, or do you have them? MS. NOWICKI-You have them as well. MR. PALING-Okay. We got so much stuff this week. MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read them? MR. PALING-Yes. I remember them now. They’re here. Okay. Go ahead. Why don’t you go ahead with your comments. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1997 Preliminary & Final Stage, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: October 7, 1997 “The Board is reviewing the subdivision as a Preliminary plat section and a Final plat section. The applicant is requesting to subdivision tax map parcel 120-1-60.55 into two lots for single family housing. The applicant received approval for an Area Variance for the area lot size needed in SR-1A zone. The applicant illustrated septic on a provided map. Staff has found no apparent concerns with this subdivision.” MR. PALING-Okay. This is a Preliminary as well as a Final. It’s a Type Unlisted. Would you identify yourself for the record please. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Leon Steves, from the firm of Van Dusen and Steves. The subdivision, the first item on the agenda, which is the .90 acre parcel, is shown on the map on display there as lots three and four, which is to the north of Eisenhower Avenue and to the east of Ralph Road. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. PALING-We’re talking the left hand, eastern side? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. PALING-The question I have about this is that I think it’s on that property, on the first lot to the east, which would be the .69 acre. I thought we said we were doing the one? MR. STEVES-Yes, we are. The further, the most easterly of the four lots, lots three and four. MR. STARK-That’s the next one, isn’t it? MR. STEVES-No. The one and two is the next one. MR. PALING-Okay. You’re working on three and four? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Does this applicant own the property to the east of that? MR. STEVES-No. That’s owned by Tom Harris. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, there’s an abandoned structure there. It was a mobile home or a factory built single wide there that’s an eyesore. That’s not part of any of this property? MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. On lot four, you’ll see faintly shown that location of that trailer. MR. PALING-That is on this property. MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. PALING-What’s going to be done with that? MR. STEVES-That will be removed from the site. You see this outline right here? MR. PALING-That’s it. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. PALING-And will all of the other debris on the lot be removed? MR. STEVES-Yes, it will. All debris will be removed from that lot. MR. PALING-Okay. That has to, in my mind, be a condition of the approval, because it is an eyesore. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-How soon are you looking for that to be removed, Bob? I mean, (lost words) build a house on it. MR. PALING-Well, we’ll set a time frame to it, but you couldn’t build a house without removing it. I didn’t realize it was on that lot. I thought it was further down, but anyway, I’m glad to hear it is, because you’re telling me it’s going to be removed. MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. PALING-And the lot cleaned up. So that’s good news. Okay. Otherwise, that was my only comments, and I’ll have the same comments when we come to the other subdivision also. Any other questions or comments on this? Okay. Now this is Preliminary, and this is Unlisted. MR. RUEL-Both Preliminary and Final. I have a question for Planning Staff. Was there a requirement for waivers in this case, since we’re going from Preliminary to Final? MR. GORALSKI-There should be waivers from the requirements for topography and all that stuff in any Preliminary approval. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. RUEL-Yes. Was that requested? MR. STEVES-We put topography on the map. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. RUEL-What items did you leave out? MR. STEVES-Hopefully none. MR. GORALSKI-There’s no stormwater report? MR. STEVES-No. MR. RUEL-That’s out, right? MR. STEVES-That’s out. MR. RUEL-That’s one, right? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. Do you want a note on there for erosion controls? MR. GORALSKI-There are no roads. Construction details, landscaping plan. There’s no clearing plan. Is there any clearing that’s going to be done on the lot or is it cleared now? That’s it. A grading plan and erosion control plan. MR. STEVES-Done. The grading plan, of course, is only for the house. So we aren’t building roads. MR. GORALSKI-So you want a waiver from provision for grading and erosion control plan and for a drainage report. MR. RUEL-And stormwater. MR. GORALSKI-A stormwater or drainage report, whatever you want to call it. MR. RUEL-It’s all included. So it’s just one waiver. MR. GORALSKI-Well, two waivers. The grading and erosion control plan, and the drainage report. MR. RUEL-Which is the stormwater. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-Did you say you had contour lines somewhere? MR. STEVES-Yes, they’re on there. MR. PALING-They’re on there. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. Three feet apart, very good, four feet. MR. PALING-All right. We’ll open the public hearing on the Larry Clute Preliminary and Final Stage Subdivision. Does anyone here care to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now. Jeff, straighten me out. Can we do Preliminary and Final together, or do we have to do separate motions? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. GORALSKI-Separate motions for each. MR. PALING-Okay. Now this is an Unlisted. So we need a SEQRA. MR. RUEL-Short? MR. GORALSKI-Short form is fine. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-1997 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LARRY CLUTE , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 7 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. STARK-John, when would we put the waivers, at Preliminary? MR. GORALSKI-The waivers would be in your motion for Preliminary. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. PALING-Can we also put in there, in the motion, the removal of the waste, and the building, in this case, removal of the structure? MR. RUEL-You can do that. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. GORALSKI-Do you want that removed prior to issuance of a building permit or prior to signing the mylar? MR. RUEL-Prior to signing the mylar, I would say. MR. PALING-I’d rather see it prior to building permit. You can’t build anyway because the building, it’s got to be the existing building and all trash on the property has got to be removed. MR. RUEL-All right. So we’ll make it prior to obtaining the building permit. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-All right. Now on these waivers, how do we make this part of the motion? MR. GORALSKI-I would say, if it’s a motion to approve, motion to approve Preliminary Stage subdivision, and as part of that motion, you’re granting waiver from the requirement to provide grading and erosion control plans and a drainage report. MR. RUEL-Okay. I assume that the applicant has requested the waivers. MR. PALING-Absolutely. MR. RUEL-Do you want a motion? MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE, LARRY CLUTE , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To subdivide a 0.92 acre lot into two lots of .46 acres each at the Preliminary Stage with several conditions: First, the structure and the debris on lots 3 & 4 be removed prior to obtaining a building permit and the Planning Board approves the request for waivers on Stormwater and Drainage Report and the Grading and Erosion Control Report on this application. th Duly adopted this 7 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-All right. Now we’ve approved the Preliminary Stage. Now can we go directly to a motion for the Final Stage? We’ve had a public hearing. We’ve had SEQRA. So we can entertain a motion, now, to approve this at Final Stage, and this can be without condition. MR. RUEL-Can’t we refer the conditions in the Preliminary Stage? MR. PALING-I don’t think you need to because you’ve got it in the motion already. MR. RUEL-But it should be in both, I think. MR. FRIEDLAND-It can be in both if you want it to. MR. RUEL-Yes. All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1997 FINAL STAGE LARRY CLUTE , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To subdivide a .92 acre lot into two lots of .46 acres each with the condition that the structure and debris on lots 3 & 4 be removed prior to obtaining a building permit and that waivers are granted for Stormwater and Drainage Report and Grading and Erosion Control report. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) th Duly adopted this 7 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1997 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LARRY CLUTE OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF RALPH ROAD AND EISENHOWER APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.39 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.70 ACRES EACH. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43- 1997 TAX MAP NO. 120-1-60.1 LOT SIZE: 1.39 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. For the record, please. MR. STEVES-Leon Steves, from Van Dusen and Steves, and the correct figure is 1.41 acres. MRS. LABOMBARD-So then that should be 1.395, right? MR. RUEL-That doesn’t add up, either. MR. PALING-Yes, it does, 69 and 72. MRS. LABOMBARD-.705. MR. RUEL-I was looking at this. Then it’s not .7 each, right? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-.69 and .72. MR. RUEL-All right. That’s better. MR. PALING-Okay. I’ll have the same comment regarding debris, and you’re going to commit? MR. STEVES-The same answer. MR. PALING-The same answer. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. RUEL-But there are no structures there, right? MR. PALING-Yes. There is no building on this, but in the motion you should cover debris for both lots. MR. RUEL-It’s a mess? MR. PALING-Well, it isn’t too bad there, but there’s tires and glass. MR. STEVES-Not as obvious as the trailer. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments from Planning? Okay. Any comments from Staff? MR. GORALSKI-The same comments as before. MR. PALING-Okay. Now I’ll open the public hearing on the Preliminary and Final Stage of the Larry Clute subdivision, on the other side of Ralph Road. Does anyone care to comment? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is Unlisted. We have to do another SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-1997 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LARRY CLUTE , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 7 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling MR. PALING-Now we need a motion for the approval of the Preliminary Stage. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE LARRY CLUTE , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To subdivide a 1.41 acre parcel into two lots of .69 and .72 acres each with the conditions that the debris on lots 1 & 2 will be removed prior to obtaining a building permit and the request for waivers has been approved for Stormwater and Drainage Report and Grading and Erosion Control. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) th Duly adopted this 7 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Now we can go to Final. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1997 FINAL STAGE LARRY CLUTE , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To subdivide a 1.41 acre parcel into two lots of .69 and .72 acres each with the condition that the debris on lots 1 & 2 be removed prior to obtaining a building permit and the request for waivers on Drainage and Stormwater Report is approved as well as the Grading and Erosion Control report. th Duly adopted this 7 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay, before we go. I need the one for Passerelli. What happened to the print? MR. RUEL-The print? It’s over there. MR. PALING-Here it is. Here we go. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. We’re going to go to an item that’s not on the agenda written here. It’s concerning Guido Passarelli’s property. MR. PALING-Jeff, you’re going to have to be sure that we’re doing, John, too, that we’re doing this right. We’ve had a request, I’ll back up. The Guido Passarelli, lots 18 and 19 of Herald Square Subdivision came before the Board to be approved as a subdivision. They changed the lot lines around, and it was approved, and we have a copy of the motion here approving it, but then the print, for some reason, never got signed, okay. So what we’d like to do, and if there are no changes, since this was done, is re-approve it so that then I can sign it later on. MR. GORALSKI-Re-approve the modification, right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-And the modification was approved when? MR. RUEL-1995. It was approved on September 19, 1995. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re treading on dangerous ground. MR. PALING-Okay. What’s the problem? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve had this happen in the past before where subdivision plats have, for whatever reason, fallen through the cracks, after they’ve been approved, and you can’t approve something that doesn’t exist. MR. GORALSKI-But the difference is, this is not an original subdivision. This was a modification of a Planning Board approved subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a difference? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. GORALSKI-When you have a lot line adjustment in an approved subdivision, you don’t have to go through the whole subdivision process again. You simply come to the Planning Board and modify the subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-If you feel comfortable with it. MR. GORALSKI-Then it’s up to the Board to decide whether the change is significant enough to require a public hearing, and whether the change is significant enough to change your SEQRA findings. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember that happened to us with Bay Meadows, I think was one that never got filed. MR. GORALSKI-That’s probably true, yes, but that was a subdivision, an original subdivision approval, that never got filed. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. This was a subdivision that was approved and filed at the Warren County Clerk’s Office. Then what they did was in 1995, is they came in to modify these lot lines from the approved subdivision, okay. So you can act on this as if nothing every happened in 1995, okay. That’s the way you should look at this. Nothing ever happened in 1995. The original subdivision was done probably in ’89 or something like that. MR. PALING-Yes, ’88, ’89. MR. GORALSKI-If you look on this plan, the dotted lines are the lines that were approved in 1988 or ’89, whenever it was done. What they’re coming to you now to do is modify those lot lines. That can be done by a resolution of the Planning Board without a public hearing and without changing your SEQRA determination if you feel that the modification is a minor modification. If you feel that it’s a significant change to the original subdivision approval of 1989, whatever it was, then I would recommend you have a public hearing, and re-visit your SEQRA determination. MR. MAC EWAN-I retract what I said. I stand corrected. MR. RUEL-Okay. If we make this motion predicated on the fact that there are no changes from a plan dated such and such, isn’t that sufficient? MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend you don’t do that. Craig was not altogether wrong. The 1995, the statement he made is we can’t act on something that doesn’t exist. The 1995 approval does not exist because it never got filed at the Warren County Clerk’s Office. So you have to act as if the plat that was approved in 1989 is the existing plat, which it is, and then you have to decide whether you want to approve this modification or not. MR. RUEL-But it was approved. MR. PALING-Yes, it was approved. MR. RUEL-It was approved. You can’t say it wasn’t approved. MR. FRIEDLAND-The modification was approved. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. FRIEDLAND-But it was never signed. It was never filed. MR. RUEL-It was never signed, but it was approved. MR. GORALSKI-You cannot base your decision on that, because it’s null and void. MR. RUEL-It is? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. FRIEDLAND-If the plat is not filed within a certain amount of time, the approval expires. MR. RUEL-What’s the time on that? MR. GORALSKI-One hundred and eighty days. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-But if we agree that this took that route, then we can just approve this? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-You can look at this and approve this modification. MR. RUEL-Yes, as though it just came in for the first time. MR. GORALSKI-As though it’s the first time you’re looking at it. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Well, I’m comfortable with approving this. MR. STARK-It doesn’t significantly effect the SEQRA. MOTION TO APPROVE REVISIONS OF LOTS 18, 19 & 150 TO SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD SQUARE, PHASE I AND III FOR GUIDO PASSARELLI , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: This does not effect SEQRA in any significant way. th Duly adopted this 7 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 45-97 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR. OWNER: SAME ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT 7 & 8 HUNTER BROOK LN. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT AN 8 UNIT AND A 4 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITEWORK. ALL USES IN MR-5 ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34.14 LOT SIZE: 1.40 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-97, Richard Schermerhorn, Jr., Meeting Date: October 7, 1997 “The applicant proposes two apartment house structures. This site is zoned MR-5, under Section 179-18 apartment housing needs site plan approval. The landscaping and structures on the site will be contingent with the other apartment house sites. A drainage plan was submitted and delivered to RIST FROST Engineers for review.” MR. STARK-Okay. Do you want to identify yourself, please, for the record. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn. MR. STARK-Okay. Did you get a reply back from Rist-Frost? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It said no comment. They reviewed this and had no comment. MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read this? Do you want me to read Rist-Frost’s comments? MR. STARK-Yes, would you, please. MS. NOWICKI-“We have reviewed the document submitted with the above referenced application and have no comments.” MR. STARK-Okay. So I assume everything’s okay with that. Have you got any comments, Rich? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. MR. STARK-No problem. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t have any notes. Did this go to the Queensbury Beautification Committee that you’re aware of? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. They didn’t have a meeting this month. MR. MAC EWAN-Keeping it in harmony with what was done previously? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-I have no problems. MR. STARK-Okay. I’m going to open a public hearing for the Site Plan No. 45-97. If anybody wishes to speak pro or con, please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-And we have to do a SEQRA on this. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, you do. Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 45-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR. , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 7 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling MR. STARK-You didn’t submit a planning or a landscape with this, did you? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, they did. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I did. MR. RUEL-Do we have it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-It’s okay by the Planning Staff? The last time we had a problem. MR. GORALSKI-It’s following the other ones. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. STARK-The last one he had 115 plantings. MR. SCHERMERHORN-This one has about 180. MR. GORALSKI-He’s wearing me down, or I’m wearing him down. I’m not sure which. MR. RUEL-It’s all set then. MR. STARK-Okay. Go ahead. MR. RUEL-Do you want a motion? MR. STARK-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-97 RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR. , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Lots 7 & 8 Hunter Brook Lane, to construct an 8 unit and 4 unit apartment with associated parking and sitework. th Duly adopted this 7 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 47-97 TYPE: UNLISTED COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP OWNER: I.D.A. OF WARREN WASHINGTON COUNTIES ZONE: LI-1A 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) LOCATION: 24 NATIVE DRIVE, SOUTHERN END OF CAREY ROAD ON WEST SIDE OF NATIVE TEXTILES FACILITY PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 60’ BY 100’ CONCRETE PAD WITH OVERHEAD COVER ATTACHED TO EXISTING WAREHOUSE FACILITY. ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 146-1-6.22 LOT SIZE: 14.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 MARK, WASS & DON HYDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 47-97, Columbia Development Group, Meeting Date: October 7, 1997 “The applicant would like to construct a warehouse addition to the existing warehouse facility. This is under site plan review because it is a Light Industrial Zone – warehouse for enclosed storage of goods (Section 179-26 - All uses in Light Industry Zone require site plan review. The applicant’s map includes drainage and erosion control measures. A storm water calculation was included and submitted to Rist Frost Engineers for review. The applicant incorrectly filled out the Site Data on the application. The applicant’s data information was for 34.08 acres. The applicant’s site data should be for 14.28 acres. This error occurred because on 10/21/94 the original parcel 146-1-6.21 at 34.08 acres was divided to create 146-1-6.22 at 14.08 acres. The applicant will be faxing the information regarding Site Data. The following information was found about the site. The Planning Board approved Site Plan Review Resolution 7/19/94. “Future development will require site plan review and will be held to a setback of 100 feet from the top of the ravine, and 75 feet along a 250 strip due west of the building”. This was to ensure the ravine stability. This project meets the requirement. One archeological site was found in the southeast corner, July 1994 Archeological Survey Proposed Native Textile Facility. The proposed addition will not interfere with any archeological sites. The project will comply with the Landscape Management Plan as needed. A Landscape Management Plan for Native Textiles was prepared by The Nature Conservancy Sept. 6, 1994.” MS. NOWICKI-I’m going to read Rist-Frost’s comments. MR. PALING-Yes, please. MS. NOWICKI-“The existing and proposed grading around the addition is not clear. Existing and proposed elevations or contours are required. These should clearly show that drainage from the area around the addition will go to the existing retention basin if that is the intent. The changes in the fire access road should be approved by the fire company. Is any access to the addition from the exterior proposed? If so it should be shown. The storm drainage concept is not clear. Is the stone around the addition intended for erosion protection with all flows going to the existing retention basin or is the stone intended to retain flow also? This needs to be clarified and the calculations clarified and expanded to demonstrate adequacy. Construction details of the stone retention channel are required. An EAF was not included.” MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have any other Staff or Engineering comments for this? MS. NOWICKI-He did submit site development data and the EAF. So that’s included in that package as well. MR. PALING-You say site development. Do we have that? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MS. NOWICKI-It says Site Development Data, and it refers to area of parcel 14.28 acres. It should be attached to your notes. MR. PALING-Does anyone have that? MR. RUEL-No, I don’t have it. MR. GORALSKI-Did you get Laura’s notes? MR. PALING-I got Laura’s notes. MR. GORALSKI-The next page. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. PALING-Short Environmental Assessment Form. MR. GORALSKI-No, you skipped a page. MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-Site Development Data. MR. GORALSKI-There you go. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. WASS-Yes. I’m Mark Wass with Columbia Development Group. MR. HYDE-And Don Hyde with the Columbia Development Group. MR. PALING-Okay. Are you familiar with the Rist-Frost letter before you came tonight? Did you have a chance to read it? MR. WASS-Yes. MR. PALING-Do you want to comment on that? I think that’s the best way to start, or would you like to tell us other things? MR. WASS-Well, yes. If we could, we’d just like to, we brought up a revised plan, which we feel addresses the issues that Rist-Frost has brought up, and if we could just submit this package for your review, it re-calculates, and it just shows better. MR. GORALSKI-Has Rist-Frost received a copy of this? MR. WASS-Not, he hasn’t. MR. PALING-It’s kind of tough for us to do this on the run. MR. MAC EWAN-Did Rist-Frost get a copy of this? MR. HYDE-No, he hasn’t received one yet. MR. MAC EWAN-They have not received one. I’d be interested in tabling this and making sure that Rist-Frost gets this information to review it. MR. PALING-I don’t see how we’d have any other alternative than to do that. Lets go on to other things about this as well. We’re going to put the Rist-Frost comments completely aside. Who gets this to Rist-Frost? MR. GORALSKI-I’ll send it to Rist-Frost. MR. PALING-You will? Okay, and then we’ll get their comments back. Now, if we could cover everything else, I would suggest perhaps they could be on the first, added to the agenda the first night, if we think it’s going to be easy. MR. GORALSKI-Well, you have two more meetings this month. MR. PALING-Yes. We have two more. All right. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-So why don’t we see how things go tonight and how things go with Rist-Frost, and if we can get them back on a meeting this month, we’ll do that. stth MR. PALING-We have two more scheduled meetings this month, October 21 and October 28. So what we’re suggesting is that we get this to Rist-Frost. They get the comments back, and then we re-visit this at the first meeting we can, but I’d like to go ahead and cover anything else that we can cover tonight. I’m sure there’s a public hearing on this, and there’s questions. Yes. So, go ahead, Roger. MR. RUEL-All right. I’m concerned with the fact that we had a site plan review back in ’94, certain statements were made about future development, which is shown here, and that was that it 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) be held to a setback of 100 feet from the top of the ravine, and 75 feet along a 250 foot strip due west of the building. I would like to see you indicate the top of the ravine on your plan. Is that the 380 mark? And if so, I don’t think you’re 100 feet away from it. MS. NOWICKI-It is. I measured it. MR. RUEL-The contour line 380, is that the top of the ravine? MR. WASS-Yes. I believe so. I mean, we measured the top of the ravine, and it came more than 100 feet away. MR. PALING-Okay, and Laura confirms that. MR. WASS-Laura Nowicki confirms that. MR. GORALSKI-The addition itself is 145 feet it looks like. MR. RUEL-And the other comment about 75 feet along a 250 foot strip due west of the building? MR. WASS-That was also measured and confirmed. MR. RUEL-You meet that? MR. WASS-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. That was my only comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Was there any feedback from, there was a comment in here, Rist-Frost letter changing the fire access road should be approved by the fire company? Was that, was it sent for their review? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Actually, we consulted with Kip Grant who maintains a data base and has all the turning radiuses of the fire trucks, and it meets the turning radius requirements for the largest truck of any of the fire companies in Queensbury. MR. PALING-Okay. So Item Two is approved by Kip. MR. MAC EWAN-Just getting back to that, is there a certain setback, distance wise, that the fire access has to be away from the building or the proposed structure? MR. GORALSKI-No. There is a building code requirement that you use to calculate fire areas, which requires a 50 foot area around the perimeter of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s clear. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Now I don’t know if that’s the particular case for this building. If you have sprinklers, you don’t need that. If you have fire hydrants within a certain distance, you don’t need that 50 foot aisle. So I don’t know exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I guess where I’m going with this, I’m just looking quickly at the drawing. I remember when we talked about this in the past, I’ve seen some variations in the distance from the edge of the access road to the building, as you circle the building. So it’s closer than others, and there’s really no criteria for that, no matter how close it is to the building? As long as you have a total of 50 feet? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RUEL-You’ll have to cut some trees down for this area? MR. WASS-Yes. We’ll have to go and. MR. RUEL-That’s a wooded area back there, isn’t it? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. HYDE-Yes. MR. RUEL-And is there a drain on the main building, on the roof? MR. WASS-It’s a single pitch roof that drains to the opposite side of where we’re putting the addition. MR. RUEL-So this new addition, then, will be the same type of roof? MR. WASS-It’ll be a single pitch shed roof. MR. RUEL-With no gutters or anything? MR. WASS-No, and it’s going to go into a stone retention area. MR. RUEL-And is there a loading platform on there? MR. WASS-No, there’s not. MR. RUEL-Is there an access to that building from the outside? MR. WASS-It’ll have a chain link fence around it with one gate in it. MR. HYDE-It’s basically just meant for storage, exterior storage. It’s not heated. It’s not walled. MR. RUEL-Yes. How tall is it? MR. WASS-It comes off the peak of the roof. MR. HYDE-Probably 24 feet. The peak of the roof is 27, and it’s going to go down at the end of the 60 foot run, it’ll be 24 feet to the eaves. MR. MAC EWAN-What will be stored in the area? MR. HYDE-They’ve got pallets and the empty spools of thread. They’re like four foot spools. MR. RUEL-All dry storage. MR. HYDE-All dry storage. All clean storage. MR. MAC EWAN-No chemicals or anything like that? MR. HYDE-No. It’ll all be exposed to the weather. MR. WASS-And the chain link fence has an exterior gate. MR. PALING-We’ll open the public hearing on this matter. Now do you have any letters or any correspondence on it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-Okay. We don’t have any. Is there anyone here that cares to speak on the Columbia Development matter? Okay. If not, I think we’ll leave it open. Leave the public hearing open, and this, then, will be tabled until you can communicate with Rist-Frost, have an agreement, and then put it on the agenda again. Now do we need a motion to do that? MR. GORALSKI-You don’t need a motion. You can determine, I mean, basically the application’s incomplete because you don’t have all the information. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. All right. We’ll just leave it that way, then, and we’ll hope to see you either next meeting. Any other questions or comments? st MR. STARK-Tell them the 21, the first thing. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. PALING-Well, we don’t know yet. It depends upon how quickly they get to communicate with an agreement from. MR. GORALSKI-We will get this to Bill Levandowski tomorrow. I’m sure they can call him up and I think they can work it out. I’m sure they can work it out. stth MR. PALING-It’s either Tuesday the 21 or Tuesday the 28, and hopefully you can do it, if you st want, on the 21. MR. WASS-That would be great. MR. PALING-Do you have any questions of us or what not? MR. WASS-I don’t think so. MR. PALING-I don’t see any other problems with this. If there were, we should bring them out stth now, not then, but I don’t see any. Okay. We’ll see you the 21 or the 28. MR. WASS-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 TYPE I NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, L.L.C. OWNER: QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. CORP. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NE CORNER OF QUAKER AND BAY ROAD TO DETERMINE COMPLETENESS OF DEIS FOR REVIEW, SET PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING. TAX MAP NO. 59-1-5.5, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19.1, 19.2 LOT SIZE: 25.4 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JON LAPPER & MARC NEWMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing is not scheduled for tonight. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. Laura, do you want to start off with comments on this? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-97 Type I, Newman Development Group of Queensbury, L.L.C., Meeting Date: October 7, 1997 “The purpose of this review is to compare the items listed in the Scoping Document to the items in the DEIS. Please note the review does not include the quality of the document. The quality review of the DEIS will be at the public hearing and during the public comment period. Staff reviewed the Scoping Document that indicated a list of items to be included in the DEIS. All the Scoping Document items were included. I. Description of the Proposed Action, II. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, III. Adverse Environmental Effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented, IV. Alternatives, V. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, VI. Growth-Induced Aspects, VII. Effects in the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources VIII. Miscellaneous The Planning Board should set a public hearing for 10/28/97, only if they feel the DEIS is complete for the purpose of review.” MR. RUEL-I have a question about that statement right there. Can you explain Quality Review? MR. GORALSKI-I knew you were going to say that, and I’m right on top of it. You have two steps during the Draft portion of this review, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement portion of this review. The first is to actually determine that that document is complete enough for you to actually conduct a review. Then what happens is the public comment period starts. You take comments from the public. You hold a public hearing. The public comment period stays open for I believe 10 days after the public hearing, and only after that comment period takes place do you actually take an action on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. So what you want to do now is determine whether or not you feel there’s enough information in that document for the Board, the involved agencies, any other interested parties, and the public to actually evaluate the potential impacts and alternatives that are outlined in that document. Just a couple of things I highlighted in the SEQRA Handbook that might be helpful to you is that the review should not require an unreasonably exhaustive or perfect document. The resolution of issues before the 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) acceptance of a Draft EIS, in fact, defeats one of the major purposes of the Draft EIS, and that is to give the public an opportunity to comment on various alternatives regarding the action, so that such comments may be part of the final decision making considerations. So what you need to do is say, is there enough information for the public to understand what this project is and what they’re proposing to do? If there’s enough, then I would say the document is complete for review, and then during the public comment period and at the public hearing is when you can basically pick apart that document and find out if there’s anything missing that needs to be addressed. MR. RUEL-And would you say that the emphasis for both the Planning Board and the public review should be in the area of mitigation measures? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I would say mitigation measures that are minimizing the environmental impacts, any alternatives that could be proposed that would, again, minimize the impacts. That type of thing. Absolutely. That’s exactly what the review should address. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions or comments at this point? Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and sitting next to me is Marc Newman from Newman Development Group of Queensbury, L.L.C. We also have all of the project consultants with us tonight, even though we know that we’re here for the purpose of determining completeness for review. Since the Board reviewed the document that we drafted preliminarily, we thought that if you had raised any questions, even though you’re not doing this qualitative review tonight, if you have any questions on any of the impact issues or the design issues, we’re here to answer those questions. Before we go further, I guess, we have a formal announcement that Marc wants to make, which we’re very pleased about. MR. NEWMAN-That Lowe’s Home Center, which we couldn’t talk about previously because we were under a confidentiality agreement with them until they publicly announced it has publicly announced it, and the lease for the project has been signed, and they are 100% committed to coming here with a brand new store opening next year. MR. PALING-Okay. We’re glad to hear it. Can you tell us what the retail building, what the other part of the lot will be used for? MR. NEWMAN-The out parcel, presently, we are planning a national chain which is owned by Sears Automotive Group, which is a national tire and battery operation. That is not a signed deal. There is strong interest on their part, and we have just completed a project for them, or are in the process of completing, excuse me, in Vestal, New York, and that is a, it’s a nice facility that they operate. It’s for changing tires and batteries. There’s no oil changing in the facility. It’s not like a Jiffy Lube or anything like that. MR. PALING-Batteries? MR. NEWMAN-Tires and batteries. MR. PALING-Tires and batteries. MR. NEWMAN-Yes, and they have inside storage, and the tires and batteries are removed from the site once a week, from their own company. They come and pick up the tires and batteries. It’s all enclosed self contained storage. There’s no outside storage. MR. PALING-Interesting. MR. LAPPER-For the purposes of this review, what we’re saying is that we could put any facility that’s permitted in a Highway Commercial use, because we don’t have a lease. We’re hoping that they’ll be the tenant, but we don’t know yet. MR. NEWMAN-The prototype that is shown on the plan is for that use, but not to say that we wouldn’t come to you again some day, if, for some reason, that use changes. We do know that Lowe’s is not going to change because we do have a signed agreement with them. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. We have two, I think one we just got at the last, we have two letters here, and I wonder if it would be proper to read these into the record now. One is from Dr. Welch and the other is from James Weller. We may have more here. MR. STARK-John, couldn’t we just make sure that the applicant is aware of these two letters, has copies of them, and then he can respond to them after they’re read into the record at the public hearing? MR. GORALSKI-You can do it that way. Either way is fine. MR. STARK-We’re not going to have the public hearing tonight. MR. GORALSKI-Right. There’s no public hearing. MR. PALING-No public hearing tonight. MR. STARK-This probably should be responded to at the public hearing. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I think the applicant’s received both of these letters. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-You have received both of them, and we have all received both of them, too. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Dr. Welch, who is the Chairman of the Queensbury Environmental Committee, who the Committee has been kind enough to assist us in reviewing this. They have made some preliminary comments. I think instead of reading their entire letter, if it’s all right with Dr. Welch, we’ll make that part of the comments, unless the Committee, the Environmental Committee feels that for some reason this is not complete for review, and they would rather you do something else, but that’s it. MR. PALING-I look upon Dr. Welch’s input, not so much as public, but as assistant to Staff Input, and that’s the way I’d like to handle his input and maybe get his comments about your question. MR. RUEL-That’s good. MR. PALING-Dr. Welch, did you want to comment on that? Excuse me a minute. MR. STARK-You’re saying Dr. Welch is part of the Planning Staff? MR. PALING-Right, yes. MR. GORALSKI-Well, Dr. Welch is the Chairman of the Environmental Committee, which is a Committee that’s appointed by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to look at environmental issues in the Town. MR. RUEL-Good. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anybody object to doing it this way? Okay. DAVE WELCH DR. WELCH-Okay. I’m Dave Welch and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. My understanding is everybody has the note dated October 6, and I appreciate the answer to the first question. That helped us a great deal as we look at this, and as you finalize that, that will help us even more. The second concern is in regard to the snow removal, and you may be able to give us a very simple answer on this. We are hoping that the snow removal storage plan is adapted or identified as you develop this, and we will certainly be asking, as part of the final statement, exactly where that snow storage and removal will take place. Do you have a simple answer to that now, or is that going to be something to come up later? MR. NEWMAN-No. I think the answer to that is a couple of things. Depending on the amount of snow, obviously, if there is an abundant amount of snow and it cannot be stored in areas on site around the detention basins and green areas, then they will hire a contractor to remove the snow. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) DR. WELCH-The main concern we have is we just don’t want it piled down near the brook. The intent, as I understand it, is that you’re going to pile it in the vicinity of the three detention basins. MR. NEWMAN-That’s correct. DR. WELCH-Which brings us to the third point that was critical is that on the map that we have, only the one large detention basin is identified. MR. LAPPER-We can address that. The other two basins are in the Bay Road. They’re grassed basins, very shallow. DR. WELCH-Adjacent to Bay Road, is what we assume, then they should be included on that map plan. MR. LAPPER-They may not have made it into the conceptual, but we’re now about to submit the full site plan, and you’ll get a copy, and they’re provided. DR. WELCH-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That’s in that 75 foot green space along Bay Road. DR. WELCH-All we’re asking is that be included in there and defined a little bit further. The third one really is sort of a joint question to both the developer and the Board. When this parking lot was designed, was it based on the new or the old Town regulation? Does anybody know the answer to that? MR. PALING-I think we covered that already. It’s based on the new. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I have to clear that up. There are no new Town regulations. DR. WELCH-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-There’s a philosophy that the Planning Board has been following, trying to minimize parking areas, that type of thing. We’ve worked with the developers, and basically that’s what we’ve done. We’ve minimized the parking areas. MR. LAPPER-What did we reduce, about 75 spaces already? MR. NEWMAN-Yes, and we’ve reduced the sizes. MR. LAPPER-And we’ve reduced the size of the spaces, which reduces the amount of asphalt. There’s a little bit of the site that’s for contractor pick up, but for the most part, almost all of the spaces are now the smaller size, and we’ve reduced the number by 75 spaces, after the Planning Board made it clear that that was their goal, to reduce pavement. DR. WELCH-That fairly well addresses, our big concern is obviously along the stream front and that southeast corner, which is the closest to the stream, and that’s where we would like to have the least amount of development. MR. LAPPER-If I could just make a general comment, we appreciate the input from the Environmental Committee because it’s very positive that they had sent a letter before they received th the EIS, and their letter dated the 6 acknowledges that we did an awful lot of homework in the DEIS and we appreciate that you acknowledge that. We will have the engineers meet with you, as we get through the public comment period, and address any other questions, but we have, as you’ve just heard, we have detailed questions. I mean, you asked good questions, and we have the detailed answers. The whole design of the project is to move everything, to drain everything away from the brook rather than right now where is drains off the parking lot right into the brook, and we think that you’re going to be happy, as will the Board, that this has been intelligently thought out. DR. WELCH-Again, as we commented in this letter of yesterday, we’re very pleased at the whole concept of utilizing a space in an existing pathway in a developed area, and the re-use of this project. So we’re encouraged by it. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. LAPPER-Thanks. DR. WELCH-Thank you. MR. NEWMAN-We’re happy to meet with you any time. MR. PALING-Okay. We can, then I think it’s right to let the other letters be part of the public record at the time that we have a public hearing. So we won’t go into any more of the letters that we’ve received. Now, did you want to tell us anything new besides the announcement, or did you want to just us to go ahead? I’ll leave it up to you. MR. LAPPER-Well, if the Board has any questions, we’ve got the traffic consultant, the engineers, the hydrology consultant. So we can answer any questions, design questions, that you have. MR. PALING-All right. Lets start down here. Craig, how about yourself? MR. MAC EWAN-Not right at the moment I don’t have any questions. MR. PALING-Okay. George? Cathy? Go ahead, Roger. MR. RUEL-I happen to have 13 questions. MR. LAPPER-We expected no less. MR. RUEL-If you’d just keep that heavy document in front of you, and I’ll refer to the pages. Page Roman I-2. Some of these are minor, just trivial, but others I think are perhaps important. The second line from the bottom, Master Plan is called a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Okay. Got it? MR. LAPPER-You’re just referring to the title of the document? Okay. MR. RUEL-Page Roman I-8. Paragraph B. Ties in with the recent comments of Dr. Welch. I was going to say that recent newspaper articles have indicated that too many parking spaces associated with large stores in Queensbury. Is this the case here? MR. GORALSKI-I believe we’ve minimized it to the point where I don’t know that they can take any more out. MR. RUEL-All right. Since there seems to be adequate parking area, I would like to see the requested nine by eighteen, someone requested nine by eighteen, rather than nine by twenty. MR. GORALSKI-Right, nine by eighteen with a twenty-four foot drive aisle. MR. RUEL-Yes. I would like to see it changed to 10 by 18, for additional space between cars to eliminate constant dings in doors. Just make them a little wider, since you have the space anyway. MR. LAPPER-Well, we had proposed it that way, and we changed it because the Board had told us that you wanted them smaller. MR. RUEL-You originally proposed, someone proposed 10 by 20. Right? MR. LAPPER-But I think now 9 by 18. MR. RUEL-And then you’re requesting 9 by 18. MR. MAC EWAN-We brought them down to cover less asphalt. MR. RUEL-I want to go up to 10 by 18. I want to make them wider. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, but you’re going to add a lot more asphalt that way. MR. RUEL-Well, cut down the number of parking spaces. You’ve got too many anyway. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. PALING-John, on this, is this not part of the long range plan now? Is there a recommendation coming there about the dimension of the spaces? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that it be changed to 9 by 18, which is what they’re proposing. MR. PALING-And that’s what I thought we were working on was the 9 by 18. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-Well, I brought it up because you don’t see many compact cars anymore. All you’ve got is these big utility vehicles, and they are large, and when I get into a parking space, I’ll tell you, there’s hardly any room to open the door. You have to be extremely careful, and besides, my car gets all banged up from other people. Because it’s too close. MRS. LABOMBARD-I’d have to agree with you. You do have a point there, but, no, I know where you’re coming from on that. MR. RUEL-Yes. It’s costing the Country millions of dollars a year just to repair automobiles. MRS. LABOMBARD-So we’re going to start with this project? MR. RUEL-Absolutely. We have to start somewhere. It’s a comment. MR. STARK-Roger asked the applicant to do this. Why don’t we get the applicant’s answer. MR. NEWMAN-Can I answer that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. NEWMAN-Thank you. A couple of things. First of all, with Lowe’s Home Improvement Center, we are at our minimum now right now, acceptable to Lowe’s Home Improvement Center, as a parking. If we were to go below the parking, within our lease document, they do not have to accept this store. We’re at our minimum with respect to their parking. They have certain parking ratios that they have found by operating 450 stores nationally, that they can go with for a minimum parking to do the type of business they need to do in order for this store to be successful and have longevity in this community. Secondly, we’ve gone and have engineered, have spent several weeks and a tremendous amount of dollars engineering this site, stormwater management plan, calculations of rate of runoff and everything else, based on the decision, and based on the fact that the Town had told us we could go with the size of those parking spaces, and we, at this point, a couple of things. We feel that it would, that the tenant, to change all the plans and to go backwards would just lose us a tremendous amount of time. The size of these spaces and these aisle widths are something that is, that the tenant is also extremely concerned about, and has been an accepted standard by the tenant, based on their customers that use their stores. MR. LAPPER-We also have very wide drive aisles, so that there’s not an issue about driving. Our traffic consultant, Dennis O’Malley, is here, and I think it would be good to get him on the record, in terms of the 9 by 18 space, to just address the size. MR. STARK-Bob, I have a question for John. John, we’re here to discuss whether this is complete or not, not to go into specific things here. Roger ought to hold his question for the site plan review. MR. RUEL-This was a comment. MR. GORALSKI-Or maybe the thing to do is for Roger to read all of his comments. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STARK-Don’t expect a response tonight. MR. RUEL-No, I wasn’t expecting it. MR. GORALSKI-And then they can respond either at the public comment period or in the Final EIS, you know, would be an appropriate place to respond to those comments. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. RUEL-All right. I’ve got more. On that same page, I-8, the second line from the bottom, question, should the word “may” be “will”? MR. PALING-The second line from the bottom. Are you on I-8? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. LAPPER-What that means is that we’re not committing that we have to necessarily, because we’re adding fill, that there are slabs that are three feet under the ground, and for whatever construction reason it’s determined that it’s better to just leave them there. There’s nothing wrong with just leaving them there. MR. RUEL-In other words, you may leave some at three feet, and you may not? MR. LAPPER-Right, but we’re not going to leave any that are less than three feet. MR. RUEL-Okay. Yes. All right. So we can leave it at may. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RUEL-All right. On Page I-11, third line from the top, I think the word should be superficial. MR. LAPPER-There’s nothing superficial about this book. MR. RUEL-Okay. Same page, paragraph two, labeled “Operation”. Is there anything about the designation of a fire lane? Is that picked up in an exhibit anywhere? MR. LAPPER-Do you mean a fire lane in front of the building? MR. RUEL-The fire lane around the structure. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s covered by Code. MR. RUEL-Well, it’s not shown anywhere, is it? I couldn’t find it. MR. GORALSKI-All right. Well, that’s something that needs to be addressed. Lets go on with the list. MR. LAPPER-That’ll be there. MR. RUEL-All right. Page II-22, and this is not going to make the applicant happy at all. Paragraph B. I say this paragraph seems to imply that this project will bring new services to Queensbury. I believe the project services are presently available in Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-We disagree with that. MR. STARK-Don’t answer it. Let him go on. MR. RUEL-Page III-2. Is there or will there be a topographic plan showing areas of four to seven feet fill? You mention it, but. MR. NEWMAN-Yes. That will be in the full civil drawings that we’re actually submitting tonight, and we’ll be giving more copies. MR. RUEL-You will have it, and it will show all the areas and how much fill in each area? MR. NEWMAN-Yes. It shows everything. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. Page VIII-1. Under “References”, I’m asking, should New York State DEC Wildlife Resources Center, which you show in Exhibit 2-7, and the US Department Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Exhibit 2-6, be included here? And on Page Two of Exhibit II. You give a bunch of references there, but these two items are left out. MR. LAPPER-We can add them. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. PALING-Okay. They’re going to add them. Fine. MR. RUEL-All right. Exhibit I-3. There’s no page, but there’s a schedule page. It’s a chart, construction chart. Exhibit I-3. MR. PALING-I see what you’re saying. Okay. th MR. RUEL-It’s a chart, construction chart. All right, on the 14 item, what’s that guide thing? What is that? MR. NEWMAN-Guide rail. MR. RUEL-Guide rail. What is that. MR. LAPPER-The guide rail is on the access road bridge, that crosses Halfway Brook coming from Quaker Road. MR. RUEL-I see, the new bridge. MR. LAPPER-The new bridge. MR. RUEL-Okay. On Page Five, it’s the SEQRA. It’s called Exhibit 2-2. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RUEL-The same comment as I had earlier, under the approvals, what’s that, Item 25 at the top of the page, the listing of approvals under SEQRA? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Look into this, the other ones that I mentioned earlier, New York State DEC, and also the Department of Interior, and it’s approvals. They’re the ones that mention that wild lupine and they mention the lady slipper. MR. LAPPER-Well, we don’t need approvals from them. MR. RUEL-No? Okay. All right, Appendix A. I have a question there. Appendix A is the traffic study. The second paragraph from the bottom. MR. LAPPER-The second paragraph from the bottom, what page? MR. RUEL-I haven’t lived here that long, but. MR. PALING-There’s only one page, and it’s a site location map. MR. RUEL-Appendix A? MR. PALING-Appendix A, site location map. MR. RUEL-You’re in the wrong place. I’m in the traffic study. MR. LAPPER-Appendix to the traffic report? Because the traffic report is Appendix A. MR. RUEL-The traffic study is not Appendix A? MR. LAPPER-The traffic study is Appendix A. Where in the traffic study are you looking? MR. RUEL-The second paragraph from the bottom. MR. LAPPER-Is there a page number at the bottom of that page? MR. RUEL-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Appendix A called turning vehicle counts. Are you looking in that appendix? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. LAPPER-The appendix to the appendix. MR. RUEL-Can you find it? MR. PALING-I can’t keep up with you, Roger. I’m going back to the index here, see if I can. MR. RUEL-The index doesn’t work. Don’t worry about it. The appendices are not in there. MR. LAPPER-What’s the comment? MR. RUEL-Anyway, the comment was that, it said something about signaling on Quaker Road, and my question is, isn’t it a highway? Isn’t that 254? When I requested, a long time ago, signal lights to be synchronized, I was told it was out of Queensbury jurisdiction, and that comment says that it’s within the jurisdiction of Queensbury. Is it or isn’t it? MR. LAPPER-Lets let Dennis. DENNIS O’MALLEY MR. O’MALLEY-Which intersection on Quaker Road are you talking about? First of all, my name is Dennis O’Malley. I’m with Transportation Concepts. MR. RUEL-I wasn’t talking about any particular intersection. MR. O’MALLEY-Just so you’re aware, Quaker Road is maintained by two jurisdictions. Part of it is under the jurisdiction of the State of New York Department of Transportation. Part of it is under Warren County. All of it is signed as New York State Route 254. That is for what is called continuity purposes. So that a person who comes off of a section of State highway and is traveling what would be no longer a State maintained highway, but later on arrives at the same State maintained highway, so that they don’t feel like they’re getting lost and they have a change in the identification of the route. So even out here, you would see Quaker Road, and you would see New York State, and you would see New York State Route 254 signed. The actual ownership of the road in this area where this project is, is under the jurisdiction of Warren County. I believe it’s County Road Three, and so all the operation of the traffic signals then fall out of the jurisdiction of DOT and in this case would fall under the jurisdiction of the Town of Queensbury. All of the maintenance and construction would be, would have to be in compliance with Warren County’s Department of Public Works. MR. RUEL-How about signaling, would that be the responsibility of Queensbury? MR. O’MALLEY-Yes, the Town of Queensbury. MR. RUEL-I was told it couldn’t be done because it was out of the jurisdiction of Queensbury. Okay. Thanks. MR. O’MALLEY-There are mixed, remember, Roger. The signal, for example, at Quaker Road and Route 9 is New York State DOT, and if you go down to Lower Warren Street, and the Boulevard and those areas lower by K-Mart, that’s also within New York State DOT jurisdiction, but up in here it’s Town of Queensbury jurisdiction. MR. RUEL-Okay. In Appendix A, you have a site location map. MR. PALING-Yes, I have that. MR. RUEL-You might want to change the title, from Albany to Warren County. MR. O’MALLEY-Okay. MR. RUEL-All right. Now Appendix C, this has to do with the wetlands, Page Two, Paragraph 3.1. That was Appendix C, titled “Wetlands”, Page Two, Paragraph 3.1. MR. GORALSKI-You’re looking at an appendix to an appendix, probably. MR. RUEL-Yes, that’s right. You’ve got two sets, with the same number. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. LAPPER-There are appendixes to appendixes. MR. RUEL-I’d like to suggest in the future that you continue with the alphabet. MR. LAPPER-So where are you, in an appendix to an appendix, “Wetland Delineation and Stream Assessment Report”? MR. RUEL-Yes, Page Two, Paragraph 3.1. Got it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Something about search for wild Lupine? All right. I believe a study is presently underway to search out wild Lupine locations in Queensbury. This was initiated during Curtis Lumber’s site application. Can this project take advantage of this study? MR. GORALSKI-Certainly. MR. RUEL-Do they know that? MR. GORALSKI-I don’t know. DON COOGAN MR. COOGAN-I’m Don Coogan. I’m with Terrestrial Environmental Specialists. We contacted the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the New York State DEC regarding State and Federal listed endangered, threatened species. Wild Lupine is not a Federal listed species, although it is the primary food source for the Carner Blue Butterfly, which is, of course, a State and Federal listed endangered species. In the letter from, I guess it was the Fish and Wildlife Service, they recommended a search for Carner Blue and Lupine. We did that on the site. MR. RUEL-You did it already? MR. COOGAN-Yes, we did that. MR. RUEL-I see. I thought if you didn’t, you could take advantage of this particular study. MR. COOGAN-No. We did that, and we performed a habitat assessment of it, too, of the site, and it’ s not appropriate habitat. MR. RUEL-Does it coincide with the study that’s going on, do you know? MR. GORALSKI-The study is not complete yet. MR. RUEL-Well, then their input can go to the study. MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. MR. COOGAN-We’re glad to contribute. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. RUEL-That’s it. MR. PALING-It is? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Wow. MR. LAPPER-Before we finish with that, I’m concerned about the parking space size, and I’d just like to re-visit that for a second, even though we’ll get into that in detail at the public hearing, but we know that it’s a policy of this Board, the Planning Department, and the Town to minimize asphalt, and if you added one foot to each space, that’s going to make a huge difference in terms of the aesthetics of this site and the drainage, because it would be more impervious surface. So we made a special effort, dealing with the Town Planning Department, to reduce the sizes, because 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) that’s what we had heard when we first came to the Planning Board in August with the project. We want to be able to assure Roger that 9 by 18 is adequate, and that’s why that’s the new size of the parking spaces that the Town permits, but in addition to that, we’re still providing 60 foot widths. We’ve increased the size of the drive aisle because that’s where you, like that Quaker Plaza that everyone complains about, that this’ll have wide aisles so that there won’t be a traffic problem, but in terms of opening your car door, and not hitting the car next door, more importantly not having somebody hit Roger’s car, we want to assure you that nine feet is wide enough for that, that this is an adequate sized space, and if the Board, if there’s a majority of the Board that wants us to go back to bigger spaces and more asphalt, we need to know that now because that would make a major change in the design, but we don’t think that’s where the Town’s been coming from. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. You keep talking about major changes in design. This project is just starting, isn’t it? I mean, you make it sound like everything’s firmed up. MR. LAPPER-It’s actually not firmed up, and this is only a proposal for a review. However, the significance of that change, by adding one foot to each of 629 parking spaces, is going to be a lot of asphalt. MR. RUEL-Six hundred and seventy, isn’t it? Yes. MR. LAPPER-No. It’s been reduced to 629, I believe, but that would be one foot by nine foot in terms of square feet, by 18, excuse me. MR. GORALSKI-You’ve got the width of the aisles. You’ve got one by sixty, actually. MR. LAPPER-Right, and what we did, we tried to move the parking lot back away from the creek. That was the whole focus of this, what the Environmental Committee raised, designing this site, to get everything away from the brook. MR. RUEL-Yes, as Dr. Welch mentioned. MR. LAPPER-So we would be adding approximately, the consultants say a half an acre of pavement on that site to make these spaces bigger, and we feel we’re complying with the Town Code for nine by eighteen, and we think that it’s a better design, because we have less pavement, and that pavement if farther away from the brook. MR. MAC EWAN-I, personally, can’t see us going backwards. We gave them the indication of what we wanted them to go with parking. I can’t see reversing that philosophy and asking them to increase when we’ve been trying to decrease. I’m not in favor of going that route. I would go, maybe you could do some research. I’m kind of curious, we’re talking about, you’re just basically meeting now the minimum that’s required by Lowe’s store, but we had been trying to work with a couple of ideas in the past where cutting down on the amount of actual paving, but leaving enough green space there for overflow parking. Would that be something of interest to Lowe’s that would actually increase the green space even more. MR. LAPPER-We feel that we’ve done that by eliminating the 75 spaces, and that green space still exists so that if in the future we had to add spaces, we could, but to go less than what we’ve proposed would violate the terms of the lease. We had to make a special deal with Lowe’s, because this was less than what they ordinarily require, and we said, in this Town, this Town doesn’t want to see a lot of pavement, and they agreed in the lease that we could do fewer than what we had originally done, which was 75 more. We don’t have the ability to go less than that, because that will violate the lease and Lowe’s policy. MR. MAC EWAN-(Lost words) just kind of give us an overview of other Lowe’s stores, sizes in the metropolitan areas that they serve, population wise, and the required parking spaces? Give me something like that? MR. NEWMAN-I’ve completed two Lowe’s stores in New York State. One in Vestal, New York, which was the first Lowe’s store. That particular project, which is 130,000 square feet, this project is 120,000 square feet. There is 790 parking spaces, for 10,000 more square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s the population in the Vestal area? MR. NEWMAN-Well, it’s interesting the way we look at demographics and population and the way Lowe’s compiled their marketing surveys for what the trade area was, and that went out to the 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) Northeast, west, and very little to the south, because the Saratoga market was to the south, and knowing there was a Home Depot to the south, they wanted to eliminate that as considering it in the market place, even though it may very well be in the market place. There was 54,000 households in the area that was studied. MR. MAC EWAN-In the Vestal area? MR. NEWMAN-No. This is in your area. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s it in the Vestal area? MR. NEWMAN-In the Vestal area, it was, there’s, well, again, that market is split, and it’s very comparable, as far as trade area goes, not population. There’s 54,000 households in this area, another 13,000 households that are considered seasonal households that they took into consideration. There was three or four thousand households that were vacant, for whatever reason. So that brought it to about 67,000 households that was taken into consideration. The 53 or 54,000 brought an average of around 150,000 in population within the trade area that they considered as part of this trade area where they’re drawing card would be. The Vestal, the Burden County market, is 200,000 people, but you have competition. You have a Home Depot. You have a Rickles. You have some other home improvement centers as well. MR. MAC EWAN-So when they arrive at their numbers then for parking spaces, it not only takes in the geographic area they’re serving and the amount of households in that geographic area, but also the amount of competition in that geographic area. MR. NEWMAN-No. They have a standard prototype store. They have a standard format that they use. They will not come to an area. Their criteria is, if the area doesn’t suit their needs demographic wise, they won’t come. They will not adjust their formula. They have two prototypes. One is slightly larger and one is slightly smaller, which is the store here. Originally they were talking about the larger prototype. That’s the only adjustment that’s made, from a parking ratio, strictly a parking ratio. You’re talking 50 more spaces, approximately. In their situation, they have the two prototypes, and eventually, there’s talk now that they’re going to have just one prototype. If they feel that an area is large enough or meets their criteria from a potential sales volume, everything is based on projected sales volumes, then they’ll come to an area, but they’re parking requirement, their prototype requirement, those requirements, they have prototype drawings that they actually supply for a site, and not for a specific site, just a prototype drawing with the parking. MR. MAC EWAN-The comparison I’m trying to make here, looking back in the history of what happened with the K-Mart store, where that was a prototype that was one that was their new style of nationwide store that they were putting up, and we met the parking requirements of that, and then all ultimately what it ended up being was overkill, and if we could avoid that. MR. LAPPER-Their ratio, spaces per thousand square feet of space, is much larger than what we have here. MR. NEWMAN-Yes. They have seven cars per thousand, approximately, at the Super K site, which, in my opinion, is too much. MR. MAC EWAN-They probably could have cut a third of that out probably. MR. NEWMAN-The national average is somewhere around where we’re at right now, depending on where you go, and this would be the minimum that Lowe’s would permit for parking spaces the way they are right now. We are at their minimum. They would not build a store here if there was not enough parking, because they have to project their volumes, and they have certain volumes that they need to do for this particular area. The other thing that they have to be, they have to make it very convenient for their customers, and that’s, they need the parking spaces paved as opposed to grass, because it could turn to mud, and then they have all sorts of other problems. MR. PALING-Let me ask a question. The Queensbury Plaza, what is the measurements of those parking spaces, including the drive aisles? MR. RUEL-They’re small. MR. GORALSKI-The drive aisle is only 20 feet wide there. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. PALING-Okay, and what’s the other dimensions there? MR. GORALSKI-I believe it’s nine by twenty. MR. RUEL-Yes, and they’re small. MR. PALING-They’re nine by twenty, with a twenty foot drive aisle, and we’re proposing nine by eighteen here. MR. GORALSKI-Twenty four foot drive aisle. The problem at Queensbury Plaza is that it’s the width of the drive aisle that causes the problem. MR. RUEL-Yes, right. MR. LAPPER-That’s because that was a grandfathered site. MR. PALING-Yes, because I hope we all agree, that is a problem parking lot, and we don’t want that kind of thing duplicated. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and when you did your modification, they changed a lot of that, and that will be addressed by adding some turning radius to the corners of the islands and things like that. DR. WELCH-I have one question in regard to the parking ratios. You talk about Lowe’s requirement of the lot that is currently projected, and how many of those are dedicated solely to Lowe’s, and how many to the other retail site? MR. NEWMAN-The other retail site has very minimal, not very minimal, but minimal compared to Lowe’s. I think there’s 45 spaces, approximately, for the other, it’s 45 for the NTB, and the ratio that I discussed was for the Lowe’s ratio. Because when I was down in North Carolina finalizing the lease with them, that was an issue. MR. GORALSKI-There’s a total of 629. So if there’s 45, it’s 584. MR. NEWMAN-It’s 626, or 5.17 ratio. MR. GORALSKI-The 5.17 ratio is the standard for like an urban planning, the urban land institute, people like that, the shopping center. MR. NEWMAN-International Council of Shopping Centers. MR. GORALSKI-International Council of Shopping Centers, five per thousand is what they’re now saying. It was seven a couple of years ago, but now they’re saying five per thousand is more than adequate. MR. LAPPER-When we reduced the number of spaces, we also increased the green space in the islands between the spaces, in order to soften the whole appearance of the parking lot. This isn’t going to look like the Price Chopper on Glen Street. MR. NEWMAN-Dennis just raised a good point, too. The difference between Lowe’s and a K- Mart or a Wal-Mart is Wal-Mart and K-Mart have the Christmas season, where you have a lot of goods that are purchased in one shot, and you’re getting a lot of activity. Lowe’s isn’t that type of store. You’re not going to have that heavy traffic jam for the day after Thanksgiving for those types of goods, as a rule. That store is not geared to that. MR. RUEL-You mean like a Toy’s “R” Us type? MR. NEWMAN-Toys “R” Us, Wal-Mart, anything where people are rushing to get their Christmas shopping done and they’re getting a tremendous amount of cars pouring in and a tremendous amount of traffic that might require more parking. MR. PALING-Okay. I had a couple of comments. I was very pleased to see that you’re going to be using the Hudson Falls burn plant to dispose of your trash. That’s the way I’m reading that. You didn’t name it, but that’s what you’re doing, I believe. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. NEWMAN-That’s correct. MR. PALING-Okay. Now I didn’t notice any provision in here to track or take care of trucks entering and exiting the site that unfortunately carried pebbles with them and bring dirt over onto the road, that kind of thing. I didn’t see, now maybe it’s I there and I didn’t find it. MR. RUEL-It’s in there. MR. PALING-Have you got any kind of provision to guard against that? MR. LAPPER-Are you talking about drawing construction? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. O’MALLEY-Usually they have a permit from Warren County that would require that they have, carrying a load, for example, the load’s got to be covered. MR. NEWMAN-We require all contractors to be in compliance with all local and any governmental codes. MR. RUEL-DOT requirements. MR. NEWMAN-Yes. MR. PALING-What do we have that, where is that enforced from, or what have we got to do that? MR. GORALSKI-Basically, on a local level, we enforce it simply with our Code Compliance Officer and our Building Inspector. MR. LAPPER-The way it usually happens is John will call and yell at me if that happens. MR. GORALSKI-Also, when they get a work permit from Warren County DPW to do work within the right of way, there are conditions that are placed on that that we can enforce. MR. PALING-But don’t you have some kind of a provision that would tell truckers that they can’t have pebbles all over the back rim of a truck that all bounce off and we get stone bruises from, they can’t track mud out into the street? MR. NEWMAN-We do have provisions in our contracts that require, we subcontract out. Like, for instance, we will have a subcontractor that maybe will handle the site work aspect of this project. In that, we will make them responsible to comply with all Town codes, County codes, State codes, and we will make them responsible for cleaning the surrounding streets, for mud clean up. We’ve done that on other situations where we’ve had fill projects, but that’s a responsibility we put on them, because they are the contractor, and they are required to, they can’t just, they have to obey the law with regard to open containers or whatever the case may be. If they’re dragging mud out, there still is rules and regulations that they have to follow. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it becomes a difficult thing for the general contractor to (lost words) some of the subcontractors to make sure they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing under the law and under the ordinance. MR. GORALSKI-For example, we just had this same exact issue up on Western Avenue, the Berrymill Plaza. Chris Round went out there, informed them of the problem. They got a sweeper, cleaned it up, and there hasn’t been a problem since. MR. MAC EWAN-The large scale problem with Columbia Development, the subcontractor went in there and clear cut practically all of the acreage before they had any approval process. MR. PALING-I live near there, so I’ll police it and yell at you guys when you do this. Now, I notice that, there’s about 4500 gallons of water, waste water, a day that you’re going to be dispensing. That’s mostly into a sewer, right? MR. LAPPER-We’re within the sewer district that goes to the Glens Falls Treatment Plant. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. PALING-Right, and there’s no water that’s going, other than into the, waste water, going other than into the sewer? MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. RUEL-Presently, there are occupants in that area. Do any of them have leases that go way beyond the schedule? MR. LAPPER-We’re told by the owners that they’re leases, I think they’re 30 day leases now, that they can be terminated by either party. Those leases will be terminated before we close on the purchase. MR. RUEL-So you don’t have any problems in that area? MR. LAPPER-No. The largest tenant is the owner of this site. MR. PALING-The only thing that seems to be perhaps sticking a little bit in our minds is, I think, is the parking thing. We’ll have to be careful of that, especially when it’s open to a public hearing, and the good news is, the drive aisle is wider, but the space itself is narrower. MR. GORALSKI-No, the space is not narrower. The Town Code requires a nine foot wide space, and the spaces are nine feet wide. MR. PALING-I misspoke. It’s nine by eighteen with a twenty-four foot drive aisle. MR. NEWMAN-Twenty-five. MR. PALING-Twenty-five, and the other one that we’re talking about was a nine by twenty, with a twenty foot drive aisle. So the only dimension that goes narrower is the 20 becomes 18, and that’s the depth of the space, but then you’ve got the drive aisle behind it that’s wider. MR. GORALSKI-We require, for a double loaded lane, 60 feet, right. MR. PALING-A double loaded lane 60 feet? MR. GORALSKI-We have an aisle, and then on each side you’ve got a parking space that’s 20 feet deep. Okay. So that’s 60 feet. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Now, if they have 25 and two 18’s, they have 61 feet. So they have more than we require. MR. PALING-That’s 53. MR. GORALSKI-No, 61. MR. PALING-Sixty-one. MR. LAPPER-And that nine feet, Roger, complies with the Town Code, that nine foot width. MR. PALING-Okay, all right. MR. RUEL-Just one comment. It has nothing to do with this particular parking lot, since it’s all laid out and so forth, but many citizens have expressed concern about seeing acres and acres of parking area along the road. Now maybe some construction people should start considering putting the building up front and the parking in the rear. That would eliminate that. A lot of people don’t like to see these huge parking lots up front. I’m not saying about this site. MR. LAPPER-Right now, there’s pavement right up to Bay Road, and we’re going to be complying with the traffic corridor overlay district. We’re going to be putting 75 feet of green space all along Bay Road where that Quaker. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. RUEL-Well, you have to. You have the brook. MR. LAPPER-I’m talking about on Bay Road right now, that’s asphalt, and that’s going to be green area. On the other side, the reason our building is in the back of the site, it’s because it’s as far away as possible from the stream corridor, in terms of impacts to the stream, which is the biggest environmental. MR. RUEL-I said it didn’t apply to this particular one, all right. I know you’re trying to keep away from Halfway, but I’m talking about people should start thinking in terms of eliminating these acres and acres of parking areas, seen from the road, and try to reverse things. That’s all I’m saying. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. The only question I think I have now is, can you give me an indication, or us an indication what other materials that are going to be sent to us? Because this is pretty voluminous stuff, and what else are you intending that we review? And when are we going to get it? MR. LAPPER-Before we answer that, I just have one question. Are we set on the parking issue that we’re going to stick with the nine by eighteen? Is that the consensus of the Board? MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-As we’ve sent them on their marching orders, I’m going to stick with what we did. MR. STARK-I’m fine with it. MRS. LABOMBARD-The same here. MR. PALING-I’m okay with it. MR. RUEL-Outvoted. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Now that we’ve settled that, what we will do next, we’ll talk to John about how many copies of the DEIS he wants us to submit to the Town, because as we start the public comment period, there have to be items available for the public to come in and review, in the Clerk’s Office or in the Planning Department. So we’ll be submitting by Federal Express in two days a whole bunch more copies than what the Town has, depending upon what you ask for. As Marc said, we now have the site plan completely done. It’s a preliminary site plan, and we will be submitting, I think, one copy tonight and then 10 copies tomorrow. Those are just the details, what Roger asked for, the grading and drainage plan, the landscaping plan, all of the details, that’s done now. That is all that we’re going to be submitting in addition to what you already have. MR. PALING-These are primarily prints that you are going to be submitting now, not verbiage? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RUEL-And the public will have whatever you present that evening, right? MR. LAPPER-Everything will be available in Town Hall for them to come and take a look at. If the Town wants copies so that people can borrow them for a day, I mean, that’s the protocol that the Town works out. MR. RUEL-Will this be indicated in the advertisement? MR. GORALSKI-Definitely. Yes, this has to be notified in the ENB and there’s all kinds of notifications that are required. MR. PALING-Okay. I haven’t got the letter in front of me. When is our next meeting with Newman Development? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would recommend that if you’re going to make a finding that this is complete, that you schedule a public hearing for October 28, 1997. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MR. PALING-Okay, and has it already been scheduled there? MR. GORALSKI-We have it tentatively listed on our agendas. We have not sent out all the notifications that are required. MR. RUEL-How many applications that night? MR. GORALSKI-We set it up so there was nothing too controversial. th MR. PALING-Okay. It looks like October 28 then. MR. GORALSKI-A small addition, garage addition on Assembly Point, and then this. MR. PALING-I don’t think the comment’s going to be from residents, people. It’s just going to be from businesses or environmental. MR. GORALSKI-I would say, yes. MR. PALING-That’s the kind of comment we’re going to get. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. All right. I think we have questioned and commented sufficiently, unless. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it’s complete. MR. MAC EWAN-Should we determine that these two correspondence be made part of the record? MR. GORALSKI-They will be made part of the public comment. MR. PALING-Part of the public comment, right. Okay. All right. Did you have any questions or comments to us? MR. LAPPER-What we’re hoping is that you will not only schedule the public hearing, but also set the public comment period which has to be for 30 days. That that would start perhaps th tomorrow and go for 30 days, of which the public hearing will be on the 28. MR. PALING-I see no problem with it, unless, as long as. MR. GORALSKI-Right. If you wish, you should pass a motion deeming the Draft Environmental Impact Statement complete for review, that the public comment period will begin tomorrow, which th is October 8, last for 30 days, and that a public hearing will be held on October 28, 1997 at 7 o’clock. MR. RUEL-What is setting the public comment period? MR. GORALSKI-The public comment period, by Statute, has to last for 30 days. MR. RUEL-Thirty days beyond what? MR. GORALSKI-Beyond tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Thirty days commensurate with the acceptance of the EIS. MR. GORALSKI-Thirty days from when you determine the public comment period to begin. MR. FRIEDLAND-It’s after 30 days from when you file the Notice of Completion. If it’s not filed until next week, it’s 30 days from whenever it’s filed. At a minimum, you could make it more than that if you want, but it has to be a minimum of 30 days. MR. LAPPER-It will be filed tomorrow. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/7/97) MOTION THAT THE NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, THAT THE BOARD SAYS IT IS COMPLETE AND READY FOR REVIEW, THAT THE STAFF SEND OUT NOTICE TH TO THE PUBLIC ON OCTOBER 8, AND THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE SET AT 30 DAYS FROM THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION, THE NEXT MEETING WITH NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT WITH A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 28, 1997 , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: th Duly adopted this 7 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr Ringer MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. NEWMAN-Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman 34