1998-07-28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 28, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT PALING
ROBERT VOLLARO
TIMOTHY BREWER
LARRY RINGER
GEORGE STARK
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
PLANNER-LAURA NOWICKI
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS;
SITE PLAN NO. 37-98 TYPE II HUGH SINCLAIR OWNER: SAME ZONE:
LI-1A LOCATION: 343 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A STOCKADE FENCE (6’) AT THE REAR OF GARAGE TO
SECURE VEHICLES. PER SECTION 179-74 FENCES IN INDUSTRIAL
ZONES REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: UV 7-1991, UV 126-1992, AV 118-1991, SP 41-92,
SP 55-92, SP 13-94, SP 19-94 , AV 36-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING:
7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 146-1-10 LOT SIZE: 22,500 SQ. FT. SECTION:
179-26
HUGH SINCLAIR
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-98, Hugh Sinclair, Meeting Date: July 28,
1998 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct a stockade
fence around a portion of the property located in the LI-1A zone. The fence will
secure an area for a company vehicle. Staff Comments: The proposed fence
meets the code requirement for height and placement of a stockade fence in a
LI-1A zone. The applicant was denied an area variance for setbacks for a
storage structure. The entrance to the enclosed area would force the applicant
to drive over the septic field. The Board may suggest an alternative access.
Staff has no additional comments.”
MS. NOWICKI-Warren County has “No County Impact”. The ZBA denied an
Area Variance, and I believe that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Good evening. Could you identify yourself just
for the record, please.
MR. SINCLAIR-I’m Hugh Sinclair.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you just want to install that stockade fence as illustrated
on your attached sketches?
MR. SINCLAIR-That’s correct.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that anything that you would like to add to what was read
into the minutes by the Staff?
MR. SINCLAIR-Well, perhaps the reasoning behind it. We need to have a
locked area. We’ve had our vans broken into four times in the years we’ve been
there, and there’s been several thousand dollars worth of damage. We feel like
if we put this fence, it’s going to be a deterrent to someone taking our mirrors
or front grill or whatever they need that week.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PALING-Well, I’d like comment in regard to the ZBA decision, and where
parking is before, and why it is the way it is now. I think that’s where we come
down on this.
MR. SINCLAIR-We feel that we can park our vehicles in a more organized
fashion by doing this. We’re going to clean up the fence line there and park the
vehicles at a diagonal. The way it is now, our vehicles are always in the way,
and every employee that comes in, it’s almost like we box each other in all the
time.
MR. PALING-Those vehicles are diagonal to the next property. When they go
out, which direction do they go in?
MR. SINCLAIR-They have to go back out onto Merritt Road.
MR. PALING-They’ve got to go back the way they came, and in a diagonal, in a
slanted parking spot?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. There’s enough room there to back out of there.
Somewhere along the years that we’ve been working on this project, they’ve
decided that we cannot go back out onto Corinth Road, from our property. So
there’s enough space there to back in toward the garage, or back out toward
Merritt Road.
MR. PALING-Well, if there’s enough space, then why are you angling the
parking spaces?
MR. SINCLAIR-Because the way the vehicles are parked now, it only gives us
about three or four parking spaces in the garage, when we have those vehicles
parked up in front of the garage. The way it is now, it’s really like, there’s an
area there probably 30 feet wide and maybe 30 feet long, and once you get
three or four cars in there, there’s no way for the next person to get out. Since
we can’t go back out onto the Corinth Road, a lot of times people are boxed in
there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would think, Bob, that this arrangement would be, from a
safety standpoint, better than what he current has or backing right out onto
Merritt Road.
MR. PALING-Well, I’m still having trouble with backing, you’re coming in at an
angle and backing out going in the same direction you came from. That makes
backing out pretty difficult if you’ve got a car on either side of you, and a leach
field behind you and a septic tank.
MR. SINCLAIR-I don’t think the septic tank’s ever going to be an issue, because
it’s right up next to the garage, where you’d have to run over the garage to hit
the, that could happen, though.
MR. PALING-Well, maybe your drawing is not to scale, but it doesn’t.
MR. SINCLAIR-And I don’t think they’re going to be.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. STARK-He’s got 28 feet there, Bob.
MR. PALING-He’s only got 18 to the leach field, though. He’s got 28 feet total
distance, but 18 of it to the leach field.
MR. SINCLAIR-Lets say, for example, if a person in Park Spot Number Five,
there, they come in and back out the way they came, and then before they get
to the Merritt Road, if they cut back toward the garage, then they can pull out
head first and look both ways before exiting the parking lot, and I think each
car will be that way. What we’re going to do is, the first person in is going to
take the furthest parking space, and the last person is going to take the first
parking space. My secretary and bookkeeper will be the last ones in in the
morning, and they’ll be the probably the first one to leave. So they’ll be able to
back around toward the garage area and pull out.
MR. PALING-We’ve got to bear in mind that you’re only asking to put a fence
up. Now what effect would your parking have along the trees that abut the
Batease property?
MR. SINCLAIR-It’s not going to have any, because we’re not going to cut down
any of the trees. It’s pretty barren where we’re at there. We’re not going to cut
any trees down.
MR. PALING-The cars won’t?
MR. SINCLAIR-No, sir. It just doesn’t look like it’s going to be any issue at all.
MR. PALING-Okay. The other question I had had to do with some debris that
you have on the property.
MR. SINCLAIR-There’s quite a bit there, and one of the things we were talking
about last week with the Board of Appeals is a lot of that stuff is building
materials that we were going to use in building that structure that we’re talking
about, and that’s one of the reasons for having the building also, is so some of
those items that have use can be put under cover.
MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all the questions I have for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got, a question for Staff was the parking modification to
his parking plan part of his ZBA application?
MS. NOWICKI-Not that I’m aware of.
MR. SINCLAIR-I don’t believe it is. I think the diagonal parking is just our idea
of one of the things we’re trying to improve around there. It’s just, it’s really a
pretty small area, and we’re trying to say, okay, if we park diagonally, we can
get our cars in there without it being such a, I mean, four to five o’clock, it’s
really hectic. If someone’s got you blocked in there, you ask for a ride home or
something.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Based on the fact that the ZBA denied the storage, you’ve got to
put another (lost words) fence, because you won’t have, how much of that 33
feet is still there, is there now?
MR. SINCLAIR-I believe all of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The fact that they denied the setback means that it was
there to begin with? When the ZBA heard your case, this whole storage piece
was here?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, sir.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, you want to put your gate, your locked gate, on the
south side of that building?
MR. SINCLAIR-I think we need to, because we can’t access it from the Corinth
side at all.
MR. VOLLARO-That means that you’ve got to constantly drive over the leach
field to get the vehicle that’s secured, in the secured area out of that area.
MR. SINCLAIR-Is there any way that we could put something down on the
ground, so it’s not going to be an effect on there?
MR. VOLLARO-If you spread the load of the vehicle across the PVC, what kind
of pipe do you have, do you know?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, I think it’s PVC.
MR. VOLLARO-If you spread the load, that probably would help a lot. Some
sort of, I don’t know what you could put.
MR. SINCLAIR-Metal. Would that help?
MR. VOLLARO-You’d have to something across, so when you drive across your
leach field, I mean it’s for your own benefit, you don’t destroy your field.
MR. BREWER-He’s not supposed to drive over that, is he?
MR. RINGER-To get into the area, he’s going to have to.
MR. VOLLARO-How else is he going to get out? He has a gate, he talked about
a locked gate right there, to get a vehicle out of that, he’s got to go across the
leach field.
MR. BREWER-I thought, isn’t there something, don’t we, typically when we
have a leach field under a parking lot or something like that have to have
special conditions?
MS. NOWICKI-I believe there are. It would be a Building Department issue for
driving over your leach field.
MR. BREWER-Some sort of a bearable structure, a surface over the top of it,
wouldn’t you?
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to do something, because if you load.
MR. BREWER-Exactly. I thought there were requirements.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you plan on doing anything with the parking area, or just
leave it grassed as it is?
MR. SINCLAIR-We haven’t really decided. We were going to kind of ask for
your suggestions. We can leave it grass, or we can put gravel on it, whatever,
but I think we could come up with an idea of where, if this is where we’re going
to be driving across this, that we could put down some kind of barrier that
would support the weight of it. Now, at one point I had some aluminum
aircraft landing material that would work really well. It would support two or
three vehicles on it, pretty easy. So, I mean, we could put down some kind of
metal plating or, we could put down something.
MR. VOLLARO-Tim has raised an issue of whether or not there’s something
that is specified, and I don’t know what that is.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. BREWER-I just remember in certain applications where an applicant
might put a septic system in the front under a parking lot, that there’s certain
requirements that we have.
MR. STARK-You’ve got to have an eight inch cap instead of a six inch cap, so
you can drive over it. That’s for the septic tank, and if you want to put your
drywells under paving, you’ve got to have an eight inch cap instead of a six
inch cap. That’s the only two I know of. I don’t know anything about leach
fields being under paving.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is this the existing leach field for the house?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-So it’s probably not PVC. It’s probably Orangeberg.
MR. SINCLAIR-Well, no, excuse me. We put it in brand new when we bought
that building, we put in all new, and had Frank Shaw put that in.
MR. PALING-Why are you not parking on the 64 foot side of the lot, on the west
side?
MR. SINCLAIR-Is that the Corinth side there?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, how would they get out?
MR. PALING-They’d just drive in, the same way they’re driving in now, except
instead of parking on the south side, they park on the west side, but seeing as
how you have quite a bit more frontage, then you could avoid going across the
leach field, and I would assume you could put the entrance, the locking gate,
on that same side also, and then you wouldn’t be bothered with the leach field
or the septic tank.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, now all the vehicles would be seen from Corinth
Road.
MR. PALING-I’d rather have it that way, Cathy, then have them driving across
the leach field and backing. I still don’t like the way the cars have to back out
of the opposite angle and go back where they came from. I would think on the
64 foot side, you could put the cars straight in. They could back straight out,
and put the stockade fence gate there also.
MR. SINCLAIR-I guess one of the issues I would see with that is, now we’ve got
to snow plow that whole field, just to be able to get the vehicles back out of
there.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Why can’t they just back out to the point where they get to
right in front of the garage and then just go out, and then just go out front
ways on to Merritt Road?
MR. SINCLAIR-That’s what I’m thinking, too, because nobody’s going to pull
out on that Merritt Road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, if you’re in here on a diagonal, instead of
pulling like this, just back out here, come like that, and then go.
MR. SINCLAIR-And I think that’s what this parking space is going to do for us,
by having it, is that will free that up, because there won’t be vehicles parked in
front of there all the time.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Because you’d still have 20 feet from the end of the
parking, each parking spot to the end of the leach field.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. PALING-No, you don’t have 20 feet.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Sure you do, 10 from here to here, and 10 from here to
here. You have 28 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re trying to help him out here, is the issue, I guess. What
provisions, this is for Staff, what provisions do we have in the Zoning
Ordinance for the leach field, you know, to be checked out or to get a sign off
from Building and Codes for him to drive over that thing?
MR. BREWER-“No component or leaching facility shall be located under
driveways, roads, parking areas, or areas subject to heavy loading, unless the
same has been approved by a New York State licensed engineer and specifically
designed for placement under driveways, roads, parking areas, or areas subject
to heavy loading. The foregoing shall not be interpreted to apply absorption
fields, which shall not be built under driveways, parts of buildings or
swimming pools or areas subject to heavy loading.”
MR. MAC EWAN-So it basically says that he’s got to get it signed off by a
professional engineer.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That answers that.
MR. SINCLAIR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lets deal with the fence. The fence situation you’re dealing
with, if you plan on having your gate on the south side, which would allow your
vehicles to drive over this leach field, you’re back to Square One again, because
you need to have a New York State P.E. review your septic field and your leach
field to assure that traffic going over that’s not going to affect it. So for us to
continue reviewing this, I would think, would be a moot point at this stage.
MS. NOWICKI-Can I interject? There’s a letter from Craig Brown to Mr.
Sinclair, in regards to the storage area. It requests that he remove the storage
building by August 21, which would leave him an opportunity to adjust his
st
stockade fence, the length of it and the location of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-The storage building you’re referring to that’s attached to the
office? Is that the building you’re referring to?
MS. NOWICKI-I believe so. That’s the one he’s requesting.
MR. BREWER-It says in the Zoning Board that one is there prior to approval,
that he built or something.
MR. SINCLAIR-Here’s what our plan is. We are going to resubmit that. We’ll
change the configuration of the building. My feeling is it probably would have
passed if I would have brought everybody that wanted that building to be built
in front of the Board, three of them were on the fence, and so we’re just going
to change it, and we’re going to get it submitted, so we don’t have to tear that
section down that we already have built there. So tomorrow by three o’clock,
we’re going to have a new proposal for the Zoning Board. So that building isn’t
going to come down, I hope.
MR. BREWER-And that would be what building on this map?
MR. SINCLAIR-It’s a little storage area on the front, when you come into Merritt
Road there. I think I have a picture here, Tim, of it.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is he talking about this one right here, that area? Well, that
one’s existing. That used to be the garage. Laura, could you clarify this for
us? Code Enforcement’s asking for what building to be taken down?
MS. NOWICKI-He’s going to demonstrate that. I don’t have the variance file in
front of me.
MR. SINCLAIR-This building right here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I see which one he’s doing. Okay.
MR. BREWER-How come it doesn’t show it on this?
MR. VOLLARO-This is this, and the center one is that, and that. Now are the
ones outlined in yellow, they’re up or not up?
MR. SINCLAIR-These are up. See, this is up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Just for the record, he’s referring to a 12 by 10 foot
addition to the existing storage building that would be on the southeast corner
of the building.
MR. PALING-You mean it’s south of the garage?
MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, it would be north of the garage. If you look at the
building that’s on this plan right here, that’s marked “storage”, and you see the
little denotation that says “breezeway” right there? If you look in the back
southeast corner of that, you’ll see a 12 foot measurement, and it’s 10 foot
wide, that’s the addition he’s talking about.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I see. Yes, right there.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re going to make another application to the ZBA, to see
if you can keep that portion of the building?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, and we’re going to change the other proposed building,
turn it a new direction, I guess.
MR. BREWER-Has there been any thought given to possibly moving the leach
fields to where this 64 foot setback the fence is, and then you wouldn’t have
the problem of worrying about driving over it. I don’t know which would be
less expensive, moving that or paying an engineer to design something and
then do the design.
MR. SINCLAIR-I guess I’m going to ask around and just see whether, if we put,
you know, if we put some kind of, I don’t know what you call it, some kind of
drive port over the top of it, or something that.
MR. BREWER-I don’t think you can just put anything down. I think it has to
be a design cover for that, so that if perhaps you have a truck coming and
delivers materials, that it’s a tractor trailer and he backs over it, he doesn’t
sink down into it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What you need to do, Hugh, is get it signed off on some sort of
a plan from a New York State licensed engineer, who says that this is the plan
that will solve the dilemma of someone falling through into your septic tank or
your leach field.
MR. BREWER-Explore your options, maybe re-design the leach fields to go
back where there’s not going to be any cars. That eliminates that problem of
having to design that and build it.
MR. SINCLAIR-What about the idea of changing where the gate is?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. BREWER-To where?
MR. SINCLAIR-Put it on the.
MR. PALING-West side.
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, put it on the side that faces Corinth Road. No?
MR. PALING-You have no room.
MRS. LABOMBARD-You can’t.
MR. SINCLAIR-I didn’t know how far those dotted lines go out there. So I didn’t
know if we could drive around the dotted lines there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, there’s that whole storage area in front of, that faces
Corinth Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the best idea is for you to come up, sit down with an
engineer or someone to come up with a plan that you think is going to be
doable for you for what your needs are going to be for what your expansion is
going to be, and to come back in front of the Board and present that plan to us,
and then in the meantime, you’re going to find out whether, you know, you’re
going to be on the agenda next month for the ZBA, and maybe you can kill two
birds with one stone.
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because we’re tossing a lot of ideas around here, but we’re not
making any headway, and I think that in order for us to know what kind of a
plan is the best way to approach this, is to know how safe your septic tank is
and your leach fields are, and what can be driven over them and what can’t be
driven over them.
MR. SINCLAIR-There could be some stipulation like our vans are not that
heavy. We’re never going to have a tractor trailer in there or anything like that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something that an engineer is going to be, a person
who’s going to be able to calculate and tell you that, that, yes, you can take up
to a four ton truck or anything over six ton you can’t put on it. I don’t know,
but you would need to have that information in front of us. Okay.
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled for tonight. I will open
up the public hearing, if anyone wants to come up and comment on this
project. What we’re going to do is leave the public hearing open until we get
some more information as to what the best approach on this site plan would
be. Does anyone want to come up and speak to this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, we’ll leave it open. Hugh, with your permission
we’re going to table this thing. Okay.
MR. SINCLAIR-All right. Thank you.
MS. NOWICKI-Craig, are you going to table for specific items?
MR. MAC EWAN-Really, the only thing that I can see, unless someone wants to
add to it, is that it needs to be, his proposed entrance into that fenced area
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
needs to be reviewed and approved by a New York State licensed for crossing
the septic fields.
MS. NOWICKI-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Are you tabling to a specific date, or to a date
undetermined?
MR. MAC EWAN-We can table it to the first meeting of next month, or the
second meeting of next month. You won’t get on the ZBA until next month,
right?
MS. NOWICKI-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-So lets table it until the second meeting of next month.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Is he going to come back with a revised plan to show everyone,
or have we got to save these?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. I think by then I could have the engineer give us an
answer what we’re going to do, and then have it drawn up.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-That would be a good idea. Does someone want to make a
motion?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 37-98 HUGH SINCLAIR, Introduced by
Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
With a resubmission of a revised plan, for the second meeting of August,
August 25, for the purpose of engineering review.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. SINCLAIR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
MR. MAC EWAN-If there’s anyone here for the Janet Ledford site plan, it’s not
on the agenda tonight.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s the one on Ash Drive.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 34-98 TYPE: UNLISTED FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT
OWNER: ANTHONY & MARY SUE FERRARO ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION:
RT. 9, JUST SOUTH OF CINEMAS APPLICANT PROPOSES
REFURBISHMENT OF GO-CART TRACK, NEW CART STORAGE BUILDING,
3 SMALL ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SKATING FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED
SITEWORK. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW
AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 26-
1998, AV 1230, AV 1124, SP 6-87, SP 14-93, NOT. OF APPEAL 3-98 & 4-98
BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/8/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/10/98
TAX MAP NO. 73-1-8.3 LOT SIZE: 3.224 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRSENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing, which was last month, June 23, we
rd
left it open.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 34-98, Ferraro Entertainment, Meeting Date:
July 28, 1998 “Description of Project: Site Plan 34-98 was tabled pending an
appeal of the Zoning Administrator determination, which was upheld by the
ZBA. The application will be reviewed by the Zoning Board for setback relief in
the HC-1A zone for construction of a go-cart facility.” And they did gain
approval from the ZBA. “Staff Comments: Staff would suggest the Board
review the planting plan with the applicant to determine feasibility, due to
recent modifications to site plan landscaping. A construction and planting
schedule would be useful for code enforcement. The applicant has indicated
no new parking is required, however, striping the parking area would assist in
traffic circulation. The application meets the code requirements for
permeability and type of use for the HC-1A zone. Staff has no additional
comments.”
MS. NOWICKI-From the ZBA, they received approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County Planning?
MS. NOWICKI-It doesn’t say they went to Warren County Planning.
MR. MAC EWAN-6/10/98. I hope they would have gone. It’s on the agenda.
MS. NOWICKI-Warren County Planning was approval, for a site plan review to
refurbish go-cart track, new cart storage building, three small additions to the
existing skating facility and associated site work.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and you also have a Rist-Frost letter?
MS. NOWICKI-Rist-Frost comments. “We have reviewed the additional
information and revised drawing submitted in response to a comment letter of
June 15, 1998. The responses are satisfactory except that the erosion control
barrier on the south side should be located outside of the grading limits, which
have been approved by the adjacent property owner. Please call if you have
any questions.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. O’CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen. I’m
Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the
applicant this evening. Basically, what we have is an existing use, where we
hope to refurbish our existing facilities and update the go-cart track. It’s not a
new use that we will be introducing to the property. We don’t expect any
increase in intensity of the use of the property. In fact, the go-cart track that
we are going to install is some 630 feet long, where the existing track is some
1,050 feet long. The proposed track is a little bit wider than the existing track.
We have submitted plans, which I think are quite detailed. We have been
before the ZBA to get the necessary variance from the Travel Corridor Overlay
requirement of 75 feet, and from the side line setback to allow the proposed
construction in the manner that we propose it. Just as background
information, we did try to lay the track out so that it feet long. The proposed
track is a little bit wider than the existing track. We have submitted plans,
which I think are quite detailed. We have been before the ZBA to get the
necessary variance from the Travel Corridor Overlay requirement of 75 feet,
and from the side line setback to allow the proposed construction in the
manner that we propose it. Just as background information, we did try to lay
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
the track out so that it would come into compliance with those setback
requirements, and we weren’t able to do so, because if we did, it would have
taken up a good part of our existing parking, and we would end up replacing
the parking right along Route 9, as opposed to keeping the parking back. This
is a seasonal operation. It probably runs at peak from Memorial Day through
Labor Day. Although it will begin in April and run into October, depending
upon the weather. A good portion of the premises is used year round, for the
skating facility that’s inside the building, and if we were to put our parking out
along Route 9, as opposed to where it presently is, people would have to walk
around the extension of the go-cart track to get to our facility. It really would
not make it very handy. We had some drawings that we submitted to the
Zoning Board of Appeals to indicate why we were having the placement that we
are having. We have gone to our immediate neighbors, and across the street is
the William Leonard Agency, and we have a letter from them, dated April 27.
th
“Dear Keith: Since my business is located across the street from yours, I have
had the pleasure of watching Skateland develop and grow over the years. I
would like to encourage you and your entire family for running such a fine
operation, and for being such good neighbors. I fully support your plans to
renovate the go-cart track. Best of Luck, Sincerely, “Bill” William P. Leonard”
The neighbor to the immediate south of the property is the Crist Family, or A-
2000, and they wrote a letter, June 23, “To Whom It May Concern: This letter
rd
is to state that A-2000 and the Crist Family support Skateland and their
expansion project of re-building the go-cart track, and can see no problem with
this project. Skateland has our permission to grade our land as needed to
accommodate this expansion. Sincerely, Keith Crist” I mentioned, that would
include, I also believe, placement of that erosion barrier that Rist-Frost has
indicated that they would like to have us place, and we have no problem with
doing that during the period of construction. We also have a letter from Ronald
Jeckel, who owns a piece that borders, in part, the southerly boundary. “To
Whom It May Concern: The undersigned owns property immediately south of
the property of Ferraro Skateland, along the southwesterly boundary of
Ferraro. The undersigned has no objection to the granting of the variance from
the front setback for a portion of the track. The undersigned has no objection
to recognizing the grandfathered zero side line setback as my property adjoins
the property of Ferraro.” And the last letter we have is from Edward T.
Gardner, who runs Lake George Campsite and RV Sales, behind our property,
or to the west of our property, and his letter indicates, “I’ve reviewed the site
plan for the proposed additions and alterations to Skateland as prepared by
Northfield Design and dated 5/26/98. I have no objection to the plan as
proposed, and encourage approval by the Town of Queensbury. Edward T.
Gardner”, and I think as we are at the end of our hearing process, I will submit
these letters for your record, because your process, I think, will be our last
step, I hope. The Gardner letter, I’d note, refers to plans dated May 26. The
th
plans that are before you are dated a little bit later than that, and they simply
have been updated or revised to reflect different additions that Rist-Frost
wanted, but they are, in essence, the same plan that we had. The proposal, as
I indicated, is to refurbish the existing go cart track, which is shown in this
area right here. There is also the request for approval for site plan for the
construction of the storage area, or the storage building for the go-carts. Right
now there’s a small building right here which would be replaced by this
building here. The go-carts will, when not in use, be stored within that
building. It is also part of the pit area. There are three small additions that
we’ll make to the existing building. The first one is in this area here, which is
in the back of the area that is used for the kitchen, for the snack bar that’s
within the facility. It would be an enlargement of that kitchen area, to simply
better accommodate the equipment that they presently use. The second
addition will be to the back of what is the snack area of the existing building,
and that will simply be to better arrange some of the seating so that they can
have more privacy in some of their parties that they have within the facility.
The third addition is going to be the repair shop for the go-carts, and also there
will be an area back in here where we will have our gasoline so we can fuel the
go-carts. In addition to the main track, there will be a kiddie cart track which
will be right here. This layout that we propose will greatly increase the
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
efficiency of the facility, and even the safety of the people. Right now, the go-
cart track, kiddie cart, is way up in the front here. People come to the building
and pay, and then as kids will be, they run down through the area adjacent to
the parking.
MR. BREWER-Can I just ask one question before you go on? Why would you
keep the gas so far away, Mike, right up against that building?
MR. O’CONNOR-It would be away from all the people, all the traffic of the
people, and we can load and unload the facility from, on this end of the
building. It will keep us out of the parking lot on the occasional time when
somebody’s there, giving us gas, and I don’t even know the frequency of that,
Keith. How often do they deliver gas to you?
KEITH FERRARO
MR. FERRARO-About every three weeks.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
MR. BREWER-So you’re keeping a good quantity of gas, then, or how much?
MR. O’CONNOR-How big a storage tank?
MR. FERRARO-It’s a 500 gallon tank. My name is Keith Ferraro.
MR. BREWER-Is that in an explosion proof tank or whatever? Does Kip have to
inspect that, Chris?
MR. O’CONNOR-He will, and it will be a permitted.
MR. ROUND-Is that an above ground or below ground tank? I’m sorry.
MR. FERRARO-It’s an above ground tank. I’ve already talked to Kip for the
requirements of the tank. It will have a moat, which will contain the gas, if
there were to be a spill.
MR. BREWER-Okay. That was my only concern.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I think as a new facility, it will have to fully comply. As
I said, this increase or improves the efficiency of our traffic pattern and our
traffic flow. All the customers will now come through the building and come
out through a door here, and either go to the kiddie cart or go to the waiting
area for the main track itself. The track itself will be an improvement over the
existing track. It’ll be a concrete surface, and I guess I understand that the
beauty of that is that cars, when they get close to each other on the concrete
track, separate better. They don’t have the same friction or the same traction,
apparently, as they do on the asphalt. So it makes it a safer type track. There
will be cars, slightly bigger than the present cars, on here. Again, a safety
feature. The cars will have a bumper, a plastic bumper around the entire
track, or the entire car, a safety feature that we don’t presently have right now.
There also will be a better bumper system around the track than what is
presently there. There will be a curbing on the outside of the track area. There
will be tires, side by side, for the full length of the track, and there will be a rail
inside the track. The rail will have a plastic bumper on the inside of it.
Presently, there’s a metal bumper on the inside of it. So there’d be less noise
out of this particular operation than the present operation. The manufacturer’s
information on the cars indicates that there’ll be a slight decrease in the decibel
levels of the existing cars. So we’re not introducing something new to the
neighborhood or to the adjoining property owners who have indicated that they
have no problem, or they have no problem with our proposal, and I think by
assumption have no problem with our existing operation. We will have, we
believe, 76 decibel output at 7 meters from the cars. Presently, we have 78.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
We will use a muffler system on the cars that will improve that, and get it to the
76 decibels.
MR. PALING-A question, please. Are you saying having all new cars?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay, and they’re going to be muffled?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. PALING-Will the exhaust be directed down from the engine?
MR. FERRARO-Yes, it will.
MR. PALING-It’s going to have a down pipe. Thank you.
MR. O’CONNOR-The muffler system that we talk about is a silent muffler, silent
A/C, and that is where we have it the seven meters, a decibel rating of 76, and
I can submit that as the specifications for the vehicle that we’ll use, or the
muffler system that we will use.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s just empirical data. That’s not something you’re going to
measure in the field?
MR. O’CONNOR-This is from the manufacturer at this point, comparing one
model to the other model. We don’t anticipate anything that would not make
that applicable, though. Hours of operation are not going to change from what
the present hours of operation are, 10 am to midnight, and as I indicated, the
peak period is Memorial Day to Labor Day. The (lost word) season begins April
1 and ends toward the end of October. I think we’ve talked about the barrier
st
system. The pit areas are a little different than the present pit areas, if you
will. While people are being loaded in the cars and whatnot, they will be in the
pit areas. When they leave the pit areas, there will bars that go across the pit
areas. Presently, there are like tires, I think, that are placed out there.
Pardon, it’s open, and people will not be able to get off the track and get into
the pit area. These cars also will be equipped with a shut off system that can
be remotely operated. So that if an operator of a car does get in some kind of
trouble and gets out of line or whatnot on the track, presently there’s help that
runs out and assists those people, with the other cars not necessarily always
slowing down for them. All the cars will be slowed down until that car gets
back into the proper sequence, and the same thing is that there will be an
automatic shutdown on the cars now when they enter the pit area, as opposed
to the operator having control of the car, once it operates, or once it comes into
the pit area, and that’s basically, I guess I would comment on Staff Comments
where they ask about the planting plan, and ask you to determine the
feasibility of the planting plan with the applicant. We did submit a planting
plan to the Beautification Committee, and we have a stamped copy of that here.
It was approved by them on 6/8/98, and it had details as to the number of
species and types of species that would be installed on the property. That’s
shown as a cut out on the mapping that as a cut out on the mapping that you
have, the planting itself, but it’s shown, maybe not with the same detail that’s
here, and I will submit this as part of the record. As to the question on
striping, Keith tells me that the parking lot presently is striped, and he is
satisfied that he doesn’t have a problem with the existing parking, and we
really don’t think that we’re going to change the impact or the requirements of
parking on site, and when I talked to Laura, I think she thought, visited the
site maybe after the comments, or maybe before the comments, I’m not sure,
and thought the striping had faded, or was faded.
MS. NOWICKI-They’re not as clearly identified as maybe they could be, but I
don’t see that as an issue. It was just a comment that it’s faintly striped, and
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
currently I don’t see any traffic circulation problems on the site. It was just an
extra comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you satisfied with the Beautification?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STARK-When we were up there, we were commenting on how nice
Skateland keeps their property, spotless. You’re to be commended.
MR. PALING-I have one area of question. Getting on and off of Route 9 can
sometimes be a real challenge. Do you plan to stripe or arrow the entrances
and exits, making it obvious that people should use one or the other for exiting
or entering and so on? In other words, I’d like to see some yellow arrows or
white arrows, big ones, that you can paint on the asphalt.
MR. FERRARO-We’ve tried those in the past, without much success, and we
even had some big “Do Not Enters” and some “One Way” signs that you see on
the highway, which didn’t help much. We’re going to try the more, like you see
with the restaurants, the shorter “enters” and “exits”. We’re going to try those,
you know, along with this proposal, to see if that doesn’t help it. It’s more an
eye level, versus being up higher. People might respond to those better, but we
have tried the arrows on the pavement, without much success, and the other
bigger signs which would be up higher.
MR. PALING-Are you saying a sign now?
MR. FERRARO-Yes, “Enter”, and it has a little arrow on it, and “Exit”, as well.
MR. PALING-I notice that Martha’s and Nobles have gone to distinct yellow, big,
wide things. I know the others can get abused, but that seemed to be good,
but you’re going to actually have a sign that says “Enter” or “Exit”, whatever it’s
going to be? Will it be on the island or what?
MR. FERRARO-Yes, on either side of the island. It’s more similar to what the
restaurants do, like McDonalds and Taco Bell. They have the little signs.
MRS. LABOMBARD-See, you know what happened, when I was driving, I went
back out the entrance, because it’s so wide, but I just stayed on the right hand
side, and, I mean, it really was okay. There was no, well, I had a van full of
you guys, so they gave me a tough time, but it was really not, I don’t think it
was that unsafe.
MR. PALING-I’d just like to encourage the identification of the exits and
entrances and where they should be, as much as you can, whether it’s signs or
arrows or both.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Bob?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone wanting to
comment to this application may certainly come on up and address the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. It’s Unlisted, so it’s going to be
Short.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 34-98, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for
its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and
Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department
of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of
Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining
whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is
set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about
to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental
effect
and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute
and
sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer,
Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-98 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George
Stark:
In accordance with the resolution as written by Staff.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 34-98
FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT for refurbishment of go-cart track. New cart
storage building, 3 small additions to existing skating facility and associated
sitework.; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/29/98, consists of the
following:
1. Application
2. Maps - Topographic map dated 4/28/98, S1 dated 5/26/98
3. Map - dated 6/5/98
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 7/28/98 - Staff Notes
2. 7/23/98 - ZBA resolution
3. 6/29/98 - Meeting notice for July mtgs.
4. 6/23/98 - Staff Notes
5. 6/17/98 - Zoning Board of Appeals resolution
6. 6/16/98 - Notice of Public Hearing
7. 6/15/98 - Rist Frost comments
8. 6/10/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution
9. 6/4/98 - Meeting notice for June mtgs.
10. 5/22/98 - Letter to M. O’Connor from C. Round
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/23/98 and 7/28/98 concerning the
above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with
the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found
in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered; and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to
APPROVE Site Plan No. 34-98 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT.
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan
to the Zoning Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
7. Engineering Fees to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. I’ve got three things I want to add to it. In
addition, the applicable review and permitting by the Fire Marshal for your gas
storage facilities, whatever he needs to do.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think that’s required by law.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I just want to make it part of the approval, that’s all.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. O’CONNOR-I would, if it’s not necessary to be part of the approval, I’d
rather not have it, because then we get into conditions, and I can’t get that CO
without his stamp of approval.
MR. BREWER-He can’t operate without that anyway, right? If that’s part of the
law.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t understand what the problem is. If it’s something that
we’re ensuring, to make sure that it’s going to be in compliance with all the
necessary zoning ordinances and codes of the State, and the Fire Marshal is
going to sign off on it, what’s the problem?
MR. O’CONNOR-I’d just as soon not have any conditions on the approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d prefer to have it in, actually. The public comment letters
that you have there, that you wanted to give to Staff, from your neighbors
there.
MR. O’CONNOR-We have done that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and the manufacturer’s spec sheet. I’ll put it up to the
rest of the Board. I’d like that condition in there. How does everybody else feel
about it?
MR. BREWER-Either way, it’s fine.
MR. RINGER-Either way.
MR. VOLLARO-I have no feelings either way.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, if they already have a gas tank there, that’s fine, and
now they’re just, they’re putting a new tank in. I mean, they can’t put a new
tank in unless there are certain stipulations that have to be followed. So why
should we have to be redundant?
MR. PALING-I have no problem with redundancy.
MR. STARK-Kip has to sign off on it anyway. I don’t think it’s necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The Board wants to delete it. So we’ll delete that one
item.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to just deviate from the agenda. We’re going to do
the Hudson Pointe Modification while you’re right here.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I appreciate that.
MODIFICATION TO HUDSON POINTE PUD
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you, Laura, give us some quick Staff background.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. ROUND-I’ll give it, Laura.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay.
MR. ROUND-It’s my understanding, this was a part of a subdivision approval,
5-1995, which Niagara Mohawk gave Open Space Institute lands prior to
development of Hudson Pointe, and this is requesting a small modification of
lot, normally, if it wasn’t subject to a previous Planning Board approval, we
could do it administratively. It would have been just in a lot line adjustment,
and for record keeping purposes and compliance with our Reg, it requires that
you review this, and I think Mr. O’Connor can present the purpose of the
modification. Basically, there’s a small plot of land that Open Space is going to
give back to Niagara Mohawk.
MR. O’CONNOR-My understanding of this is that this is to comply with their
internal safety requirements, when they actually figured out where the fence
was and everything else, it was too close to their facilities. So they made this
agreement to change the boundary line, and in essence, Open Space Institute
will deed back to Niagara Mohawk .53 of an acre, a little bit more than a half
an acre. Beyond that, and I think toward the river, they will also make an
internal boundary line continued, and that’s a piece that ultimately will go to
the Town. This is part of a review that was done for the changing of the FERC
line. The Federal Energy, I’m not even sure what FERC stands for, but it is not
going to change in any manner, the utilization to any significant degree of the
two parcels.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any comments up here on the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-Did you say something about deeding a piece back to the, the
Town is going to take on a piece of land?
MR. O’CONNOR-No. The Open Space Institute is going to deed the land back
to Niagara Mohawk.
MR. VOLLARO-To Niagara Mohawk, but you said something about where the
dotted line continues might go over to the Town?
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. The dotted line continued is a separate agreement
outside of the PUD, where the Town and Niagara Mohawk have an agreement
as to exchange of lands, unrelated.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That does not impact this particular?
MR. O’CONNOR-It doesn’t. I didn’t mean to confuse the issue.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think I wrote a letter, if you have a letter February 2, which
nd
explained, back then, exactly what was going on, and I talked about it going
from the zero width to 100, but when the actual map arrived, it showed that
the parcel that we’re talking about is 38 feet to 137 feet, if you look at the two
ends of the piece.
MR. VOLLARO-The only letter I have is February 2, but that letter doesn’t talk
nd
about detail at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments, questions? Does someone want
to introduce a resolution?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. HUDSON POINTE PUD, Introduced
by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George
Stark:
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
Resolution that has to do with the transfer of the .53 acres back to their
original owners, Niagara Mohawk, from the Open Space Institute, and the
Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the Site
Plan or Subdivision Modification, and further finds that there is no sufficient
change to the original SEQRA findings, as in the prepared resolution.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. modification
to Hudson Pointe PUD for transfer of land back to the original owners - Niagara
Mohawk; and
Whereas, the above referenced request received 2/6/98, consists of the
following:
1. 2/6/98 - Letter w/map to Planning Dept. from M. O’Connor
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 7/21/98 - Memo to Planning Bd. from C. Round
Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with
the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found
in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered; and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to
APPROVE Site Plan No. Modification to HUDSON POINTE PUD.
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan
to the Zoning Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you, again.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 41-98 TYPE: UNLISTED THE WOOD CARTE, INC.
OWNER: CHRIS, KELLY AND LINDSEY CARTE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION:
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
RT. 9 NORTH FROM AVIATION ROAD, LOCATED ON LEFT ACROSS FROM
SUTTONS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO
EXISTING FURNITURE STORE. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 41-1998 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/6/98 WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-8.2, 8.4 LOT SIZE: 1.39
ACRES SECTION: 179-23
JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-98, The Wood Carte, Inc., Meeting Date:
July 28, 1998 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct an
addition on to a non-conforming structure in the HC-1A zone. The addition
would be used for display and storage. Staff Comments: The applicant met
with staff prior to submission. We discussed landscaping, outside display
area, parking layout, traffic circulation, and the extent of addition. The
applicant has received an area variance for setback relief and amount of
parking required. The applicant addressed staff concerns on landscaping,
parking location and traffic circulation. Staff would recommend striping and
arrows designating access points. Staff has no additional comments.”
MR. MAC EWAN-County Planning?
MS. NOWICKI-“No County Impact”.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rist-Frost comments?
MS. NOWICKI-“We have reviewed the documents forwarded to us with the
above referenced application and have the following comment: The applicant
proposes to provide 43 parking spaces versus the required 127. Applicant is
pursuing a variance for this?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and I’m
here with Jim Miller, from Miller Associates, and our client, Chris Carte, one of
the owners of The Wood Carte, Inc. is here with us to answer questions, as
well. We have been before the Zoning Board, earlier this month, and they
unanimously approved our request for a variance. Essentially, what the
proposal is, is to add an addition to the building that doesn’t change any of the
setbacks from what’s there now. It uses existing impervious paved area to add
the 7,000 story, approximately 7,000 square foot building on two stories, so a
footprint of approximately 3500 square feet, and we viewed this as an
opportunity, because it’s a tight site, to make some improvements at the road,
in terms of landscaping and in terms of parking, that would clean up the site,
as it’s viewed in the travel corridor and from the neighbors, and that’s been
well received. We were approved unanimously by the Zoning Board and
County Planning liked it as well, and we’re here to talk to you about site plan
issues. I think we’ll start out with Jim just walking you through the site, and
then answer questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. MILLER-Thank you. Good evening. One of the reasons we went for the
variance is, as you can see, the property is a very deep, “L” shaped property,
and the existing building follows that same configuration. At one point, these
were in one ownership, and this was subdivided out. The main showroom now
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
is this front portion, and the entire rear section is used for storage. Being a
furniture store, requiring a lot of display space and storage area/warehouse
space, they propose to essentially fill in a portion of this recess in the building.
This would be a two story addition. The lower level would be an increase of,
the front portion it would be showroom. There’d be a new doorway off of there
to facilitate pick ups, pieces of furniture. Now a lot of that happens out in
front, especially larger pieces, so there’d be a covered doorway, and also some
additional storage/warehouse space. The second floor would be entirely used
for warehousing, smaller pieces, smaller tables, chairs, that type of thing. The
building will be no higher than the existing building. If you’re familiar with this
building, it’s a flat roof, high bay building. This would continue at the same
roof line down the entire back. The main loading door is in this back corner,
primarily used by a 25 foot van that the Wood Carte owns, and there’s
occasional deliveries for tractor trailers, which come in, back to the door, turn
around and exit, and the addition will not impact that circulation. As part of
this addition, the service dock would also be covered. One of the things we
also indicated, DOT has an approved plan to make improvements and add
sidewalks along this, actually both sides of Route 9 and this area. Right now
there’s an existing brick island that according to the preliminary plans that
have been released by DOT, there will be a sidewalk added along the inside,
and a curb along that area, and we included that on the plan, just to show
how, when that improvement does occur, how that’ll work with the plan. Right
now, we have a couple of parking spaces that go that way which, when they
put that sidewalk in, they would essentially lose. As far as parking, one of the
variances was for 42 cars, which we can provide. Obviously, a furniture store,
we don’t need one car per 100 square feet. Right now there’s nine spaces in
the front of the store, and four along the side. This large area in the back is
used by employees and it’s available for overflow, which almost never occurs.
One of the things that happens in the renovation of the building, one of the
doorways along here will be, along the side will be improved and utilized, in
addition to a customer door to the showroom in the back. As part of the
improvements, this will have to have a canopy over the top of it to meet the
codes for a fire door. So we’ve moved the parking against this building. So we
would still be able to maintain nine cars in the front, and another additional
striped customer cars along the side to 18. Now there’s only 13 striped
customer cars, and what we do with the employees would now park here,
would park to the rear, still allowing us plenty of overflow area for customer
parking. As part of what Jon was saying, what we tried to do in the front,
right now there’s a timber island, a sign in the front that’s kind of in the way.
What we’ve proposed doing is moving that sign further back, having a
freestanding sign, keeping it 15 feet off of the side property line, but removing
some pavement in this corner. So we could have a planted area which that
sign would be freestanding in, and that would allow us parking on both sides,
keeping the nine cars, matching the nine cars that are there now. In addition,
what we’ve been able to do, by moving the parking along the building, we can
remove some parking along the side of the building, and creating some
additional green space along the side, which will also help from Route 9 to
screen some views down along that parking area. We’ve actually been able to
increase the green space by a percent by removing some of that pavement, and
we tried to do it in the front, where it would have the most impact. The
awnings and the coverings on the building will be dark green, similar to what’s
in the front. As far as the drainage right now, all the drainage primarily goes to
a drywell, and the pavement, which actually accommodates both properties
since they were one. The new addition will pitch the opposite direction, onto
the roof which drains to the south, and to accommodate the additional
drainage, there’ll be a stone trench drain installed along that portion of the
property. Percolation tests were conducted out there. It’s good sandy soil. So
the intent is to take that drainage back and percolate it into the ground.
Actually, there’s a mound along that whole property. So water is contained
along there anyway. So we’re really not impacting the drainage off site. Where
the addition goes, also, right now there’s a septic tank and we believe some
drywells under there, and the sewage disposal system would have to be
reconstructed. This was a discussion that went on earlier. If you’re putting a
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
system underneath pavement, you have to have a septic tank with a highway
cover on it, and you have to go to drywell seepage pits. You cannot use an
absorption field. So that’s what we’ve proposed is two drywells and a septic
tank located in the paved area, and this will be submitted to the Building
Department for approval.
MR. VOLLARO-On the two seepage pits that are on the west side of the
property, are they going to be constructed for loads?
MR. MILLER-Yes. What they are, they’re a pre-cast concrete drywell structure,
and then they have an eight inch thick reinforced concrete cover, strong
enough to support highway loading.
MR. VOLLARO-The covers that drain?
MR. MILLER-Yes. They’ll have a solid manhole cover for access.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-You kept referring to nine parking spots in the front. I keep
counting eight. Where am I missing one?
MR. MILLER-We have three on the side, then you’ve got six along the front.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a State right-of-way line that goes right through one of
them.
MR. LAPPER-One of the spaces, that is in the right-of-way. That’s where the
park now.
MR. BREWER-The spaces that you have to show in the back, are they going to
be striped?
MR. MILLER-What we’ve proposed doing is striping the front and the side, but
the ones in the back, since it’s just overflow, not striping it. One of the other
things that would be confusing is, you see that island that’s in the middle
there. That’s really off our property. The striping would end up sort of floating
out in the middle of the asphalt, and we think it would be just kind of
confusing for the amount of times it would be used. So what we’re
recommending is the primary spots and the handicapped accessible spot be
striped, and then the back, just have it available for the overflow.
MR. BREWER-That’s fine with me. My only point would be is you’ve
demonstrated there is room, don’t bother striping it.
MR. MILLER-That’s what we intended to do.
MR. BREWER-Or doing anything with it for that matter, really.
MR. MILLER-Yes. We just showed the striping there to show the capacity.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Is there anything else you want to add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment
regarding this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA, Short.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 41-98, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for
its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
THE WOOD CARTE, INC., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and
Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department
of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of
Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining
whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is
set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about
to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental
effect
and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute
and
sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark,
Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-98 THE WOOD CARTE, INC.,
Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George
Stark:
As called for in the prepared resolution, that the plan submitted on 6/24/98
indicate that they were approved for 42 parking spaces, which removes the one
in the DOT.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 41-98 to
construct an addition to existing furniture store; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/24/98, consists of the
following:
1. Application w/map
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 7/28/98 - Staff Notes
2. 7/15/98 - ZBA resolution
3. 7/14/98 - Rist Frost comments
4. 7/8/98 -Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 7/28/98 concerning the above project;
and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with
the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found
in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered; and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to
APPROVE Site Plan No. 41-98, THE WOOD CARTE, INC.
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan
to the Zoning Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-I’d just like to clarify one point. What came up at the Zoning
Board was that at some point in the future, we may be asked to remove that
space, because it’s half in the right of way. So it’s not that it can’t be built. It’s
just that the variance doesn’t require it. So that The Wood Carte could go to 42
spaces if it didn’t have that available, but it will be installed when the project is
built.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s happened to a few site plans along that corridor. Okay.
Good.
OLD BUSINESS:
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 TYPE I MODIFICATION NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT
GROUP OF QUEENSBURY OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION:
CORNER OF QUAKER & BAY MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN -
MODIFICATION IS TO REPLACE THE APPROVED 12,000 SQ. FT.
FREESTANDING COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A 5,000 SQ. FT.
RESTAURANT BUILDING. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/6/98 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, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-97 Modification, Newman Development,
Meeting Date: July 28, 1998 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes
to modify Site Plan 29-97 - Lowe’s Home Improvement Center, specifically the
lease space. The space would be used for a restaurant instead of retail space.
Staff Comments: The proposed project complies with the site plan review
requirements. The applicant has provided photographs showing landscaping,
dumpster, and wall signs. The project has provided sufficient parking,
calculated by number of seats. The Board has the discretion to reduce the
number of spaces provided since there is adequate space to provide the
required amount. All deliveries will occur at the back of the building at off
hours with a small truck. The applicant has indicated that the Bus pathway
will not change from its current course, unloading and loading at the customer
entrance to the Lowe’s building. The Board may consider having AGFTC
suggest a Bus pathway that would include the proposed restaurant.”
MS. NOWICKI-I’ll read the Town of Queensbury Department of Wastewater.
“The Newman Development Group of Queensbury has proposed to modify the
site plan for the Lowe’s Home Improvement Center. The modification will
replace the 12,000 sq. ft. commercial building with a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant.
If approved, the design of the restaurant should include two (2) 1,200 gallon
pre-cast concrete exterior grease traps. I will furnish additional information on
grease trap specifications upon request.” Would you like me to read
Beautification Committee comments?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that would be fine.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “Lowe’s Warehouse - Letter dated 6/24/98 to C.
MacEwan, Chairman, Town of Queensbury Planning Board from Jonathan C.
Lapper states modification of proposed building (4,997 sq. ft.) to be occupied
by Applebees Restaurant. No one representing business appeared before
Committee. 1. Committee assumes all planting specified originally presented
and approved at previous meeting of Newman Dev. Group will be completed
without substitution and prior to Certificate of Occupancy being issued. 2.
Committee recommends dumpster be installed behind 8 ft. tall masonry walls
and aesthetically planted to screen view from Quaker Road per original plan.
3. Committee could not determine if there would be any sign installed on
Quaker or Bay Roads for proposed restaurant. If a sign(s) will be installed,
Committee recommends Planning Board ensure it be planted with low bushes,
perennials and seasonal annuals, glare free lighting, if planted around sign. 4.
Committee recommends sprinkler system be installed or watering maintenance
program in addition to lawn care maintenance service be contracted to ensure
proposed plantings be properly maintained. Motion made by Mrs. Reese,
seconded by Ms. Dougherty”
MR. PALING-A question, Laura. Is that a Lowe’s thing that you just read?
MS. NOWICKI-I don’t understand your question.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. PALING-I thought when you started off, you said Lowe’s.
MS. NOWICKI-When Lowe’s went in, they submitted a landscape plan.
MR. PALING-Okay, but this is for Applebee’s?
MS. NOWICKI-Correct.
MR. PALING-It has nothing to do with, not nothing to do, but.
MR. LAPPER-This is an out parcel on the same piece of property.
MR. PALING-Okay. I understand that, but I thought she was saying this is a
Lowe’s thing. This isn’t. It’s an Applebee thing. Okay.
MS. NOWICKI-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper, on behalf of the
applicant. Just to explain, when we went through the SEQRA and the site plan
approvals for this site, the developer had not specified what the tenant on the
out parcel would be, because they didn’t have a lease at that point. They were
in discussions with the tire, battery and automobile accessories store, which is
what they anticipated, and for that reason, we had approved with a 12,000
square foot building footprint. I think that what is proposed as a restaurant,
beside the fact that it’s only 4700 square feet, that it’s much more attractive, as
a use that would be sitting in the front of that site, more visible to the road
than a tire and battery store. So the applicant is very pleased that they were
able to get this lease. I view this a minor modification of the site plan with no
environmental impact different from what was approved in the SEQRA review
for the whole site, because it is a significantly smaller building, in the exact
same location on the site, and in the Environmental Impact Statement, it was
never specified what the use would be, other than it would comply with the
Highway Commercial zoning, because there was no lease and there was no
tenant identified at that time. As you know, the Lowe’s store is nearly
complete. I think that the date to turn it over to the tenant for the interior fit
up is August 15. So by signing this lease now and coming before you for this
th
modification, it allows the construction crew to remain on site, which is most
efficient, and just immediately start building the restaurant. The Staff
identified a number of issues, in addition to what the Beautification, mostly
what the Beautification Committee had asked, and then some additional
questions, and I submitted some photographs. I don’t know if they were in
your packet, okay. That details what the landscaping will be around the site.
What’s going to be built is exactly what is pictured, which is what they’ve built
at their site in Vestal, New York. You can see that the trash compactor is
nicely screened, and the shrubs are shown. Lets see. In terms of signage, the
Applebee’s is allowed a freestanding sign and a sign on the building. What
we’re proposing is to put the freestanding sign on the same pylon where the
Lowe’s sign is, at the corner of Quaker and Bay. In terms of the building
facade itself, as you can see from the pictures, like most retailers and
restaurants, Applebee’s standard signs doesn’t comply with the Queensbury
Code. They typically have three signs which add up to considerably less
square footage than what Queensbury allows, but only one sign is permitted.
So I will be submitting a variance application to the Zoning Board, and we
don’t know where that’s going to go because you never know where signs are
going to go, but what is shown is what they would like, which is the smaller
square footage, but just in three small signs rather than one big sign, and
that’s not an issue that’s before the Planning Board. There is one other issue,
and I have another handout. This just came up this week, after I had
submitted. If you look on the site, there is identified now a small retaining wall
at the edge, where the concrete curb would be, at the southeast corner of this
site, and when C.T. Male did their engineering review, they determined that the
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
only difference in what we proposed originally and what we propose now is that
it would have required some grading into the area that is closer to the stream
corridor than what we had proposed on the original Lowe’s project, and in
order to avoid that, what’s proposed is a two foot retaining wall right along the
edge, so it would be exactly where the concrete curb would be, but it holds
back the dirt, and avoids having to do any grading closer to the stream corridor
than what was already approved by DEC and by the Planning Board as lead
agency for the SEQRA review, and that’s something that I didn’t know about
when I submitted.
MR. BREWER-How could you put the 12,000 square foot building there
without the retaining wall, but a 4700 square foot building you can’t?
MR. LAPPER-Because it was only generically designed with the 12,000 square
foot. So that nobody really looked at that edge of pavement, in terms of the
grade.
MR. BREWER-And you couldn’t move that back any at all?
MR. LAPPER-No, not and fit the required spaces, but it doesn’t, and partly just
because of the shape of the building, but it has no impact whatsoever by,
because you would have had a concrete curb. The way the whole drainage on
this project works, everything is curbed so that it takes the drainage away from
the stream corridor.
MR. BREWER-Has our engineer looked at this?
MR. LAPPER-Not the retaining wall, because that wasn’t there. Because I only
got this today.
MR. BREWER-Then we should probably send it our engineer to get his
comment before, well, I mean, we could approve it.
MR. LAPPER-If that could be approved, subject to that, because they’d like to
get started this month without having to come back, but that certainly makes
sense to have the engineer take a look at it, as condition.
MR. BREWER-Yes. I’d feel better if the engineer looked at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you illustrate for me up there what the circulation is
through that restaurant to the parking lot? How does traffic flow through it?
MR. LAPPER-Exactly the same as what the tire and battery would have been,
because no changes were made on the exterior of this site. You come across
the bridge, from the south, and if you’re going to the restaurant, there’s either
a, there’s a right in to the restaurant, or you can go straight and come behind
the restaurant, which hooks up with the outer ring road to the Lowe’s, and you
can enter the site coming from the north.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do you get out?
MR. LAPPER-There’s access from the restaurant to both. The sites are
completely connected. So you’ll have access to Glenwood Avenue entrance or
to the bridge.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do you get out of the restaurant, though? What I’m
looking for is I don’t see arrows showing you the flow of traffic out of the
restaurant site.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not like the Red Lobster, where it’s only one way. So that you
can go, the arrow in is not a restricted. Let me re-phrase that. The arrow, it’s
in only, down at the bottom, but it’s not in only at the top, and the arrow at the
top is misleading, because that’s not one way. It goes both ways.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. VOLLARO-After the stop sign, then you go into that curbed area?
MR. LAPPER-After the stop sign, there’s a two way road.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s two way there where your finger is?
MR. LAPPER-That’s two way, yes, and that complies width wise with the Town
requirements.
MR. PALING-Do the same thing for a bus, and show me where the bus is
parked and how the people get to the restaurant.
MR. LAPPER-When we added a bus parking at the main entrance, that was as
part of your approval last time. We’re not proposing that the bus would come
to the restaurant. So that if somebody, and what was anticipated last time was
that the bus would go to the front and go around the building, and exit here.
MR. PALING-Okay. I’m not so much concerned with the circulation as I am
with people having to walk across the parking lot to get to the restaurant.
MR. LAPPER-But people are going to be walking across the parking lot if they
park here anyway. I mean, that’s not anything different.
MR. PALING-Why can’t you unload closer to the restaurant?
MR. LAPPER-Because, for a 5,000 square foot restaurant, it just doesn’t, I
mean, most restaurants in Town aren’t serviced by buses, and it just doesn’t
seem necessary to have to get the bus to the restaurant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why would you want a bus to go there?
MR. PALING-If that bus was full of senior citizens, and they had to walk across
that parking lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you thinking, now, like a charter bus or something?
You’re thinking like a charter bus, not a City bus.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, and I thought you mean Glens Falls Transit.
MR. PALING-No, no. I meant a charter bus that would come in there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They would probably unload them in front of the
restaurant and then go park.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what typically happens.
MR. PALING-That’s not what your write up indicates.
MR. LAPPER-No, but I was only talking about a bus, the Glens Falls Transit
bus, not a tourist bus.
MR. PALING-Then, well, okay, what’s the difference, then, between a Transit
bus and a tourist bus?
MR. LAPPER-Well, they would have a designated route, the transportation bus,
with a bus sign, with a bus stop sign, and people would be waiting to get on
the bus at that stop, and that’s where they’d be let off. So that would just be
part of the route, and then up Bay Road to the College, or down Bay Road.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. PALING-Okay. Well, that’s probably got to be, but I don’t think it’s got to
be that a charter bus is going to have to do that same thing.
MR. LAPPER-No. A charter bus could let people off at the restaurant and then
go back and park at the end of the site, which is fairly typical.
MR. PALING-Okay, because the way the write up is, I’d like that to be part of
any resolution, that that would be intended that charter buses be allowed to
debark at the restaurant itself.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the relationship between Lowe’s and this Applebee’s, in
terms of, is it a cooperative effort that Applebee’s is sitting on that property as a
tenant?
MR. LAPPER-No. They both lease from Newman Development, which is the
owner, the developer of the site and the owner.
MR. VOLLARO-So these are independent leases?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-And they’re not in any way tied to Lowe’s or intended to be a
restaurant for the benefit of Lowe’s people?
MR. LAPPER-Not whatsoever.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see the connection, Bob, then on that.
MR. PALING-The connection?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In other words, if a tour bus comes in and parks and
debarks their people, does Lowe’s then sanction them parking in the Lowe’s
parking lot. Is that what you’re?
MR. PALING-No, I don’t see any connection between there. All I’m saying is
that if you’ve got a charter tour bus that comes in, they should be allowed or
encouraged to unload at the restaurant.
MR. VOLLARO-Agreed.
MR. PALING-Not unload at the Lowe’s main entrance and then walk across that
whole parking lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that ever was their intention.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-When he was giving you that write up, Bob, he was referring
to Glens Falls Transit bus line.
MR. PALING-It doesn’t say that.
MR. LAPPER-That was the intention.
MR. PALING-I don’t believe it says that.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll make an addendum to that, so that clearly states that.
MR. PALING-I think it should be, make it a positive, not a negative, and say
that buses should be allowed to unload at the restaurant.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I think we all agree with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t know why they wouldn’t. Why wouldn’t they be
allowed?
MR. PALING-Because of the write up that’s with it, that talks, okay. That’s the
only reason, that I know of. Two other quick things. Define a small truck, if
you would, please.
MR. LAPPER-For what purpose am I defining a small truck?
MR. PALING-Because it says that, “all deliveries will occur at the back of the
building at off hours with a small truck”.
MR. LAPPER-That’s wrong. It could easily be a tractor trailer, but that truck
would just pull up at off hours and.
MR. PALING-Okay. So we’ll take out, because the word “small” doesn’t seem to
fit at all.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. PALING-All right, and, Jon, the last question I have is regarding the grease
traps. Is there any separate approval for those?
MR. LAPPER-That’s a building permit issue.
MR. PALING-That’s a building permit issue. Okay. You haven’t discussed
grease traps very often.
MR. LAPPER-I know we did grease traps at the Olive Garden and the Red
Lobster. I think that’s fairly typical for restaurants.
MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s reviewed by Mike Shaw.
MR. LAPPER-The Wastewater Department.
MR. PALING-Okay. No more questions.
MR. VOLLARO-I do have a question, and this may be far afield, but I’m going to
lay it out here anyway, is that in the June 29 meeting, when we were in here on
another subject, and there was, it was a Town Board meeting, now, and we
talked, in there, about an integrated traffic study on Route 254, and the
Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury at that time indicated that there would
probably be an integrated traffic study on 254, and I’m just wondering whether
or not this particular application would be subject to that type of study along
that corridor, since we’ve got now, used to have a retail location here. Now you
have a restaurant location, which is going to impact Quaker Road with more
traffic, I think, in bound and out bound, out of Quaker.
MR. LAPPER-In truth, all of the talk of the traffic study for Quaker Road was
generated by the Lowe’s project at that time. What happened, and I think,
Bob, that might have started before you came on the Board, although I may be
wrong about that.
MR. VOLLARO-It probably did.
MR. LAPPER-And what happened, what we were talking about then was not a
capacity study but a traffic coordination study, a traffic light signal
coordination study, and as part of the approval for the Lowe’s, for this whole
project, the developer agreed to contribute the computer hardware. Is that
correct, Chris?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. ROUND-The controller, yes.
MR. LAPPER-So that the new traffic light in the intersection of Glenwood could
be coordinated, could be attached to a computer system that would also
control the signal at Quaker and Bay, and what is envisioned is a study which
is already, and Chris can tell you about the status of the engineering RFP and
where that is, but what we’re talking about is connecting all of the traffic lights
on Quaker Road and the one at Glenwood via computer, so that people won’t
have to stop at every light, and that was what that discussion was about, is a
joint, Town, County and DOT project, which is going to start quickly.
MR. VOLLARO-So that means that this project is also connected and tied into
that particular philosophy?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because that’s going to help everything within the corridor.
MR. ROUND-What Bob had indicated is that the Supervisor had commented
previously about some other projects that are facing approvals, and the
continued pressures on Quaker Road, and the need for a regional or a corridor
study that was an update of the ’92 study. Nothing has formally taken place in
that to restrict further development, in advance of the completion of that study,
but what Jon is also indicating is that the Newman Development project is also
a cooperating stake holder in the signal coordination program that will be
completed, and they have facilitated some of that. So, I don’t know if that’s
answered all the concerns. There was a traffic report done as a part of this
project, previously, and I myself, I didn’t review that, but I know that, I don’t
know how much volume calculations would be off with the change in use from
tire facility versus restaurant. I’m sure there’s going to be some peak changes,
but the overall capacity of Quaker Road is probably sufficient for that area.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Landscaping plan for Applebee’s itself. Do you have one?
MR. LAPPER-What I submitted to Laura was a site plan. I have one copy. I
don’t know if you have it.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I looked through everything I have. I couldn’t find one.
Just so we have something that’s specked out.
MR. LAPPER-What is shows is the areas where the planting will be. Actually,
and probably the best thing to do is to look at the photos.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not something that we could use as a tool to ensure
that site plan is going to be done, I mean, landscaping plan.
MR. LAPPER-What we’re proposing is exactly what you see there, and the rest
of it is all part of the Newman, all of the islands, except for right around the
building, everything is exactly as approved by the Planning Board last time,
because all of the islands on the perimeter, everything in front, the grass area
that’s already.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking the building perimeter itself.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. That is a very small band, what that shows on the photos,
which is the only thing different from what was approved.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you don’t have an actual drawn plan showing what’s
going to be around those, the building itself?
MR. LAPPER-What I’m saying, as a condition, is that we would plant exactly
what’s in the photographs.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, how is the Code Enforcement Officer going to go out
with that photograph and be sure you’ve got azaleas where azaleas belong and,
you know, blue spruce where blue spruce belong?
MR. LAPPER-What I would offer is that if you would make it a condition, so
that this could be approved tonight, and we could get it in the ground, that we
would submit that to the Planning Staff.
MR. MAC EWAN-Submit what?
MR. LAPPER-A plan that, and we can go to the Beautification Committee with
that, that shows, it’ll be in, the area that’s planted is the exactly the same area
here. So it’s not a very wide area, but we’ll specify what the specimens are,
that’s what you’re asking. What I see here are burning bushes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Meet you half way, just to make sure you get a plan. We’ll
make it as part of the approval, and that the planting plan be approved by the
Beautification Committee prior to a CO being issued.
MR. LAPPER-That’s absolutely acceptable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Anybody else? Anything you wanted to add to
it?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion? Anyone?
MR. PALING-We don’t need a SEQRA on this. It’s a modification.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a modification.
MR. PALING-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-97, NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT
GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
As written, as in the documented resolution, with the following conditions:
That the retaining wall design and construction be approved by the Town
Engineer, and that the planting plan be submitted to the Beautification
Committee and approved by the Beautification Committee and Staff before this
project would be approved, the planting plan around the perimeter of
Applebees. It must be approved by the Beautification Committee and Staff
prior to issuance of a CO, and that buses be allowed and encouraged to unload
at the Applebees entrance. The Planning Board has determined that there is no
significant change in the Site Plan Modification, and further finds that there is
no sufficient change to the original SEQRA findings.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification request for
Site Plan No. 29-97 Newman Development Group of Queensbury - modification
is to replace the approved 12,000 sq. ft. freestanding commercial building with
5,000 sq. ft. restaurant building; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/24/98, consists of the
following:
1. Letter from Lemery & Reid w/map
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 7/28/98 - Staff Notes
2. 7/8/98 - Letter to J. Houston from M. Shaw
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
3. 7/6/98 - Beautification Committee
Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with
the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found
in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered; and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to
APPROVE Modification to Site Plan No. 29-97 NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT
GROUP OF QUEENSBURY.
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan
to the Zoning Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MS. NOWICKI-Jon, you’re going to have to submit for the retaining wall, we’re
going to need a detail.
MR. LAPPER-Keep this, then.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Excuse me. Before we get started, Mr. O’Connor has asked if he
could interrupt and ask you a question so that he can go home.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes you can come up and ask us a question.
MR. O’CONNOR-I’d appreciate that, because the clock is running. I would like
to ask permission of the Board, if I can, on the last application that we
submitted for Skateland, we may shift that track a little bit. I won’t know for
sure probably for 10 days. Everything will be almost identical. Can I have
permission to late file for September?
MR. BREWER-For a modification.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-August or September?
MR. O’CONNOR-No, August.
MR. MAC EWAN-To what, a modification to the site plan?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. O’CONNOR-You consider it a modification or new, whichever you want.
It’ll be the same track but just, we may be able to shift it just a little bit.
MR. BREWER-Shift it why?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Back or sideways?
MR. O’CONNOR-I can’t say that we will right now, okay. As a side issue, our
variance application has been challenged. There’s an Article 78 proceeding on
that, and I can see a year, a year and a half in court, just to get through the
hoops, and if I can figure out a way to avoid that, I’m going to try hard to avoid
it. So I’m working hard to make some adjustments.
MR. BREWER-I don’t have any problem with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, ten days you’re looking for?
MR. ROUND-My only concern is the extent of the modifications don’t require a
re-referral to Warren County. Without seeing those, I can’t make that
determination, but I would anticipate that they’re not going to be significant,
based on what Mr. O’Connor is saying.
MR. BREWER-Well, didn’t he say that we could consider it new or a
modification, so we’re covered? If it’s new, then we just.
MR. ROUND-Well, if it’s new, you won’t be able to act on it, and if the
modification only is minor, and, I guess my concern is you allow him 10 days
and it’s a major modification or it is a new application, it requires referral to
the County. You wouldn’t be able to make a decision on it in the August cycle,
and you’d have to go to September.
MR. O’CONNOR-What’s the date of your referral?
MR. ROUND-Monday.
MR. O’CONNOR-This coming Monday?
MR. ROUND-Yes, this coming Monday.
MR. O’CONNOR-It’s not in my control. We have to have input from a third
party. I accept that.
MR. ROUND-Just so you know. It may be acceptable to the Board, but
procedurally, we may run into a problem.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I can even, if this becomes realistic, I’ll try and work
my way through the County, as well, and they may take it, because we’re not
talking about anything substantive, as far as the concerns that you’ve looked
at. It’s just a matter of doing some moving.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let us know.
MR. STARK-Craig, to accommodate the Ferraros, even a special meeting, if
need be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, if we had to do that, we could be open minded to do that,
if need be.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but, the thing of it is, George, is the County, now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, we don’t have any knowledge of that schedule.
Just let us know.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. O’CONNOR-All right. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re welcome. Back to Pyramid.
SITE PLAN NO. 14-98 TYPE I PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS OWNER:
SAME ZONE: ESC-25A, HC-1A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL, AVIATION
ROAD, EAST OF NORTHWAY (I-87) PROPOSAL IS FOR RENOVATION AND
850,000 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO THE AVIATION MALL. CROSS
REFERENCE: P1-98 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/6/98 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.3, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, 5.24, 5.25,
5.26, 5.27, 4.1, 98-1-1, 2.1 LOT SIZE: 66.03 ACRES SECTION: 179-27.1,
179-23
JON LAPPER & JIM MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is a discussion item only. A public hearing is really
not scheduled for this evening, but we will accept public comment.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, I’m still Jon Lapper, and I’m with Jim Martin
from the LA Group. We were looking for this to come as a workshop discussion
item, so we could just bring you up to speed with where we are in the review
process. We’ve already made some changes to the site plan, which we think
you’re going to prefer, as a result of numerous meetings with Chris Round, with
Frank Palumbo, the engineer obtained by the Town to review the project, with a
committee of the Town Board, who met with us to give us their concerns, and
their ideas, some of which are site plan related, in terms of buffering and
screening type issues, and we thought this would be a good opportunity, before
we’re ready to come back to you and ask for approval, to get your ideas so that
we can come up with the next generation site plan, if you will, and submit that,
and come back next month and talk about that. We are in ongoing review by
DOT on the traffic issues, and that will take a couple of more weeks, probably,
and that may impact the site plan. There could be some changes. We’ve talked
to County Highway Department and to DOT about potentially combining two of
the proposed accesses to the property, which would reduce an intersection,
and that’s the kind of level of review we’re at now with DOT, and when we have
more information on that, we’ll come back and talk about that, but we thought
that in the mean time we could come and talk to you about the site plan
issues, and just get a list from you of ideas and incorporate them. The most
significant change that we’ve made so far, at the request of Chris and the other
reviewers, is to change the setback that was proposed along Aviation Road,
when you come off the Northway, which everybody acknowledges is a
significant view, when you’re entering the Town, and to add some, we’ve always
said that that would be nicely screened, but now we’ve come up with a plan
that the LA Group has developed, and we’ve submitted that, or we’re here to
show you for the first time. Maybe the next thing would be to have Jim go
through that and just show you what I’m talking about.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. We’ve heard a lot of comment so far on the project about
the importance of this particular section of Aviation Road that I just put up,
and that is the section from the interchange that is shown here. This is
Aviation Road out in front, through to the Friendly’s building is outlined here,
and the importance of this area is pretty obvious, in that this is widely viewed
as an entry way through the Town, and therefore, an opportunity exists for this
project to actually improve the entrance to the Town with a nice landscaping
plan, and that’s what we’re conceptually showing, here. The northwest parking
field, and I’ll orient you here with the site plan, we’re looking at this section
here, this is the northwest parking field here, the existing A Plus Mini Mart,
and then our parking field here. So with a series of bermed islands, clustered
plantings, throughout this area, and a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees
along the route, we’re hoping to drastically improve the looks of the corridor,
through this section. The berming will be quite effective in that as we have
these parking areas here, or cars traveling through these areas, the effect of the
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
berming, we’re looking at berms here that will be, and we’ll specify this in more
detail as a formal landscaping plan comes through. We’re looking at berms as
much as three feet in height, through this section, and in this area here as
well. So we feel this drastically improves the look through this area, which
right now there’s a lot of asphalt pavement. Prior to the bridge expansion,
there was a lot of wide open curb cuts, many curb cuts throughout this
section. This will be a big improvement, and we’re hoping this makes a
statement for the community as people come in to the Town through this route,
and that’s what we’re trying to convey here. We’ll have details on quantities,
sizes and so on, for your Staff and yourselves to review, but this is the type of
thing we’re looking at. We’re hoping to get some comment from you on that, if
we’re going in the right direction. Would you like to see more or something like
that, but that’s what we’re looking at in concept?
MR. BREWER-How far back does the landscaping go, Jim?
MR. MARTIN-Okay. To be more specific, and I don’t know how well you can
see this. There’s a property line, it’s somewhat irregular through this section.
We now have surveyed information, and DOT in the taking for the bridge
widening purchased some irregular notches through here, and you’ll see this in
the updated site plan as we submit it. So we’re trying our best to stay on our
property. The predominant width of the landscaping through this easterly
section here is 15 feet, along our property. There is some green area that exists
from our property line to the pavement edge, and that’s irregular. It varies, I
would say, anywhere from as much as maybe 10 to 12 feet down to 3 feet
between the pavement edge and our property line, and this plan we’re showing
here, all the plantings occur on our property. There may be some branch
overhang of the trees as they mature into the right-of-way, but all the trunk
locations and things like that are on our property. So through this section it’s
predominantly 15 feet. Now, in this area here, we are showing plantings in the
actual right-of-way area, but we think we can make a good case for that, due to
the irregularity of the property line through that section, and then through this
section here, it does narrow down to 10 feet, but we’ve tried to make that fairly
dense, so it’ll have a nice screening effect through that area. I’m not saying it’s
going to totally block the view, but it will be a filtered screen view through that
section, especially as the trees develop and mature.
MR. PALING-Jim, lets talk a minute about mechanical equipment again, and
the view you get from Aviation Road, on the roof of any buildings.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think as you look, you have that perspective, if you’re a
motorist or bicyclist or a pedestrian through this route, you will not see any
mechanical equipment on top of the building, the parapet wall, and that you’ll
still be at such a vantage point that that will be hidden by the parapet wall.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Going back to that landscaping plan there you were just
showing us along Aviation Road, just a thought, any concerns for salt spray in
the winter time and what it could possibly do to plantings that close to the
road?
MR. MARTIN-Well, we can strive to, and I’m not a landscape architect, but as
we develop the actual quantities and species for this area, there are salt
resistant species that can be planted in these areas. I know, like for example,
maple trees have been proven to be somewhat resistant to that, whereas other
things usually like a soft wood tree or something like that usually can be
effected by that. So in those areas where we’re coming close, like right to this
area here, we’d want to see more of a salt resistant treatment through there,
and I can certainly carry that message back, if that’s a concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is the object of DOT’s unusual grabbing of land in there?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. MARTIN-I think it’s a carry over from the existing uses that existed there.
I think they were attempting to deal with some access points that were
previously out there, and obviously this proposal that we have here, and still,
as Jon indicated, we’re in discussions with DOT, but this proposal here would
change that. I think they were trying to address some access point issues.
That’s the only thing I can think of.
MR. LAPPER-Eliminating curb cuts.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you show us the proposed bike path that has been
circulated around.
MR. MARTIN-I don’t have anything here to illustrate that, but we can certainly
speak to that. Jon can bring you up to speed on that. If there are any other
questions about that, I’ll be here.
MR. LAPPER-As we discussed last time, we’ve been asked by a number of
parties to try to create a bike path that connects the new bridge, which has
bike/pedestrian lanes, with the trails in Cole’s Woods. So that people can
avoid Aviation Road and Route 9 and connect really from downtown, from the
City, from the “Y”, from Crandall Park, and Cole’s Woods, to the Queensbury
Schools and over the bridge to get to the other side of the Northway. That
wasn’t something that we proposed, but it’s something that was asked of
Pyramid, and we have tried to accommodate that, and we have been in
discussions with, County DPW is very interested in that, because they’re
looking at the Countywide bicycle system which includes the new bridge over
Quaker Road to be built next year. So they’re very excited about a way to
connect the other side of the Northway with downtown Glens Falls, and what
we have proposed, because of the unique layout of our buildings on the site,
because there is not a lot of room. The site it tight to both the east side and the
west side. What we’ve proposed is to do something that runs along the
Northway corridor, but to create an eight foot wide paved, asphalt bikeway,
pedestrian bike, that would also allow people access to the Mall at various
points along that way, and then connect to the back, into the NiMo right-of-
way, and beyond, and that’s where we are at this point. We’re looking to get
approval from DOT to put some of this on DOT’s property, and we expect that’ll
be given.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where are things now with DOT’s approval?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that is a fairly minor issue, as far as DOT is concerned, in
terms of they’re, they’re looking at traffic capacity issues at this point. The only
issue that they’ve raised so far on that is they’ve said that, which is something
that, as a resident, I personally think is more applicable to Albany rather than
to Queensbury, but what they said first was that if they bike lane between, at
one point, at least, you have the concrete of the top of the multi level parking
structure, which would be I think about four feet above the ground at various
levels, and then you would have a landscaped area, and then the bike path,
and then the landscaped area, and then the fence, and we had, at first, talked
about a design which would have been 10 to 15 feet wide, all inclusive, and
they said, if you have somebody that was going to, could attack somebody in
that area, which I don’t see as a real concern in Queensbury, because anybody
could be attacked in Cole’s Woods or anywhere else. I mean, not that that
hasn’t happened, but just in terms of a safety concern, we were sort of
surprised by that, but when we talked about it, what they were getting at was
that they thought that it was an area, the whole length of the parking
structure, where there was nowhere to go, because you have a fence along the
Northway property on one side, and you have the parking structure. So what
we’ve come up with, which we haven’t presented to anybody yet, because this is
all just being considered as we go, is to access the parking structure at two
levels, so that there would be entrances. It would serve both the purpose of
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
pedestrian access to the building, which is something that Chris has been
recommending, and I’m sure it’s something that you’re going to be interested
in, and also to allow people, so that they wouldn’t feel trapped, if you will,
which I think is the extent of it, is that somebody might have this long distance
where they couldn’t go anywhere but to the woods or back to the, and actually
that’s not true, because it does go down the hill, and it accesses the parking lot
behind Penney’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about lighting?
MR. LAPPER-Lighting isn’t something that we talked about yet, but that is
something that certainly could be considered, but in any case, what I didn’t get
to, what we’re talking about now is a 25 foot wide area which would have eight
feet of pavement, and the rest would be shrubs and grass on both sides, and
then the fence. So it’s not going to seem like you’re in the narrow corridor, if
you will. Twenty-five feet wide is pretty significant, and that would just make
it, aesthetically, it would look a lot nicer. It would have these connection
points to the lot where the Seven Steers is now. So we would be removing a
parking spot and striping it, so that there would be a place to get into the site,
and then we would have an opening in the concrete, so you could get to the top
two levels. The topography changes as well. So you’d be able to get to the
various levels and walk right in, from the bike path, which also gives people
access to the Mall facility, and gives them some choices. So I don’t really,
personally, see it as a big safety issue, but to the extent that there is one, that’s
what we’re proposing, and we think that that deals with it.
MR. BREWER-Whereabouts does the bike path or trail or whatever you want to
call it, access, after you come off the bridge, in conjunction with that there?
MR. LAPPER-What DOT is doing, independent of the Mall project, is, you can
see no the side where Hess is that they’ve put in this very nice, wide, I think it’s
probably 10 feet wide, concrete curb, on the north side of Aviation Road, which
has already been constructed, and they’re now, I think today they’re pouring a
wide curb, or a wide sidewalk on the south side of Aviation Road. So that
would come across the bridge, and it would be right in front of the site anyway.
So what we’re saying is that the asphalt would line up, it would actually
connect right to the sidewalk and come along the site.
MR. MARTIN-And the access points Jon was referring to, we have opportunity
here, with this on grade lot, to provide an access point here, at grade, as well
as, obviously, down here in this area, and the path would then continue on
down to Cole’s Woods, but in addition, as you proceed down this side, the
topography is going to vary, and we’ll have opportunity to provide several, we’ll
figure it out as we figure the elevations, but I would expect it’ll be two or three
access points directly into the structure here at various levels. So at no time
someone is going to be forced to travel several hundred feet without an
opportunity, for whatever reason, whether they just want to travel into the Mall
or they run into an unsecured situation, they want to get off the path, they’ll
have various points.
MR. BREWER-How wide of an area of woods is it? It’s not that wide, is it,
between the property line where the parking lot is going to be?
MR. LAPPER-We’re talking about 25 feet, is what we’re proposing now.
MR. BREWER-So that’s not really that big anyway. If you had to go through
the woods, I mean.
MR. LAPPER-Well, there would be a fence next to the Northway.
MR. MARTIN-There’s a chain link fence along the whole (lost words).
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. LAPPER-And then there’d be trees along the outside of the fence as well, to
buffer the view.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who is coordinating whatever necessary approvals you need
to have from Niagara Mohawk, across their right-of-way, and, are you
coordinating anything with the City of Glens Falls and Cole’s Woods?
MR. LAPPER-Well, Bill Remington has suggested that he would coordinate it,
because he sees this, linking up, as part of the County bikeway system, and
that, we think that that’s appropriate because we think that DOT would be
receptive to it, if it comes from the County. We would expect that you would
also sign on, as part of this process, as something you support, and there are a
number of different bicycle and citizens groups in Queensbury that are also
working on this.
MR. PALING-This is still a track on private property.
MR. LAPPER-Not necessarily. We think that the best place to actually put the
eight foot of pavement would be right within the DOT right-of-way, but then
from that, there would be 10 feet on the site, which would be landscaped,
which would increase the permeability of this site, and it would soften the view
of the parking structure, because there would be shrubs and grass 10 feet from
the parking structure to the asphalt, and then asphalt would actually be within
the DOT right-of-way, but that’s where sidewalks are anyway.
MR. PALING-Okay. Now, what kind of bikes can you use in Cole’s Woods?
MR. LAPPER-We don’t view that as our issue, because that, I mean, that’s
something, this is not something that Pyramid is, came out and proposed.
MR. PALING-Yes, but I think we should ask the question.
MR. LAPPER-But that is either a City/Town issue, or a bicycle proponent, City
issue. We’re saying that we can work with everybody to provide bicycle access
across the edge of the site, to the back of the site, and to construct it, and then
from there, it’s going to be up to other people to.
MR. MAC EWAN-So at this point, you haven’t coordinated anything with the
City or Niagara Mohawk to extend your proposed bike path from Pyramid’s
property to these other adjoining properties?
MR. LAPPER-What I can report is that a member of the Queensbury Citizen’s
group, who is taking the lead on this, Paul Abess, has contacted the City, has
contacted Niagara Mohawk. He’s told me that Niagara Mohawk is very
receptive to using their property, and he’s looking at various alternatives,
which may include running along the edge here and connecting to Foster
Avenue, which may include going on to City property, which may include
running along the Northway to Dixon Road, but that’s not something that, I
mean, this is not something that is, that we’re looking at as providing, we’re not
going to pave Cole’s Woods. We’re not going to.
MR. BREWER-No, you’re just one piece of the puzzle.
MR. LAPPER-We’re one piece of the puzzle.
MR. MARTIN-To the extent that we can provide this section of the link, so to
speak, we’re willing to do that, but beyond that, it’s really an issue for others to
explore.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just was curious as to what kind of coordination is being
done between all these different interests here.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. LAPPER-I expect that Bill Remington is going to take the lead, because
that’s what he has told us.
MR. MAC EWAN-Will Bill Remington be passing along correspondence to our
Board, to keep us informed?
MR. ROUND-Yes. Bill is actively involved, and it is a regional project between
municipalities, and it’s appropriate at a County level or some similar
organization be involved, and I know what Jon did indicate about Paul Abess,
Paul has met with myself, and we have discussed contacting the City, and Paul
has contacted both DOT, and some of the property owners, and Niagara
Mohawk and is making progress toward that end.
MR. PALING-All right, but I’m still going to make the statement, that if Cole’s
Woods is not going to be accessible to normal bikes, this is going to be a waste
of time and effort. If you’ve got to have a mountain bike to get through Cole’s
Woods, this is useless.
MR. MARTIN-I respectfully disagree, Bob. I think that’s why you have
planning. Things happen over the course of time.
MR. PALING-Then we should have a commitment that they’ll pave Cole’s
Woods.
MR. MARTIN-And I think if you could establish this first link, who knows what
happens in the months that follow.
MR. PALING-I don’t agree with that line of reasoning.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right now, the Queensbury High School Cross Country
Ski Team always puts their skis over their shoulder, they walk across Aviation
Road, and they walk down the side there and they walk down to Cole’s Woods
to get on the ski trails. Well, this is going to make it very much more
accessible for them in the winter time, during the bad months. I’m just saying
that this is one little use.
MR. PALING-All right. If there are other uses, fine, but if it’s for bicycles only.
MR. BREWER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about walking?
MR. BREWER-Walking.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I used to jog those woods all the time. You could come in
off there and just jog in through there with no problem.
MR. PALING-Well, then we ought to change the title of it, to take it away from
bicycles.
MR. LAPPER-We’re saying a pedestrian/bicycle route. If nothing else, it gives
various access points. You come across the bridge, and you don’t have to be
on Aviation Road. You can be in a protected area and get to the Mall, and if
that’s all it does, that’s still something significant, and we expect that the
municipalities will work it out in the future.
MR. MAC EWAN-How is the overall review of DOT’s review process for your site
plan going?
MR. LAPPER-I would expect that it’s going to be a couple of weeks before our
engineer gets back to them with the latest set of comments, and I think that, as
a result of the DOT review, the project, or the mitigation, the traffic mitigation
proposal will change somewhat, but I think that everyone will consider it a
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
better project, as a result of it. Just by way of one example that’s concrete,
that I can give, and all of this is preliminary, because it’s DOT’s road, and they
have to sign off on it, but just by way of example, we have the left turn in that
that’s single lane that’s there now, that we had proposed to keep, because it
does take some capacity as a left, and then we proposed a right in, right out
only, which would be to the east of the Friendlys, and what’s on the table at the
moment, or what’s being studied, and I don’t have the answer, would be to
combine those into one full movement intersection, which would eliminate this
right here, because DOT has asked us to look at reducing the number of
intersections. So that’s just by way of example, and I think we’ll know more
about that the next time we’re back before the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. MARTIN-To accommodate the landscaping as shown here, there’s been a
rather significant change and improvement to the plan, as the expansion
building has been shifted back 15 feet south to accommodate the 15 foot
dimension out front, as I’ve just shown here. So this area here, as in this site
plan, has been widened to accommodate more of a green area through the
Aviation Road section, and that’s how that was accomplished. I wanted to
make sure I told you that. So on the next site plan, you’ll see this expansion
area has been moved 15 foot southward, to accommodate a wider green space,
in response to the comments received about the importance of that section.
MR. BREWER-Could I ask just one more question to that, Jim? What’s the
length of that represent, the length of that landscaping area that you show?
MR. MARTIN-This here? Yes. Well, this is at a one to thirty scale. So I would
say you’re probably looking at, I would say probably 400 feet, give or take,
through this section.
MR. ROUND-Could I ask one question? Could you show the full site plan
there, Jim, for us? And I guess it relates to both, if additional parcels are
acquired, or driveway consolidations occur, will you be able to accommodate
additional green space along the corridor? Because you’re going to have to
reconfigure parking once one of those scenarios occurs, and I guess that’s what
we’re looking for is additional green area, and I know you’re sensitive to that.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. As I indicated, the movement of the building was made to
accommodate the comments made about the importance of this area. We
would expect to carry that same type of landscaping treatment and importance
to the green area through that section. Should that occur, we would carry that
concept through.
MR. ROUND-Good.
MR. LAPPER-By way of example, another issue that’s being looked at is
Greenway North. DOT came back to us and said that now that the Town Board
has said that they’re interested in going forward with a Greenway North
connection, and DOT is planning that as a mitigation measure, they wanted us
to just add something to our traffic study that said, to study what would be the
impact on the 9 and 254 intersection. The study that was done for the Town
four years ago said that something on the order of 10 to 15% of the traffic
could come out of that intersection. All the people that are turning north and
stacked up to head north on Route 9, and they’ve asked us, on the basis that
they expect that that’s going to go forward, to just tell them to study it, and to
tell them what the effects will be, and that’s part of what’s being done right
now. So those are the kind of issues that we’re looking at, as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. BREWER-Have you been asked to assist in the expense of the connector
road at all, the alignment of the red light or whatever they’re going to do, if they
decide to do that?
MR. LAPPER-The Town Board has indicated that if the project, or that they may
ask us to contribute something to that, and that’s part of what would be
worked out with the Town Board, as part of the review process.
MR. BREWER-How does that fall into place? I mean, that study that, as I
recall at the meeting, they said they wanted to have a traffic study done. I have
no idea how that’s going to take, or how long your project’s going to take, how
you’re going to coordinate it. How much or whatever you’re going to do.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a discussion that hasn’t happened yet, in terms of exactly
what the Town Board’s looking for, but we’ve been told that they would want us
to help in some capacity, and Pyramid has agreed to help in some capacity, but
that’s as the project, as we get closer, in terms of the traffic study, and knowing
exactly what it’s going to look like, those discussions will occur. Does that
sound fair?
MR. ROUND-Yes. I guess the concern at the time was the level of analysis and
the detail that had been presented as part of Pyramid’s traffic mitigation plan
was, there were serious concerns about it at that time, and we’ve yet to see the
next iteration of that plan, and I think what the Town Board had indicated, and
what we all heard, is that, given those improvements, that there was a need for
a more regional examination of the corridor, and I think Bob Vollaro
commented on that previously, and I believe, and I can’t speak for the Town
Board, but I guess we’re reserving judgment on the necessity of that kind of
study, until their next submission is provided.
MR. LAPPER-We know it’s our responsibility to mitigate the traffic from the
project. We look at the Greenway North connector as something that was
proposed to mitigate exist conditions right now, so that Pyramid will be one of
the beneficiaries, because it’ll help the traffic in the corridor, but there’ll be a
lot of other beneficiaries, as well. Pyramid looks at that as appropriate to
contribute, but that that’s not something that is the responsibility, in total, of a
private applicant, because it’s a DOT project.
MR. BREWER-No. I would expect in total of that anyway. I mean, absolutely
not. I just didn’t know where the conversation was, whether they’re going to do
it or not.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not something that we can control, but it’s seems like it’s
going that way.
MR. BREWER-It’s got to dovetail with the improvements that you’re going to
make on the road, though.
MR. LAPPER-Right, and to some extent it may reduce some of the
improvements that would happen on 254, if that happens, but it’s a little bit
early to know that.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question, and it’s been a question I’ve always
asked. Coming off the bridge, in the east bound, and then taking a look at the
path that the in-bound traffic off the Northway, there’s two lanes of traffic that
come up the Northway northbound, make a right, the innermost lane is destine
to make a right into the westernmost entrance.
MR. LAPPER-That’s going to change.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to change.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. LAPPER-That’s another issue.
MR. VOLLARO-I see that as a merge right problem, off the bridge, in order to
get to that lane.
MR. LAPPER-DOT has asked us to change that, and that’s part of what’s going
on now. So that you would, if you wanted to go into the Mall, instead of, the
problem, as we presented it, the potential problem was that if you’re in that
right lane and you don’t want to go to the Mall, you’ll have to merge left, and
instead of that, everyone’s going to come out from the Exit 19 exit, turn right, if
you’re going right, and if you want to go to the Mall, you’ll merge right. So
there won’t be people going both ways. There won’t be a weave situation.
MR. VOLLARO-There’ll still be a merge right off the bridge, though, if you want
to get into the Mall.
MR. LAPPER-We expect that that entrance will still be there.
MR. MARTIN-If you’re in that southerly most lane, on Aviation Road, you will
have the option of either continuing eastward or turning right into the Mall.
You won’t be forced to turn right into the Mall. That’s one of the changes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I see that, but I see that, if I’m on the bridge, and I
want to, for some reason I want to get into the western most entrance, I’ve got
to merge through the right lane to do it.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, you’ll have that option to do that, yes.
MR. BREWER-You’ll always still have to do that, if you’re coming off the bridge.
MR. MARTIN-You’d have to do that today.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-We view all these as technical changes that are sort of, I guess
what I would say is these are refinements to the plan, and that this is just
typical of a project of this magnitude, and we expect, in the next few weeks,
we’ll have presented this to DOT, and they’ll come back and tell us what they
think about our latest proposal.
MR. ROUND-To clarify, traffic issues will be resolved with the Town’s
designated engineer, and DOT, prior to you guys signing off on it, and you’ll see
the next iteration, you’ll see a revised site plan to address some of the concerns
that you may be having, regarding traffic.
MR. MARTIN-What we were hopeful of is coming away tonight with at least
some, hopefully, you know, if there’s a list of other site plan concerns that you
had, that you identified on the plan, that you’d like us to address, prior to the
formal meeting, that would always be helpful.
MR. BREWER-We haven’t seen your plan until tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m always apprehensive to put the cart before the horse.
MR. MARTIN-No, no. I’m not holding you to this. I’m just saying if there’s any
early thoughts that you’d like us to look further into.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve written down what you’ve said, and we’ll.
MR. VOLLARO-There is one, I think everybody’s had, is an escape route, if you
want to call it that, on the lower part of it, going north to, I guess it’s Dixon
Road or whatever that street is, Foster Avenue, and that’s always been sort of
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
in the mix, but people have talked about that as a relief on the site, but I
haven’t heard of anything happening.
MR. LAPPER-Our position has not changed on that from April, and that is we
don’t have access to it.
MR. VOLLARO-Your position is you don’t have access to it.
MR. LAPPER-But we will provide for all of the traffic on the existing roadways
with serious expenditures of money to improve Aviation Road, and it’ll be able
to handle it. We just can’t, as a private developer, Pyramid doesn’t have the
right to condemn property.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure, I understand that.
MR. MARTIN-And I think what the early traffic analysis is showing is that that
particular movement is not the one that’s of the greatest concern, meaning
maybe that left hand turn heading west, if you’re coming off of Route 9 onto
254, what seems to be the focus of the traffic concern is that left hand
movement, you know, heading off of 254 and heading north onto 9. That
seems to be the one that DOT is focusing on. So in answer to that question, I
don’t know, if that connection were made to Foster Avenue, that addresses the
biggest concern, in terms of traffic.
MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t take the load off that intersection, is what you’re
saying?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question, and reassure me on this. I know that
for every some many square feet of area that you have, you have to have so
many parking spots, and I’m sure that there, well, I’m not sure. Show me that,
with the three stories, and all that extra footage of expansion, it just seems to
me that we’re not going to have enough parking, because even now, the Mall, at
busy times during the year, it’s impossible to find a parking spot. People were
parking, you know, way out on the periphery of the lot, and I know you only
have so much land that you can utilize. So, I mean, here you’ve taken away
the parking that we have, with the new brown area and so forth, and now
you’ve gone into the hill, but that’s just to make up, basically, for what you’ve
just taken away, but yet you’ve added on all that extra square footage.
Thanks, Jim.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. In terms of parking, okay, you have, on the ground level,
all the way around the site, and when I say the ground level, I mean the
existing finished floor level of the Mall today is at 414. So that’s the ground
level. At that level, with the exception of this northwest lot, you’ll be able to
park at that level around the entire perimeter of the site, and our accounts
right now are in the neighborhood of 3600 cars can be accommodated at the
ground level. Now, what else has happened, now we have two multi level
areas. You have one level above the ground level here, and here, and this is
the since the last time I think you’ve heard this, there is a ground level plus
four levels of parking in this area. Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s what I wasn’t sure of, how many.
MR. MARTIN-And then we have this ground level site here that’s going to be at
the elevation that it is today, right there at the top of the hill. So, throughout
the entire site, we’re going to hit a mark of four and a half cars per thousand,
which is 6,750 cars, can be accommodated on the site.
MR. PALING-Say that again, Jim, four and a half cars per?
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. MARTIN-Four and a half cars per thousand, and what we’re trying to do is
we’re trying to, and this was in response to early comments, again, about the
existing Town standard. I was here for a long time. Five per thousand is just
too much. We’re asphalting places we don’t need to asphalt. So we’re trying to
strike a balance between what is real, and yet not go too far with it. So at four
and a half, we figure that’s a reasonable balance to strike, and so in this level,
once you start getting into the levels, you basically accommodate about 760
cars per level, as you go each of these levels, and in the next submission you
get, you will see a parking plan, by level, and it’ll be indicated on each of these
aisles here how many cars, and a little number, a little numeric symbol will be
given, to accommodate all of, you’ll see, you can count for yourself, if you’d
like, where all the parking will be, and in proximity to entrances and so on and
so forth.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Great, thanks, and now I have another question that’s not
really germane to this site plan, but you brought up the fact that we have a,
there could be a Greenway North connector, and I’ve seen something, but I
can’t visualize it, and I would just like you to give us a rough draft of what
could be proposed, like where the road would go, and what streets would be
knocked out.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t see that we’re the appropriate party to answer that,
because it’s not our project.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-But Chris may be.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know I’ve looked at it and I’ve read it, and I just can’t get
a mental picture. I mean, it was brought up. That’s the only reason why I.
MR. ROUND-That is a DOT project that is currently on the TIP, and will
undergo design, and it’s not yet, the conceptual design calls for a connection to
Aviation Road at their second entrance, currently it’s their second entrance.
MR. LAPPER-Currently the first entrance.
MR. ROUND-No, I mean as the proposed second entrance to, on their site, at
the corner of their building.
MR. MARTIN-The existing intersection of Friendlys.
MR. ROUND-Correct, and from there it would go along the existing roadway,
and weave through some properties there, and enter onto Route 9 at the
approximate Noble True Value’s site. There were concerns with previously,
and there still are concerns with impacts on existing residences and impacts on
the existing business, specifically Noble True Value. Those issues haven’t been
resolved, and we anticipate they will be resolved prior to a final design. If
they’re not resolved to the satisfaction of the Town Board, we would ask it to be
removed, and that’s what occurred last year, year and a half ago, was that
right-of-way acquisition negotiations fell through, and there was concerns, but
given the continued development on Quaker Road, the necessity for that type of
improvement.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I was just wondering where it was going to, how far
north on Route 9 it was going to connect.
MR. ROUND-Yes. We have a conceptual layout that we can bring back to the
table at the next meeting, and it may be asked to be represented on part of
their site plan as part of a DOT submission. So we could certainly bring that
information back to you.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s it.
MR. PALING-The curbings that you have will be concrete or granite, will they,
I’m talking about entrance and exit, where the snow plow will have an effect on
them, they will be? Okay. That’s all, I have.
MR. BREWER-I’ve got one more question. The removal of earth, how much and
where is it going?
MR. LAPPER-A lot, and we don’t know. No. Four hundred thousand cubic
yards of sand.
MR. BREWER-How much was taken out before?
MR. MARTIN-About 300.
MR. BREWER-About 300.
MR. LAPPER-By comparison, the Lowe’s, I think it was 130,000 cubic yards
that were added.
MR. BREWER-I just remember the Mall.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Where it would go depends on what contractors in the area
are looking to buy it at the time. The Town may want some for highway
sanding. The County may want some.
MR. BREWER-My concern is, Jon, Jim was around, was the traffic generated
by the removal of the.
MR. LAPPER-That is certainly something that, just like with the Lowe’s, where
at a pre-construction meeting, Chris and the Building Inspector met with the
contractor to work that out. I mean, that’s certainly something that will have to
be analyzed in advance. It’s just that at this point.
MR. ROUND-That’s also included in our, it’s included as part of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, is the construction route and etc., and that
will be resolved before that’s.
MR. BREWER-Only because when they did the Mall previous, they did it at
night because of the timing with the traffic and what not.
MR. LAPPER-That’s an issue that’s definitely on the table, that we’re going to
have to solve. We just don’t know, yet, where it’s going to go.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t think so. I think that’s a good interim report, and we’ll be
back when we have some more information.
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have a public hearing tonight, but the Board will be
more than willing to listen to public comment, if anyone wants to come up and
comment on this application, come right on up.
STEVE DAVIS
MR. DAVIS-My name is Steve Davis. I’m from Fort Edward, and I spend my
money in Queensbury like everybody else does, shopping. I wrote a letter,
back on June 3, to Craig, and I don’t know how far it got circulated around. I
rd
know the Town Council has seen it, and I think Chris has seen it, and this was
regarding the outdoor lighting for the Mall, and I was wondering what steps
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
were being taken to minimize adverse effects of, I’ll say poor design with
lighting. Outdoor lighting is usually the thing everybody leaves to the last, and
kind of just screws in the bulb and says, that’s it, but there’s a lot more to it,
and I think this would be an appropriate time to, at least for Pyramid
designers, to consider some issues in regard to outdoor lighting, and this is
information that everybody in this room could use. The Board could use it, in
regard to planning for future developments. The people in the room can use it
for their businesses or for their homes. What we’re really talking about here is
the idea of light pollution. There’s good lighting and there’s bad lighting. You
can see right here, in the room, you’ve got pretty good lighting. The light
fixtures are recessed. You don’t have any glare. You go outside, you have
some good light fixtures, particularly out front. If you notice they’re on light 10
foot poles with a flat bottom. All the light is directed down. You go out in the
back here, you have higher poles. Again, they’re like square fixtures, but the
glass curves a little bit on the bottom. That’s not as desirable as the flat
bottomed ones are, because it radiates light out much further to the sides, in
places where you don’t really need it. You take a look at the barn over here in
the back, they have these wall packs on. They’re very popular today. They’re
selling like hot cakes, and they create a lot of glare. They should be shielded.
Some manufacturers do offer shields, or you can make your own, and it turns
them into a much better light fixture. You take a look at ACC. Their new
lighting is all down lighting. They haven’t converted over the old lighting. I
don’t know if they will or not. They’re tight on money. My only objection to
their new lighting is they’ve got maybe a few too many lights. They’ve kind of
over-lit, in a sense. So you have the first problem is really glare that’s created
by seeing the bulb shining in your eyes, or the light rays coming directly into
your eyes. It’s the same thing that you see on the road with somebody coming
at you from a distance with their high beams on. The thing with property, you
know, lights along the side of the road, you can’t flash your lights on them and
have them dim their beams. There’s nobody around. So the idea is to control
the lights, put the light down on the ground, where you’re trying to create the
visibility and see objects. You’re not supposed to be trying to blind people,
which is what a lot of lights do. There’s a lot of economics involved, good type
of economics. If you use down lighting, generally speaking, you can use a
smaller bulb, and that means your energy costs go down. It could go down
quite dramatically. Just on energy savings alone, it makes sense to do it. On a
safety issue, people walking around with lights shining in their eyes, they can’t
see hazards or muggers or whatever you’re talking about people coming at you
over in Cole’s Woods. They use the right type of lighting. People can see
hazards around them, without being blinded. This is an easy thing to do,
really. It’s not a, it’s a biggie. It’s not difficult at all, and you will save money
on this. There are places in the Country now that are doing a considerable
amount of work in this area, mainly California and Arizona. New Jersey is just
starting to do a lot of things down there. Their new governor has turned off one
heck of a lot of lights in this State. I can’t remember how many lights and how
much money she’s saving, but a tremendous amount, and they had a State
wide study commissioned on lighting, and they’ve recently completed and given
a report to the Governor. The State of Vermont just recently has come out
with, I can’t remember what it is, a whole bunch of guidelines for
municipalities regarding outdoor lighting. The State of Vermont’s Highway
Department is using down lighting. They’ve switched over. In this area here,
there are quite a few places where you see down lighting, but it’s mixed in with
some of the old style lighting, which kind of renders the down lighting
ineffective. They kind of got it half right. I passed a place today over in West
Glens Falls, that new CVS next to Hannaford’s. They have down lighting
around the peripheral. Unfortunately, they put unshielded wall packs on the
building. It kind of negated that. Hannaford’s on Quaker Road over here, the
same story. You don’t want to over light. A fine example of that, I’m pretty
sure everybody is aware of it, is K-Mart on Quaker Road. They have almost the
right type of lighting. Again, there’s a slight drop in the refractor, the glass that
hangs down, but it’s almost blinding to go into their parking lot, and when you
come out of their parking lot, you go from the over lighting to an area of very
darkness, right at, where you come out, not by Seeley’s, the other entrance
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
there, right across from Kings. It’s like, who turned out the lights, I can’t see.
There’s no transition zone going from strong lighting to weaker lighting. All
these problems can be solved, relatively easily, with the current technology.
I’ve heard a couple of terms mentioned here tonight, buffering and screening.
What are you doing about lighting? I think this all fits in it, and I’m here just
to create public awareness, and to spread the word, more or less, and with
that, I think I’ll ask if there’s any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them. I have
a copy of some information that I’ll give to Pyramid, something they can look
into, for their own economic good and also for the good of the environment. It’s
been estimated that, and I think it’s a very low estimate, way too low, like we
waste two billion dollars a year on shooting light off into space, that could be
aimed at the ground and do some good, and that’s every year. You figure that
in over time, and it’s quite a bit. I was sitting here running through some
numbers. You take your typical 175 watt street light, which a lot of people use
on their barns out in the country, the old mercury vapors, we pay 11 cents a
kilowatt hour to Niagara Mohawk. To buy one of those barn yard security
lights would cost you about $40. Every year you’re paying Niagara Mohawk
$79 in electricity, every year, for the rest of your life, essentially. Over a l4 year
period, that’s $1,574. Over a 20 year period $2,610. Are you willing to pay
that money, for what you get out of it? With that, I’m done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else?
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m John Strough. This is only a public comment
period. So I thought I’d come up here and make our comments, coming from
the Citizens of Queensbury Steering Committee. We have been working with
Pyramid Company, especially on the pedestrian path, and I see the Pyramid
Company responding to, you know, the concerns coming from the Town Board,
as well as groups like the Citizens for Queensbury, and I compliment them on
that, and overall we do support the project. We think it would be good for the
area, and so I have a little thing to read, and I know it’s not a public input, but
if we read our concerns, it gives Pyramid a chance to respond, in the next
segment of their.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. Go ahead.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. “Citizens for Queensbury, a public interest
organization whose members are concerned with the future of Queensbury,
recognizes the potential value this expansion may bring to the community and
the surrounding area. We recognize the potential economic benefits it might
provide to the Town of Queensbury, the Queensbury School District, and
Warren County in the form of increased property and sales tax revenues. We
appreciate the possible creation of numerous construction jobs as well as retail
jobs. We also value the intangible benefits the expansion might bring to the
community in the form of the multiplier effect caused by increased consumer
participation in other area areas and businesses. Citizens for Queensbury
appreciates the addition of bike trails/paths within the site to provide safe
passage from the bridge to the Glen Street area.” Now in that area, there is a
chance of maybe connecting to Foster Avenue. It hasn’t looked real good for
getting bicycle transportation through Cole’s Woods. You might be able to get
pedestrian transportation through Cole’s Woods, but they are not favoring the
idea of bicycles there, not at this point anyway. With this in mind, our main
concern is the traffic. That, of course, I think we all agree, is probably the
gateway, arterial to the Town, and as such, we have to protect the traffic flow.
Like I said, we do support the Pyramid and it’s expansion, but we would not
want to do so at the cost of hindering other enterprises in other areas of
Queensbury, because that area becomes bottlenecked. So we have a serious
traffic concern as, obviously, you do, too, and so do they, but I think we really
have to address it. I can’t, you know, in trying to weigh the expansion and the
benefits to the community, sometimes, you know, you like to just dismiss the
serious traffic issues that are being presented here, and we don’t think that we
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
should, and we think that we’re really going to have to address them. The
connector road to Route 9 might be a possibility, but that will only abate, I
think, about 10 or 11% of that traffic flow. I’m going to summarize some of
this, because this was designed for a more formal situation. We’re also unclear
as to the traffic patterns within the new Mall property, and the parking areas
and parking garages, and maybe they could make more clear to us what the
traffic flow was supposed to be like in those parking garage areas. We’re a
little uncomfortable with that, and I was talking to Jim earlier and, Cathy, I
disagree with you. I think, for the most part, the number of parking spaces at
the Mall has been most appropriate. I mean, the only time I’ve seen it not be
appropriate is Christmas Eve when I do my wife’s shopping, or something like
that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just feel, John, that with this kind of an
improvement, and an enhancement to the Mall is going to really increase the
number of people
MR. STROUGH-Well, we don’t want to get into a K-Mart where we get a lot of
that paved area.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with you. No, what I was saying was that there
was only so much land that they had. I mean, they can’t go outside that
boundary, and I just wanted a count.
MR. STROUGH-But if you were willing to sacrifice the original area where they
were talking, 10 to 15 feet, too, is something I personally would address, and
that’s aside from this. I would like to see a little bit more buffer, a little bit
more berm, a little bit more vegetation. I understand their commercial
interests, and I hope that we can balance the two, and I would be willing to give
up some parking area for that gain, because I think that Exit 19 is the main
gateway to the Town, and I’d like to keep it nice. Like I’ve said, and it’s
addressed here, we have been working with them, and they’ve been working
with us on addressing a pedestrian way through there, but we would also like
to make sure that the Town works to protect and expand pedestrian and
bicycle access and safety along Aviation Road, as well, including addition of
pedestrian signalizations and crosswalks. We would like to make our Town a
little bit more pedestrian friendly than it currently is, and we think that’s a
positive thing. The Town should strive to make non automobile transportation
a realistic option throughout Queensbury, and especially in its commercial
center, and again, we are also concerned with segmentalizing traffic studies.
When you have, and this was mentioned earlier, the 254 corridor, is
expanding, it’s growing, and, you know, we’re not opposed to expansion and
growth, but we’d like to see everything kind of work together, and to see a
connected traffic study, such as the Town Board has proposed, I think is a
positive and good thing, and I think necessary thing. We’ve got to get the
bigger picture, all right. So those are some of our concerns.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, will you also enumerate those to the Town Board?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we have, but we figured it was your turn, now, and
Jon and Jim have heard all this before, but we just, you know, and some of it
they have addressed, the bicycle path and the berming of that area up there is
a positive direction. I think they’re willing to work with us, and that’s what we
all like to see.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have an extra copy of that you could leave with Staff,
for the record?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I can submit this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? One more time, three minutes.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. DAVIS-One concern I have is the economic impact on the existing Malls,
on the other three corners. I know when Aviation Mall first got put in, where
Sears used to be across the street really took a dive for many years, and I
wonder if that same thing is going to happen? I hate to see the other malls,
and the people making businesses over there, you know, the people that are in
the store fronts, and also landholders get burnt by Pyramid. The other thing is,
on that pedestrian bikeway that’s going along the Northway, if that doesn’t
work out, is there an alternative plan? Can the people somehow or other safely
cut through the Mall if they feel that this path is unsafe? That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks.
HARRY TROELSTRA
MR. TROELSTRA-I’m Harry Troelstra from 2 Carlton Drive. I have a few
questions for the person here representing the Mall. What’s basically going to
happen on the first entrance? Is there, Number One, going to be a light there?
MR. MARTIN-That’s DOT’s call.
MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. If there’s not going to be a light, and we just heard the
gentleman say that if you enter from the east, from the west going east, and
you don’t want to, decide not to use the first entrance, and you want to go, for
instance, to the second entrance, maybe going to the Friendly entrance, there
may be some swapping of lanes occurring. How is that going to effect Carlton
Drive? Right now we have a heck of a time trying to make a left hand turn.
Now we can add more lanes, now all of a sudden you expect to have a clear
lane, but all of a sudden, you get, bang, one coming from the right lane,
changing lanes, and you’ll be in for a surprise. We’ve had many times now
already people coming out of the gas station, and jumping into the lane and
shifting people over quickly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you talking about taking a left hand turn onto Carlton
while you’re east bound?
MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. Taking a left hand turn out of Carlton.
MR. MAC EWAN-Out of Carlton?
MR. TROELSTRA-Out of Carlton, I’m sorry, yes, and that changing of, I’ve had
people blowing the horn at me if I come out if I come out, you know, quite
often. I’ll assume my lane is free, my left hand, or the most northerly lane is
free, and then all of a sudden somebody coming off the Northway decides to
take a left hand turn, or the left hand lane, because he doesn’t want to get
hung up in the “Mall lane”, I call it, going into Friendlys, so he decides to take
the more northerly lane, and all of a sudden he’s facing me or I’m facing him,
and with more increased traffic and changing of lanes, as it is proposed here, I
think it will be a much more hazardous situation. I’d also like to come back on
the landscaping a little bit. We’ve been quite impacted, living on 2 Carlton
Drive, with the widening of the Aviation Road just south of Hess or next to Hess
there. By making that turn of lane to the north exit, on 87, by widening that
turn off to the exit, we’ve been robbed from all the trees that protected us from,
as the gentleman said, you know, the effect of light.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking about right there on the corner.
MR. TROELSTRA-Right there, there’s a whole bunch of trees, everything was
taken down, and I was amazed with the Beautification plans or green areas
that are being proposed for a major project like this. I have seen, and I do have
the new planting proposed for buffering zone for the residential area,
eliminating light effect, noise effect or whatever was proposed for this robbing
of trees or protection we had, and most of it consisted of about eight or nine
spruces about six to eight feet tall. That’s what we’re going to get. Remember
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
on earlier meetings, the Manager of Friendlys, I guess, he lives on Schoolhouse
Road, or in that area there, and he said right now, I see everything, what’s
going on from the Seven Steers. He really got his living room actually polluted
by the lights that were installed on the Seven Steers. I know this is going to
disappear. Jim mentioned here that he is kind of excited about the proposal of
the new landscaping on Aviation Road, and maybe with his permission, can I
put this back on the board for a minute? This area here from Friendlys to the
Sunoco Station I guess it is, I get them mixed up all the time, they’re proposing
for this strip, as you can see, the different plants. I don’t know how or what
kind of plants they are, but the plan is nice. They’re going to put 11 trees on a
strip that is approximately, as Jim said, 300 feet.
MR. MARTIN-That was the proposal. It’s a 30 scale.
MR. TROELSTRA-A 30 scale, so if it’s 12 inches here, then it’s 360 feet, okay.
So it’s approximately every 40 feet you’ve got one major tree. If you count now,
there’s a lot more than 11 major trees in this particular area here. They’re all
going to disappear, and we’re going to get 11 trees back. One of the things that
was mentioned, maple trees will do the screening for you. It was also
mentioned there’s going to be a three foot high berm. Nobody mentions what’s
going behind the three foot berm. I don’t know. There’s no explanation on it. I
don’t know whether, on top of this three foot berm, or right behind the three
foot berm, whether I’ll be looking at cars. You can have a three foot riser, but if
you’re sitting in your car, you’re level of elevation is about five feet about the
road. A three foot berm does not screen any Mall or any building or any car
that’s behind that berm. I don’t know what else they plan. I’ve heard
somebody mention about other shrubbery, also about shrubbery maybe that’s
not effected by salt. I would think we would like to have some answers before
this is installed, because you don’t know what you’re going to have after the
first winter. I think this screening here is quite a bit heavier. Also, a 15 foot
grass area is not an awful lot to provide an awful lot of screening, especially if
you’re talking a berm. I don’t know whether this, it looks like it’s all grass. If
this is 15 feet wide, there is not much left for screening. I’m very concerned
about it, that with all the plants and all the beautification we’re talking about,
that this screening is of no value whatsoever to me, knowing what has
happened to me before. Plans that I’ve seen from the DOT or from whoever
that always talked about screening, that I have no value, I don’t pay any
attention to what they have here. I think it’s very minimum. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MR. LAPPER-I’d like to make a couple of final comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. Come on up and we’ll wrap it up.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I can address a couple of these things right now, but we
do have some notes taken to go back with. In terms of the landscaping, I’ll
take that one first. Okay. Through this section from Friendlys to the A Plus
Mart shown here, this is not going to be a parking field that is on grade with
the road. As a matter of fact, as you get to this point, closer to A Plus, you’re
going to have a retaining wall here that’s going to approach 15 to 20 feet in
height. So as you’re on the road here, you’re going to be looking down into the
parking field, and that retaining wall will probably lower to about three to four
feet through here, because at this point we’re obviously going to be entering on
grade. So any car lights or cars parking against this row of parking here is
going to be shining their lights into at least a four foot high retaining wall, and
as they get to this end, it’s going to be some 15 to 20 feet in height. So that is
why, through this section, the berming has been not to the extent that it is here
because we are on grade here, and cars will be roughly on the same elevation
as the road, although the road, even through this section, due to the bridge
was raised, the road elevation now is raised. So even this parking field will be
somewhat below the level of the road.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
MR. MAC EWAN-Are there going to be sidewalks in there?
MR. MARTIN-Through this section, yes, you could still accommodate a sidewalk
through this on the right-of-way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any proposed, though, either with the State or with
the Mall?
MR. MARTIN-We expect the State is probably going to propose that, although
we’re still waiting to hear the final word on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are they going to go through your green space?
MR. MARTIN-No. It’ll be on the right-of-way. The sidewalk improvement would
be on the right-of-way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-So, in terms of the landscaping here, that’s why these berms are
of a lesser dimension and this is a, as he said here, it’s more dense through
here, and it’s less dense less dense through here, because this parking field is
below grade. In terms of the left hand turn on Carlton Drive, again, new to the
traffic plan, although it’s not shown here. This was the very early submission.
There is now going to be a what is called a “shadow lane”. It’s a very narrow
lane shown here, but that’s been widened to a lane width. So that can
accommodate left hand turns. They call pull off the travel lane into the shadow
lane, and turn left into Carlton Drive, and correspondingly, if you were coming
out, and you couldn’t get into traffic right away, you ran into a problem, you
could stay on that shadow lane. So you’re not right in the travel lane as it’s
been in the current condition. So those were just a couple of responses back.
Again, we’ve got a lot of good notes here to go back with, and make further
adjustments and consideration, but we appreciate the comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Jon, anything else?
MR. LAPPER-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. I guess maybe one quick
question. What’s the status on your Final Draft Environmental Impact
Statement?
MR. LAPPER-The Town is waiting to hear DOT say that they’ve signed off on the
concept of the traffic plans, which is a couple of weeks away. We have to re-
submit, and then they have to re-review, so until we get to that stage with DOT,
the Final Environmental Impact Statement won’t be accepted as complete.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the comment period still open?
MR. LAPPER-No, the comment period is closed.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s closed. Okay. Thanks.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Meetings next month, the 18 and the 25.
thth
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Just one other comment. We did get Mr. Davis’ comments. He
gave me an extensive amount of material, even more than he had tonight, on
the lighting issue, and we’ll take that into consideration, and the lights will be
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting July 28, 1998)
designed accordingly, the downward projecting and all that, as he indicated.
There’s an international Dark Sky Association that’s got some rather detailed
information about that kind of configuration, and we’re going to conform with
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STARK-Site visits, August what?
MR. MAC EWAN-On the 13. Okay. Site visits are the 13. I’ll entertain a
thth
motion to adjourn. We’re adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
53